From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 00:49:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:49:30 +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 AAA11052 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:49:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-79-6.uunet.be [194.7.79.6]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA20851 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:49:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <377A09EA.1C2CB653@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:13:30 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: revoke and claim References: <68FH9CAY7Wc3EwAw@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Having read your answers in the meanwhile, I do believe we should resolve this issue by a careful analysis : "John (MadDog) 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. > 1) We must judge on the claim 1a) We rule that claimer was correct in his claim, as far as he knew. With the revoke, not yet discovered, South assumes that West has three diamonds, and will only get the lead once, when he cannot return any suit that South does not have the Ace in. I find this ruling to be absolutely necessary. It helps us get out of the "doubtful points against claimer" issue. I realise this is not yet part of the official Laws, but it should be. 1b) We start following the claim statement. Claimer stated he would play hearts. Does it matter which heart he plays first Ace or Nine/Eight ? I don't think so. Let's assume he plays the eight. 1c) West can take or not, I don't believe it matters. Let's assume he takes. First trick to West. 1d) West can now return Hearts/Spades or Clubs. ALTERNATIVE 1) West returns a heart or spade : all remaining tricks are to South, one trick to EW, six tricks to NS. ALTERNATIVE 2) 1e) West returns a club. South has no other normal play than a ruff. South has now legally seen that his claim is invalid, and he does not need to stick with the claim statement, all normal lines are now open to him. I believe playing on spades until East gets his one extra trump trick is the correct way. 1f) EW have made two tricks, NS five. I think the equity part of the claim laws suggests we must take alternative 2. 2) Now we deal with the revoke, and it seems fairly straightforward. one trick transferred to South. I rule that East-West win one, NS six of the last seven tricks. 3) Apply L64C. Not enough information to do this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 02:27:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:27:39 +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 CAA11449 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:27:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA07806; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 11:26:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-14.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.46) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma007725; Wed Jun 30 11:25:35 1999 Message-ID: <002201bec315$69b2af00$2eb420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: DWS off-line Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:27:10 -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: A. L. Edwards To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 8:56 AM Subject: Re: DWS off-line >> >>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) >I think we can easi-Leigh wait until this thread a-Bates. Let's hope David's service is restored without a Hitch. I can just imagine him til Friday staring north by northwest out his rear window. Craig S. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 02:28:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:28:42 +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 CAA11464 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:28:28 +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 MAA19527 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:28:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA15322 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:28:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:28:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906301628.MAA15322@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I know we have discussed problems equivalent to this one, but I don't remember if we reached consensus or what it was. If the facts are as I state them below, what is the correct ruling for each side? At the table, after some preliminaries that don't matter, North bids 3H, East bids 5C, South bids 5H, West doubles, and all pass. South takes nine tricks, -500. Only NS are vulnerable. Further facts: 1. East's 5C bid was illegal because of UI. The only legal call was pass. 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all probable" for L12C2 purposes. 3. In hearts, eleven tricks are cold. South held himself to nine via no fewer than _three_ separate irrational plays. (I was impressed! And I am being generous to South.) 4. I don't think it matters, but if 5C is played, it will be down 3 doubled, 500 NS. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 02:46:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:46:30 +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 CAA11543 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:46:23 +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 JAA11376; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:45:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199906301645.JAA11376@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:40:57 PDT." <001201bec2bb$53de40e0$4df67ad1@hdavis> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:45:42 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > 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. . . . > > 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. Perhaps, but that's the way the Laws are. You seem to want things to be so that if someone revokes, the other side is entitled to a better score than they would have gotten without an infraction. If you want this, then ask for L64C to be rewritten. But the way L64C is now written makes it clear that this is *not* the intent of the current Laws. The intent is to make sure that the non-offending side gets *at* *least* back up to where they should have been without the revoke. Yes, the way things are, sometimes the non-offenders get more than they "deserve", but it's pretty clear that the intent is NOT to ENSURE that they get a bonus for playing against revokers. (Which is the same as saying that penalty tricks are *not* equity.) As I said, if you would like to ensure that NO's receive a bonus when the other side revokes, fine, argue for a change in the Laws (and I might even support it). But given the current clear intent of the Laws, it doesn't make sense to try to twist other Laws around to produce a result that was clearly not what the Lawmakers were trying to accomplish. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 02:47:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:47:14 +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 CAA11559 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:47:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA10913; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 11:45:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-14.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.46) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010845; Wed Jun 30 11:44:43 1999 Message-ID: <004401bec318$16698c80$2eb420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Handicaps Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:46:19 -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 Your actual procedure is quite different than the one you earlier described. I never quarreled with your intent...just the Draconian manner is which it allegedly was being applied. Checking each table at the 7 minute mark urging slow players to play up, then calling no more boards at the 2 minute mark but not actually removing any before end of round is quite different from removing boards at the 5 minute mark...which IS horrendous. Your actual procedure on the other hand is quite reasonable and I can find no fault with it. Only the habitually slow AND uncaring will even be inconvenienced by it ordinarily (plus their suffering table mates at times). -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 02:51:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:51:05 +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 CAA11586 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:50:57 +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 10zNZP-000HTQ-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:50:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 02:00:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Player makes own wrong ruling In-Reply-To: <199906291445.PAA01884@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906291445.PAA01884@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >> 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. I occasionally get called for such remarks. If it's a club game I issue a warning, if it's a league or ko or a county game, I issue a standard PP (10% or 3imps for teams). The YC coffee-houses a lot and very few people worry about it. One of the favourites is the unassuming cue-bid. When a UCB is made the original bidder of the suit might say "My lead?". This clearly is a breach as it likely shows a better holding than might have been for the original bid. But no-one ever says anything or calls me. But then I'd probably just tell them to get on and play bridge. I think one has to be there to decide what's appropriate. Chs john > >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 > -- 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 Jul 1 03:08:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:08:09 +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 DAA11661 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:08:01 +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 KAA11667; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:07:14 -0700 Message-Id: <199906301707.KAA11667@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:28:25 PDT." <199906301628.MAA15322@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:07:14 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > I know we have discussed problems equivalent to this one, but I don't > remember if we reached consensus or what it was. If the facts are as > I state them below, what is the correct ruling for each side? > > At the table, after some preliminaries that don't matter, North bids > 3H, East bids 5C, South bids 5H, West doubles, and all pass. South > takes nine tricks, -500. Only NS are vulnerable. Further facts: > > 1. East's 5C bid was illegal because of UI. The only legal call was > pass. > > 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call > it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all > probable" for L12C2 purposes. > > 3. In hearts, eleven tricks are cold. South held himself to nine via > no fewer than _three_ separate irrational plays. (I was impressed! > And I am being generous to South.) Never mind the irrational plays . . . if South had a 75% chance of passing 3H, i.e. he thought he could probably only take 9 tricks, what the heck is he doing bidding 5H at this vulnerability, when down 2 is guaranteed to be a bad score? I'm going assume there's another fact missing: > 3a. East's 5C bid increases South's estimate of their offensive > potential in hearts. If (3a) isn't true, then South had no business bidding 5H---I'm willing to call this an egregious error, bad enough to rule that damage was not caused by the UI. If (3a) is true, then East's 5C bid helped N-S, since it gave them an opportunity to reevaluate their hands and determine that 4H or 5H was likely to make on a hand that South was going to pass in a partial. So I rule "no damage" (actually, "negative damage" is more accurate), and no adjustment since L16A2 doesn't apply. East still gets a PP for the illegal call. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 03:21:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:21:05 +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 DAA11724 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:20:51 +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 10zO2I-00024e-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:20:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:12:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: <3779F0D7.5695D570@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3779F0D7.5695D570@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >"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. nope, 5. You switched once, and so did the other NS's. >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. Nope 6 pairs, 1 of them will have switched out too. >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. > and you still have taken no account of your direct competition. 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 Thu Jul 1 03:21:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:21:04 +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 DAA11725 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:20:51 +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 10zO2I-00024b-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:20:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:08:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: AI after UI 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 >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. > snip. Are you using the duplicate or rubber bridge laws to govern the game? Rubber, I'd rule result stands. West's explanation is fine. Duplicate I'm still out on that one. Cheers John > >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. > -- 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 Jul 1 03:31:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:31:32 +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 DAA11790 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:31:23 +1000 (EST) From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id pBTHa18193 (3960) for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:30:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <436bc863.24abae19@aol.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:30:01 EDT Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 24 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 6/30/99 12:39:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: << I know we have discussed problems equivalent to this one, but I don't remember if we reached consensus or what it was. If the facts are as I state them below, what is the correct ruling for each side? >> Although I have seen some contrary sentiments, my understanding is that there must be damage before there is an inquiry or a determination of redress. Part of the determination of damage is the Kaplan interpretation of the rules to require the "non offending side" to continue to play bridge. The failure to do so breaks the connection, or nexus, between the irregularity and assessing any penalty at all. Under the factual situation you describe, which do not include as a basis that the UI was used blatantly, merely that there was UI, I would assess no penalty whatsoever, but make a report to the recorder for determination whether this pair habitually makes use of UI... If so, and only if so, a disciplinary penalty could be assessed. The fact that 11 tricks were cold on the lie of the cards using unexceptional play is crucial to my view. Craig Hemphill From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 03:50:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:50:39 +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 DAA11894 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:50:28 +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 KAA20318 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:50:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <066401bec31f$f17c24c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:34:58 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > 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. > I thought there was some sort of "complement" rule when artificial scores are awarded at the same table. Avg+ gets 60% or session percentage, whichever is greater, and avg- gets what is left over. Not true? Just ACBL? Nowhere? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 04:10:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 04:10:02 +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 EAA11968 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 04:09:51 +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 OAA26769 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:09:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA15444 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:09:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:09:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906301809.OAA15444@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call > > it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all > > probable" for L12C2 purposes. > Never mind the irrational plays . . . if South had a 75% chance of > passing 3H, i.e. he thought he could probably only take 9 tricks, what > the heck is he doing bidding 5H at this vulnerability, when down 2 is > guaranteed to be a bad score? 25% chance of pass, 75% chance of bidding 4H. (I'd have bid 4H 100% of the time and in fact did so in a vaguely similar position, but _this_ South, perhaps expecting his partner to butcher the play, might have passed. Not terribly likely he would have, but call it 25%.) > I'm going assume there's another fact missing: > > 3a. East's 5C bid increases South's estimate of their offensive > > potential in hearts. I was asking about the legal position under the facts stated. I don't think the 5C bid much affects South's view of the offensive chances. > If (3a) isn't true, then South had no business bidding 5H---I'm > willing to call this an egregious error, bad enough to rule that > damage was not caused by the UI. The 5H bid caused no damage. Eleven tricks are cold in hearts (except for declarer's blunders), and 5C goes down only 500, less than the 650 available in 4H or 5H. > East still gets a PP for the illegal call. No PP. The circumstances were confusing enough that the 5C bid was reasonable, even if illegal. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 04:25:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA12030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 04:25:07 +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 EAA12025 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 04:25:00 +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 LAA12788; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 11:24:18 -0700 Message-Id: <199906301824.LAA12788@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:09:48 PDT." <199906301809.OAA15444@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 11:24:19 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call > > > it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all > > > probable" for L12C2 purposes. > > > Never mind the irrational plays . . . if South had a 75% chance of > > passing 3H, i.e. he thought he could probably only take 9 tricks, what > > the heck is he doing bidding 5H at this vulnerability, when down 2 is > > guaranteed to be a bad score? > > 25% chance of pass, 75% chance of bidding 4H. (I'd have bid 4H 100% of > the time and in fact did so in a vaguely similar position, but _this_ > South, perhaps expecting his partner to butcher the play, might have > passed. Not terribly likely he would have, but call it 25%.) Oops, I read it backward. That changes everything. Please ignore my previous response. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 05:01:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA12124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 05:01:19 +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 FAA12119 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 05:01:11 +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 OAA21977 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:01:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0JPI4011 Wed, 30 Jun 99 14:01:44 Message-ID: <9906301401.0JPI401@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 30 Jun 99 14:01:44 Subject: REVOKE AN To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>----- Original Message ----- B>From: Richard Bley B>To: bridge-laws B>Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 5:26 AM B>Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM B>> (sniph) B>> >I'm not entirely sure why we're suddenly allowing revokers to profit B>from > >the consequential damage caused by their infraction. B>> B>> Sorry but that is really offside. B>> In no case there is anyone who profits by revoking. After the B>correcting of B>> the score he is (sometimes) in the same position as he would without B>the > revoke. NO PROFIT B>> B>> B>> Richard B>> B>Please read my statement. I didn't say that the offenders profited by B>the revoke. I said that they profited from consequential damage caused B>by the revoke. There's a difference. B>The following is all IMHO: B>Let's look at two scenarios: -s- B>The problem stems from the unique character of the revoke laws. We have B>no problem adjusting to the most likely score that the non-offenders B>would have received in the absence of an infraction- in fact we consider B>it our duty to make this adjustment under L64C. However, the automatic B>penalties assigned by the revoke laws will often allow a non-offender to B>obtain a score that is higher than this standard. Because this type of B>score is possible, we need to look at equity a bit differently when a B>revoke occurs. True equity in this situation is not the score that B>would have occured in the absence of the infraction, but rather the B>score that the non-offenders would have received had the infraction not B>produced further damage during the play. B>Note that this definition eliminates the bonus the offenders receive B>(absence of penalty tricks) when the non-offenders are sucked into a B>misplay or bad claim by the infraction. B>Anybody still with me? If you've followed up to this point, the key B>question is: Are we legally able to restore equity in a meaningful sense B>(inclusive of the penalty trick(s)) in the revoke situations we have B>been discussing? the way you define equity, no. B>Hirsch B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 06:04:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 06:04:36 +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 GAA12300 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 06:04:28 +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 NAA04603 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001101bec332$a3150f00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3779F0D7.5695D570@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Book on movements Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:56:18 -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 Herman De Wael wrote: > "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. > The word "balance" must be defined, and maybe is not the right word to use because it is ambiguous. We use the word in relation to (1) seeding of fields, (2) the number of comparisons with each of the other pairs, and in an apparently new sense (to me, anyway) (3) offsetting the effects of imperfect seeding (seeding cannot be perfect, because strengths 1+2+3 = 2+2+2, but that does not lead to balanced (sense 3) results. I like John Probst's approach, which is to assign some scores in a make-believe one-winner game, and see what happens. If you have a couple of pairs with strength (1), a couple with strength(3) and a bunch with strength (2), then assume that each (1) scores 90 on every board, each (3) scores 150, and each (2) scores 120, a "well-balanced" one-winner arrow-switched Mitchell should see all (2) pairs having about the same score. I haven't had time to run this simulation, but I bet that the 1/8 rule works better than what the Swedes would recommend, and is therefore "best." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 06:27:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 06:27:55 +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 GAA12353 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 06:27:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-238-32.s286.tnt9.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.238.32]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18729 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:27:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001601bec336$efad12a0$20eea4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <68FH9CAY7Wc3EwAw@probst.demon.co.uk> <377A09EA.1C2CB653@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: revoke and claim Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:27:11 -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: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 8:13 AM Subject: Re: revoke and claim > Having read your answers in the meanwhile, I do believe we > should resolve this issue by a careful analysis : > > "John (MadDog) 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. > > > > 1) We must judge on the claim > 1a) We rule that claimer was correct in his claim, as far as > he knew. With the revoke, not yet discovered, South assumes > that West has three diamonds, and will only get the lead > once, when he cannot return any suit that South does not > have the Ace in. > I find this ruling to be absolutely necessary. It helps us > get out of the "doubtful points against claimer" issue. I > realise this is not yet part of the official Laws, but it > should be. > 1b) We start following the claim statement. Claimer stated > he would play hearts. Does it matter which heart he plays > first Ace or Nine/Eight ? > I don't think so. Let's assume he plays the eight. > 1c) West can take or not, I don't believe it matters. Let's > assume he takes. First trick to West. > 1d) West can now return Hearts/Spades or Clubs. > ALTERNATIVE 1) West returns a heart or spade : all remaining > tricks are to South, one trick to EW, six tricks to NS. > ALTERNATIVE 2) > 1e) West returns a club. South has no other normal play than > a ruff. > South has now legally seen that his claim is invalid, and he > does not need to stick with the claim statement, all normal > lines are now open to him. I believe playing on spades > until East gets his one extra trump trick is the correct > way. Agreed, but S is already dead at this point. Even if he deviates from his line after a club return and switches to spades, repeated taps will exhaust him of trumps before W. He will take a total of 1 spade and 2 trumps. Once S loses the lead in hearts it is over. The only way to make 5 tricks is to play on the side suits first, tapping W before he can tap S. Unfortunately, this goes against the statement of claim. There is no way for S to recover when the revoke is exposed. The maximum number of tricks that S can take at that point is 3, unless W makes an egregious error. The claim laws do not allow us to have him do that. > 1f) EW have made two tricks, NS five. > I think the equity part of the claim laws suggests we must > take alternative 2. > Agreed, but the claimer will have two fewer tricks than you have indicated. > 2) Now we deal with the revoke, and it seems fairly > straightforward. > one trick transferred to South. > No, E/W will have won at least one club trick. If one is won by W it is two tricks to S, if all are won by E it is one trick to S. > I rule that East-West win one, NS six of the last seven > tricks. > If only it were so easy...assuming W to have won a club trick to create a two trick revoke penalty, it's still only 5 tricks to N/S, 2 to E/W. I agree with the 6 trick ruling, incidentally, but this particular chain of logic doesn't get us there. > 3) Apply L64C. > Not enough information to do this. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 06:34:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 06:34:44 +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 GAA12369 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 06:34:38 +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 NAA10132 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005b01bec336$d9d640a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002201bec315$69b2af00$2eb420cc@host> Subject: Re: DWS off-line Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:17:53 -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 Craig Senior wrote: > From: A. L. Edwards > >> > >>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) > >I think we can easi-Leigh wait until this thread a-Bates. Let's hope > David's service is restored without a Hitch. I can just imagine him til > Friday staring north by northwest out his rear window. > Looking at the birds, and getting vertigo. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 06:54:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 06:54:03 +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 GAA12399 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 06:53:56 +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 NAA11926 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005c01bec339$8bf51700$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199906301707.KAA11667@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:45:50 -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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > I know we have discussed problems equivalent to this one, but I don't > > remember if we reached consensus or what it was. If the facts are as > > I state them below, what is the correct ruling for each side? > > > > At the table, after some preliminaries that don't matter, North bids > > 3H, East bids 5C, South bids 5H, West doubles, and all pass. South > > takes nine tricks, -500. Only NS are vulnerable. Further facts: > > > > 1. East's 5C bid was illegal because of UI. The only legal call was > > pass. > > > > 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call > > it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all > > probable" for L12C2 purposes. > > > > 3. In hearts, eleven tricks are cold. South held himself to nine via > > no fewer than _three_ separate irrational plays. (I was impressed! > > And I am being generous to South.) > > Never mind the irrational plays . . . if South had a 75% chance of > passing 3H, i.e. he thought he could probably only take 9 tricks, what > the heck is he doing bidding 5H at this vulnerability, when down 2 is > guaranteed to be a bad score? I'm going assume there's another fact > missing: > > > 3a. East's 5C bid increases South's estimate of their offensive > > potential in hearts. > > If (3a) isn't true, then South had no business bidding 5H---I'm > willing to call this an egregious error, bad enough to rule that > damage was not caused by the UI. > > If (3a) is true, then East's 5C bid helped N-S, since it gave them an > opportunity to reevaluate their hands and determine that 4H or 5H was > likely to make on a hand that South was going to pass in a partial. > So I rule "no damage" (actually, "negative damage" is more accurate), > and no adjustment since L16A2 doesn't apply. > > East still gets a PP for the illegal call. Perhaps L16 should be revised to that effect, since it only covers redress of damage caused by UI. While at it, delete the last sentence of the SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but as redress for damage." And then, add L90 to "Alternative Club Laws" in the Laws for rubber bridge, so that the "Arbiter" can wield PPs too. Players must be whipped into line. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com, AKA Cato From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 07:19:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:19:42 +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 HAA12457 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:19:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id QAA25734 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:20:38 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906302120.QAA25734@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:20:38 -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 > Sorry to unearth a thread you have buried while I was in > Malta, but : The latest horror classic: Night of the Living Thread > 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 ? Yes, indeed, I am quite sure tha L70 and L71 were written deliberately in such a way as to guarantee that this will sometimes happen. It has happened to me several times, even though I am usually careful about stating a line of play. > 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 ? Revoker. Equity is my first aim is adjudicating both revokes and claims, and equity does not require us to give it to declarer. When someone concedes, they _give up any chance of getting more tricks_, except when it is impossible for them not to get them. Again, if equity were at stake my position would be different, but even then I wouldn't give the tricks to declarer by virtue of the concession, but rather by virtue of L64C. > When answering, please remind yourself that it influences > the number of claims - good ones ! It will only influence claims made by people who are worried about whether they will have a shot at unequitable bonus tricks from defenders who might have revoked and might win an additional trick, and who ordinarily vclaim or concede without a clear statement of clarification. If such people stop claiming because of the one hand in several thousands where such conditions all apply, I guess that's their decision. I'll bet claimers lose far more tricks from undiscovered squeezes they might have exercised, etc. I, personally, am a quick claimer, and I have yet to find a single hand where my quick claim cost me a possible revoke bonus. That's okay--I'll win my tricks other ways. > Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling, cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 07:22:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:22:10 +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 HAA12474 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:22:00 +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 RAA05373 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:21:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA15728 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:22:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:22:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906302122.RAA15728@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L74B3 (premature detachment) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: John Kuchenbrod > 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. > 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. > (1) do you agree with the ruling? With the PP, yes, at least if the player has been warned before. If not, a warning would suffice. It looks to me as though score adjustment under L73F2 is called for. Detaching the card is a "manner" or at least "the like" within the meaning of L73D1, or so it seems to me. Even if you don't like the above, you should rule the same under L72B1. Detaching the card was certainly an irregularity, and "could have known" seems obvious. > (2) does the "this law" in L73F apply just to L73 or to the entire > chapter? Just L73, I think, but the description of illegal deception is very broad. And there's always L72B1. The 1997 Laws are quite a bit stronger than all previous versions as regards deceptive mannerisms and the like. > (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? I don't think so in general. If South had reasons for one play over another, you would take those into account in deciding whether damage occurred or which results are likely/at all probable once you decide to adjust. But purely subjective statements about South's intent should generally be disregarded. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 07:29:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:29:03 +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 HAA12496 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:28:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id QAA27131 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:29:58 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906302129.QAA27131@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:29:58 -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 > ----- 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. Only if "not paying a penalty" is the same as "profitting". > 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. Agreed. > 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. I agree. I am therefore perfectly happy with eliminating the automatic penalty for the non-damaging revoke. [Oh, that wasn't what you meant? :)] > 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. I disagree, of course. > 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? No, not under the current laws. I, of course, would not support a law change that did it, either. There is one thing I do like about this reasoning, though. Under this reasoning, it makes no difference whether I claim/concede or play the hand out. If the revoke affected my line of play, the revoke tricks are now part of my equity, so I automatically get them. This prevents the case some are advocating, where I get the tricks if I concede but don't get them if I play the hand out and don't happen to luck onto te correct play. > > Hirsch > IMHO, of course. :) -Grant Sterling, cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 07:53:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:53:28 +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 HAA12563 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:53:16 +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 RAA06361 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA15763 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:53:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:53:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906302153.RAA15763@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Player makes own wrong ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Gordon Bower > 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.) [the suit in question is clubs] Some people should read those words again. "Not a deliberate effort" does not imply that no information was conveyed. Thus the TD's first job is to rule whether the remark conveys any information. If it's a pure joke unrelated to the hand held, there's no I and no UI, and that's the end of it. If the remark "demonstrably suggests" a non-club lead, though, the usual L16 restrictions are in force. In that case, a club will have to be led unless leading one is not a LA. > 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. West's remark is AI to North and South. In general, if declarer tells me he wants me to lead a particular suit, I'll try to find any excuse to lead something else. Both North and the TD should take this AI into account in deciding on LA's. The result of all this seems to be that North does not have to lead a club unless doing so seems pretty obvious from his own hand and other AI. In other words, North can lead pretty much what he wants, but he cannot let his partner's remark talk him out of a club lead that would otherwise be normal. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 07:54:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:54:51 +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 HAA12578 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:54:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-238-32.s286.tnt9.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.238.32]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA24346 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:54:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00e901bec343$16173f40$20eea4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199906301628.MAA15322@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:54:06 -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: Steve Willner To: Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 12:28 PM Subject: Adjustment after UI > I know we have discussed problems equivalent to this one, but I don't > remember if we reached consensus or what it was. If the facts are as > I state them below, what is the correct ruling for each side? > > At the table, after some preliminaries that don't matter, North bids > 3H, East bids 5C, South bids 5H, West doubles, and all pass. South > takes nine tricks, -500. Only NS are vulnerable. Further facts: > > 1. East's 5C bid was illegal because of UI. The only legal call was > pass. > > 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call > it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all > probable" for L12C2 purposes. > > 3. In hearts, eleven tricks are cold. South held himself to nine via > no fewer than _three_ separate irrational plays. (I was impressed! > And I am being generous to South.) > > 4. I don't think it matters, but if 5C is played, it will be down 3 > doubled, 500 NS. If we follow the Kaplan doctrine, as I understand it, there was no damage in this situation. The causal link between the infraction and the bad score was due to bad play, rather than the infraction. Accordingly, score stands. This would likely be my ruling at the table, but... I'm not convinced that this is right. Despite the poor play by S, under normal circumstances he would only be in 3 or 4 hearts undoubled. The illegal call has pushed him to a contract where E/W have the opportunity for a very good score indeed. Nevertheless, I leave S his score, based on the contention that the S play is truly irrational and not merely careless. I feel it appropriate to adjust the E/W score, however, as leaving that alone allows them a top that would not have been possible in the absence of an infraction. ISTM this type of situation calls for a split score. S played irrationally, breaking the link between the infraction and the damage, so he gets to keep his -500. However, we don't allow E/W to reap the windfall from their infraction, and roll the contract back to 3H, if there was a reasonable possibility that S would have left it there. We let E/W continue to reap the benefits of the irrational play by S, so... My ruling (at least for the purpose of stimulating discussion about this issue) is N/S: -500, E/W: -140. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 08:04:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:04:31 +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 IAA12600 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:04:24 +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 PAA19022 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00d001bec343$60897980$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199906301628.MAA15322@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:55:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > I know we have discussed problems equivalent to this one, but I don't > remember if we reached consensus or what it was. If the facts are as > I state them below, what is the correct ruling for each side? > > At the table, after some preliminaries that don't matter, North bids > 3H, East bids 5C, South bids 5H, West doubles, and all pass. South > takes nine tricks, -500. Only NS are vulnerable. Further facts: > > 1. East's 5C bid was illegal because of UI. The only legal call was > pass. > > 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call > it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all > probable" for L12C2 purposes. > > 3. In hearts, eleven tricks are cold. South held himself to nine via > no fewer than _three_ separate irrational plays. (I was impressed! > And I am being generous to South.) > > 4. I don't think it matters, but if 5C is played, it will be down 3 > doubled, 500 NS. > Interpretation No. 3 from the WBFLC at Lille says that the OS score is subject to adjustment if there is an advantage gained by them, "provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the offenders." Therefore adjust the N/S score per L12C2, +100 for 3H down one, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. What to do for N/S is more complicated. While some will say they were not damaged, hence no redress, I believe that they *were* damaged because they would have played 3H or 4H in the absence of the infraction. I would assign them a result of 4H down two, -200, the most favorable result that was likely had there been no infraction. Both adjustments are in accordance with the ACBL LC's interpretation of what the odds should be in determining the results to be assigned per L12C2 (The 1/3-1/6 rule). As I see it, the only time the NOS loses redress is when they had a good score (better than could be obtained absent the infraction) within their grasp and threw it away by an irrational, gambling, or wild action. For instance, if 5H had been doubled there would be no redress because they would have thrown away a top by their irrational play (N/S score would still be adjusted as above, however). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 08:06:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:06:18 +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 IAA12614 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:06:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh1l.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.53]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA10199 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:06:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990630180402.0077ee24@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:04:02 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: AI after UI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:53 AM 6/30/99 BST, TWM wrote: >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. > Two issues here. 1.) "An agreed hesitation" by East in the first place requires clarification. This is a normal place to hesitate a "normal" amount. I would always hesitate 6-10 seconds in East's position, with our without a skip bid warning and regardless of my holding, precisely to avoid creating a legal/ethical problem for partner. Only a hesitation of substantially greater length (i.e., on the order of 20-30 seconds or more) should carry any potential significance in this situation. For discussion purposes, it seems reasonable to presume that you are describing East's hesitation as significantly longer than normal for the situation. 2.)You are right that this is an easy problem without South's hesitation. Especially at this vulnerablity, it is absurd for East to even consider removing the double. He has one sure defensive trick and the possibilty of a second (a club ruff), while the doubleton spade and the empty heart suit make the 5-level very uncertain. The hesitation by South changes things somewhat, but not so much as to remove pass from the LA category, IMO. His reputation for table presence (and South's later admission) notwithstanding, West cannot in fact *know* what South is considering. Is it possible that South is looking at 8 clubs and a spade void? Even if South is considering a redouble, he has chosen not to do so, after all, and the basic facts that make removing the double unwise in the first place are still staring East in the face. I believe that pass is still a LA, and agree with the adjustment to NS +690. But it is a reasonably close call, and I don't have any particular quarrel with a more sympathetic reading of West's position. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 09:02:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:02:21 +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 JAA12780 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:02:06 +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 TAA08249 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:01:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA15840 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:02:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:02:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906302302.TAA15840@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > > At the table, after some preliminaries that don't matter, North bids > > 3H, East bids 5C, South bids 5H, West doubles, and all pass. South > > takes nine tricks, -500. Only NS are vulnerable. Further facts: > > > > 1. East's 5C bid was illegal because of UI. The only legal call was > > pass. > > > > 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call > > it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all > > probable" for L12C2 purposes. > > > > 3. In hearts, eleven tricks are cold. South held himself to nine > via > > no fewer than _three_ separate irrational plays. (I was impressed! > > And I am being generous to South.) It was North, not South, who declared and botched the play. Mea culpa. I don't think it matters, though. If his play of this hand doesn't qualify as "irrational" or "egregious error," there's no such thing. > > 4. I don't think it matters, but if 5C is played, it will be down 3 > > doubled, 500 NS. From: "Marvin L. French" > Interpretation No. 3 from the WBFLC at Lille says that the OS score is > subject to adjustment if there is an advantage gained by them, > "provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by > the good play of the offenders." Therefore adjust the N/S score per > L12C2, +100 for 3H down one, the most unfavorable result that was at > all probable. Nine tricks were scored, so presumably this was meant to be 3H=, -140 for EW (the OS). > What to do for N/S is more complicated. While some will say they were > not damaged, hence no redress, I believe that they *were* damaged > because they would have played 3H or 4H in the absence of the > infraction. I would assign them a result of 4H down two, -200, the > most favorable result that was likely had there been no infraction. Likewise, presumably 4H-1, -100 for NS. (I'm not sure whether 4H would have been doubled or not, and there might be a good case for -200 for NS. This is a case of bridge judgment, not really interesting for the legal question I'm asking about.) > For instance, if 5H had been doubled there would be no > redress because they would have thrown away a top by their irrational > play (N/S score would still be adjusted as above, however). Even 5H= +650 would have been a decent score although far from the clear top 5Hx= +850 would have been. 5H was doubled, so I take it your final ruling is -500/-140 ? That would agree with Hirsch Davis. So far, everyone has given both sides the result of actual play, i.e. nine tricks. The only question has been what contract to score those nine tricks in. Anybody want to argue for a different number of tricks for one side or the other? Other comments? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 09:06:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:06:58 +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 JAA12817 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:06:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-238-32.s286.tnt9.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.238.32]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA18913 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:06:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <016b01bec34d$2766cfe0$20eea4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "bridge-laws" References: <199906281643.JAA08497@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.19990629112624.007c5950@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990630091047.0079ce70@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:06:04 -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: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 3:10 AM Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM > 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 > > [snip] > > 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. > [snip] Actually, there is no need to redefine equity at all. The simple reason is that it is never actually defined in the Laws in the first place. It's a word that the Laws throw around in several places, and assume we know what it means. IMO, we apply the standard in L12C2 because that actually is a good definition of equity in the vast majority of infractions. However, it is not a good definition of equity in revoke cases, simply because of the way that the revoke laws are written. So, we come up with a better one. In doing so, I am guided by L84D, which tells me that when choosing between a penalty and an adjusted score (the choice in L64C) I must attempt to restore equity, resolving all doubtful points in favor of the non-offending side. Since the meaning of "equity" is a doubtful point in and of itself in a revoke situation, ISTM I am perfectly free to use a reasonable definition that benefits the non-offenders; in fact I am bound by Law to do so. I don't really care one way or another about the revoke penalty. What I do care about is that if the revoke penalty must exist is that it be administered uniformly in all revoke situations, and that the offenders not receive an advantage in the specific instances where the revoke causes a misplay or bad claim. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 09:22:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:22:57 +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 JAA12861 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:22:45 +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 TAA08760 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:22:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA15882 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:22:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906302322.TAA15882@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: "Hirsch Davis" > I don't really care one way or another about the revoke penalty. What I do > care about is that if the revoke penalty must exist is that it be > administered uniformly in all revoke situations, and that the offenders not > receive an advantage in the specific instances where the revoke causes a > misplay or bad claim. Let's consider a simplified case. We are down to two cards left in hearts and spades, no trumps: 2 2 65 -- -- 65 3 3 Either declarer or dummy is on lead. Unknown to declarer or anybody else except West, West has revoked in spades, and the revoke is established. Defenders have won no tricks since the revoke, including the revoke trick, but obviously they are about to win the last two. Case 1: S plays spades. Two trick penalty. Case 2; S plays hearts. One trick penalty. Case 3: S concedes, not stating a line of play. ??? Would any of the cases be any different if South knew there had been a revoke but couldn't tell which suit he needed to lead to get the two tricks? What if he could have worked out which suit but didn't (cases 2 or 3)? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 09:54:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:54:52 +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 JAA12979 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:54:44 +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 QAA17794; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:54:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199906302354.QAA17794@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:06:04 PDT." <016b01bec34d$2766cfe0$20eea4d8@hdavis> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:54:04 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > Actually, there is no need to redefine equity at all. The simple reason is > that it is never actually defined in the Laws in the first place. It's a > word that the Laws throw around in several places, and assume we know what > it means. IMO, we apply the standard in L12C2 because that actually is a > good definition of equity in the vast majority of infractions. However, it > is not a good definition of equity in revoke cases, simply because of the > way that the revoke laws are written. So, we come up with a better one. In > doing so, I am guided by L84D, which tells me that when choosing between a > penalty and an adjusted score (the choice in L64C) I must attempt to restore > equity, resolving all doubtful points in favor of the non-offending side. > Since the meaning of "equity" is a doubtful point in and of itself in a > revoke situation, ISTM I am perfectly free to use a reasonable definition > that benefits the non-offenders; in fact I am bound by Law to do so. > I don't really care one way or another about the revoke penalty. What I do > care about is that if the revoke penalty must exist is that it be > administered uniformly in all revoke situations, and that the offenders not > receive an advantage in the specific instances where the revoke causes a > misplay or bad claim. OK. I'm playing 4S with these cards: xxxx xx QJTxx Kx AKxxx Axx AKx Ax I get a heart lead. I win and draw two rounds of trumps, finding West with Q-x-x. I then start diamonds. West, who has a doubleton diamond, accidentally pulls a heart out of his hand on the second round. He then follows the the third round of diamonds, ruffs the fourth, and cashes a heart. Eleven tricks (which is all I was ever going to get anyway), plus a one-trick revoke penalty, scored up as +480. The board gets passed to the next table. Same contract, same first three tricks. That declarer also starts diamonds, but his LHO, who has a diamond mixed in with his hearts, ruffs the second round and cashes a heart. Declarer gets eleven tricks, plus a two-trick revoke penalty since West won the revoke trick, +510. So when I find this out, I call the director and explain that I should have my score adjusted to +510, claiming that I was insufficiently compensated. West revoked at two tables, and in both cases the revoke was a harmless revoke, leading declarer to take no fewer tricks than he would have in any case. But how can it be equitable that someone else could get more of a bonus than I did for the same type of revoke? Clearly, the revoke penalty is not being administered uniformly in all revoke situations, and the offenders at my table received an unfair advantage by revoking with a plain-suit card instead of with a trump. Therefore, since it could be argued that the results at the two tables are inequitable, that the term "equity" is never defined in the Laws, and that since the definition of "equity" is in doubt, and that doubtful points must be resolved in favor of my side being the non-offenders, I argue that the director is bound by Law to adjust my score to +510. So if you're the director, do you buy this argument and give me the extra trick? If not, perhaps you'd better define more precisely just what you mean by "equity" when you think it should include a revoke penalty. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 10:23:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:23:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13136 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:23:15 +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 RAA05749 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00e801bec356$c4327f00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199906302302.TAA15840@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:14:56 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > I wrote: > > > At the table, after some preliminaries that don't matter, North bids > > > 3H, East bids 5C, South bids 5H, West doubles, and all pass. South > > > takes nine tricks, -500. Only NS are vulnerable. Further facts: > > > > > > 1. East's 5C bid was illegal because of UI. The only legal call was > > > pass. > > > > > > 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call > > > it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all > > > probable" for L12C2 purposes. > > > > > > 3. In hearts, eleven tricks are cold. South held himself to nine > > via > > > no fewer than _three_ separate irrational plays. (I was impressed! > > > And I am being generous to South.) > > It was North, not South, who declared and botched the play. Mea > culpa. I don't think it matters, though. If his play of this hand > doesn't qualify as "irrational" or "egregious error," there's no such > thing. > > > > 4. I don't think it matters, but if 5C is played, it will be down 3 > > > doubled, 500 NS. > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Interpretation No. 3 from the WBFLC at Lille says that the OS score is > > subject to adjustment if there is an advantage gained by them, > > "provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by > > the good play of the offenders." Therefore adjust the N/S score per > > L12C2, +100 for 3H down one, the most unfavorable result that was at > > all probable. > > Nine tricks were scored, so presumably this was meant to be 3H=, -140 > for EW (the OS). Yes, right, sorry. > > > What to do for N/S is more complicated. While some will say they were > > not damaged, hence no redress, I believe that they *were* damaged > > because they would have played 3H or 4H in the absence of the > > infraction. I would assign them a result of 4H down two, -200, the > > most favorable result that was likely had there been no infraction. > > Likewise, presumably 4H-1, -100 for NS. (I'm not sure whether 4H would > have been doubled or not, and there might be a good case for -200 for > NS. This is a case of bridge judgment, not really interesting for the > legal question I'm asking about.) Also correct, mea culpa > > > For instance, if 5H had been doubled there would be no > > redress because they would have thrown away a top by their irrational > > play (N/S score would still be adjusted as above, however). > > Even 5H= +650 would have been a decent score although far from the > clear top 5Hx= +850 would have been. > > 5H was doubled, so I take it your final ruling is -500/-140 ? That > would agree with Hirsch Davis. Yes, agreed, and I must learn to read. If 5H had not been doubled, then I would adjust for E/W. Since it was doubled, and 5H can be made without irrational play, table result stands > > So far, everyone has given both sides the result of actual play, i.e. > nine tricks. The only question has been what contract to score those > nine tricks in. Anybody want to argue for a different number of tricks > for one side or the other? Other comments? > The number of tricks won would be changed only if the infraction could be shown to have affected declarer's play, seldom the case. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 10:31:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:31:03 +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 KAA13185 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:30:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-238-32.s286.tnt9.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.238.32]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA19371 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:30:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001001bec358$e89882c0$20eea4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "bridge-laws" References: <199906302354.QAA17794@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:30:22 -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: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 7:54 PM Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM [snip] > > OK. I'm playing 4S with these cards: > > xxxx > xx > QJTxx > Kx > > AKxxx > Axx > AKx > Ax > > I get a heart lead. I win and draw two rounds of trumps, finding West > with Q-x-x. I then start diamonds. West, who has a doubleton > diamond, accidentally pulls a heart out of his hand on the second > round. He then follows the the third round of diamonds, ruffs the > fourth, and cashes a heart. Eleven tricks (which is all I was ever > going to get anyway), plus a one-trick revoke penalty, scored up as > +480. > > The board gets passed to the next table. Same contract, same first > three tricks. That declarer also starts diamonds, but his LHO, who > has a diamond mixed in with his hearts, ruffs the second round and > cashes a heart. Declarer gets eleven tricks, plus a two-trick revoke > penalty since West won the revoke trick, +510. > > So when I find this out, I call the director and explain that I should > have my score adjusted to +510, claiming that I was insufficiently > compensated. West revoked at two tables, and in both cases the revoke > was a harmless revoke, leading declarer to take no fewer tricks than > he would have in any case. But how can it be equitable that someone > else could get more of a bonus than I did for the same type of revoke? > Clearly, the revoke penalty is not being administered uniformly in all > revoke situations, and the offenders at my table received an unfair > advantage by revoking with a plain-suit card instead of with a trump. > Therefore, since it could be argued that the results at the two tables > are inequitable, that the term "equity" is never defined in the Laws, > and that since the definition of "equity" is in doubt, and that > doubtful points must be resolved in favor of my side being the > non-offenders, I argue that the director is bound by Law to adjust my > score to +510. > > So if you're the director, do you buy this argument and give me the > extra trick? If not, perhaps you'd better define more precisely just > what you mean by "equity" when you think it should include a revoke > penalty. > > -- Adam > Unlucky. Equity has nothing to do with anything that happens at another table. IMO it is used to undo damage that is a directly caused by an infraction. No causal link, no adjustment. In both cases you cite, the revoke penalty is clearly specified by Law. There was no further damage caused by the revoke at either table. An equity adjustment would never be considered. As far as a possible definition of equity that would be more meaningful when applied to the revoke laws, I tried that in a previous post, but I'll repeat it: ... the score that the non-offenders would likely have received had the infraction not produced further damage during the play. There are probably better ways to phrase this, but I think it gets my meaning across. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 10:49:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:49:46 +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 KAA13280 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:49:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegks.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.156]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA08319 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990630204730.0077f14c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:47:30 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Player makes own wrong ruling In-Reply-To: <199906302153.RAA15763@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:53 PM 6/30/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: Gordon Bower >> 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.) >[the suit in question is clubs] > >Some people should read those words again. "Not a deliberate effort" >does not imply that no information was conveyed. Thus the TD's first >job is to rule whether the remark conveys any information. If it's a >pure joke unrelated to the hand held, there's no I and no UI, and >that's the end of it. I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that the amount of information conveyed by the remark is somehow a function of South's actual holding? How can that be, since nobody but South knows what he is holding? No, the only way South's holding could possibly be germane is in helping to assess the verity of the claim that the remark was purely in jest. Even there, it's not at all clear which holdings would support a finding that South was really joking and which would tend to undermine such a claim. The information content of the remark is really just a matter of what the listeners either did or might have gleaned from it. If there is any doubt or disagreement, I am prepared to resolve this question in favor of the NOS. But in this case the opponents agree that the remark was a joke, which means that it carried no serious implication about the desirability or undesirability of a club lead. To find otherwise requires you to ignore the table consensus about the facts. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 11:10:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:10:32 +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 LAA13382 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:10:24 +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 SAA18809; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:09:41 -0700 Message-Id: <199907010109.SAA18809@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:30:22 PDT." <001001bec358$e89882c0$20eea4d8@hdavis> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:09:43 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > So when I find this out, I call the director and explain that I should > > have my score adjusted to +510, claiming that I was insufficiently > > compensated. West revoked at two tables, and in both cases the revoke > > was a harmless revoke, leading declarer to take no fewer tricks than > > he would have in any case. But how can it be equitable that someone > > else could get more of a bonus than I did for the same type of revoke? > > Clearly, the revoke penalty is not being administered uniformly in all > > revoke situations, and the offenders at my table received an unfair > > advantage by revoking with a plain-suit card instead of with a trump. > > Therefore, since it could be argued that the results at the two tables > > are inequitable, that the term "equity" is never defined in the Laws, > > and that since the definition of "equity" is in doubt, and that > > doubtful points must be resolved in favor of my side being the > > non-offenders, I argue that the director is bound by Law to adjust my > > score to +510. > > > > So if you're the director, do you buy this argument and give me the > > extra trick? If not, perhaps you'd better define more precisely just > > what you mean by "equity" when you think it should include a revoke > > penalty. > > > > -- Adam > > > > Unlucky. Equity has nothing to do with anything that happens at another > table. How do you know, since (as you've argued) equity isn't defined by the Laws? I doubt that the above situation can be considered equitable, therefore this is a doubtful point that has to be resolved in my favor, no? > IMO it is used to undo damage that is a directly caused by an > infraction. No causal link, no adjustment. In both cases you cite, the > revoke penalty is clearly specified by Law. There was no further damage > caused by the revoke at either table. An equity adjustment would never be > considered. > > As far as a possible definition of equity that would be more meaningful when > applied to the revoke laws, I tried that in a previous post, but I'll repeat > it: ... the score that the non-offenders would likely have received had the > infraction not produced further damage during the play. I think this may be the crux of the problem. IMO, a revoke (or other infraction) that causes damage, causes damage to the whole hand; it doesn't quite make sense to me to pinpoint a specific trick at which a revoke "produced damage". How do you rule in this situation? I'm playing 3NT. Dummy has AQxxxx and no side entry. I have Kx. I have 10 top tricks if the suit breaks. I start running the suit at trick 2. East has Jxx in the suit but revokes on the third round, at trick 4, then wins the jack at trick 5 and runs a bunch of tricks in other suits to get me down 4. A normal director would adjust the score back to 10 tricks (assuming there's no possible 11th trick from a squeeze or something). So by your definition of "equity", as I understand it, the revoke didn't produce any damage at trick 4, since I won the trick, but it produced "further damage" during the play, since East won trick 5, a trick I should have won, and gained the lead so that they could cash side-suit tricks at tricks 6, 7, 8, 9, etc., tricks on which East/West should not have been on lead. Do you count this as "further damage during the play"? Do you try to adjust by figuring out what my score would have been if I had remained on lead at trick 6 to take the rest of my tricks? Or do you try to adjust by figuring out what my score would have been if my small card had won at trick 5 despite the fact that East played the jack on it? How do you distinguish "damage directly caused by a revoke" from "further damage during the play"? To try to draw a distinction seems to be an exercise in futility. If someone revokes, the whole hand is screwed up by the mere fact that they have a card in their hand they're not supposed to have. This may cause "further damage" in the form of that person winning a trick they're not supposed to, or in creating a stopper they're not supposed to have, or messing up the timing of a hand or breaking up a squeeze that should have come home or using the extra card to win a trick that your partner should have won and got endplayed on, or any number of other things, in addition to giving declarer a miscount of the hand. All of these cause damage. REVOKES SCREW UP THE GAME, PERIOD. I don't understand why you're trying to elevate "giving declarer a miscount" to some sort of higher class of screw-up that deserves a special rule by referring to it as "further damage" or "consequential damage" as opposed to "direct damage" or something like that. It all seems rather bizarre, and pointless, to me. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 11:42:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:42:24 +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 LAA13585 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:42:17 +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 UAA40481 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:42:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0T3G6024 Wed, 30 Jun 99 20:42:40 Message-ID: <9906302042.0T3G602@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 30 Jun 99 20:42:40 Subject: AI AFTER To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>At 10:53 AM 6/30/99 BST, TWM wrote: B>>The 'Facts' B>>West is an experienced player known to have good table presence and a B>full >understanding of his ethical responsibilities. He explained his B>pull 'It >was clear to me that the only action south was considering B>was XX and I >was bidding 5D to make.' B>> B>>South (also an experienced player) said: B>>I was thinking of redoubling 4S B>> B>>********* My opinion, to set the ball rolling. B>> B>>I don't know who the four players were but can find out more about them B>if >necessary. B>> B>>Absent the hesitation by South this seems easy. The UI from the slow B>>double suggests that a bid is likely to be better than a pass but pass B>is >an LA. Once I *know* that South is considering a redouble I am no B>longer >sure that pass remains an LA - even at this vulnerability. B>> B>Two issues here. B>1.) "An agreed hesitation" by East in the first place requires B>clarification. This is a normal place to hesitate a "normal" amount. I B>would always hesitate 6-10 seconds in East's position, with our without B>a skip bid warning and regardless of my holding, precisely to avoid B>creating a legal/ethical problem for partner. Only a hesitation of B>substantially greater length (i.e., on the order of 20-30 seconds or B>more) should carry any potential significance in this situation. For B>discussion purposes, it seems reasonable to presume that you are B>describing East's hesitation as significantly longer than normal for the B>situation. B>2.)You are right that this is an easy problem without South's B>hesitation. B>Especially at this vulnerablity, it is absurd for East to even consider B>removing the double. He has one sure defensive trick and the possibilty B>of a second (a club ruff), while the doubleton spade and the empty heart B>suit make the 5-level very uncertain. The hesitation by South changes B>things somewhat, but not so much as to remove pass from the LA category, B>IMO. His reputation for table presence (and South's later admission) B>notwithstanding, West cannot in fact *know* what South is considering. B>Is it possible that South is looking at 8 clubs and a spade void? Would S not have jumped preemptively the first time around? Does the huddle suggest the possibility of slam? After picking off 4S??? How about...If they don't sit for the rewind can I bid 5S and partner make it? Doesn't pass suggest that he thinks it was not a good proposition, at least not good enough to give up 4SX for defending. imo south's huddle makes the situation an open and shut book for EW based solely on AI. Holding the W cards my analysis of the AI is that partner promises 4+ cashing tricks opposite a possible bust. My distribution suggests that it could one to two less. My ace, which has not been promised, gets added to the pot. East's huddle suggests that he is gambling. Without S huddle, I've got enough to pass because I have every reason to believe that 4S does not make with good defense and we can't make 11 tricks. With the huddle by S, it is clear that we may even be facing an overtrick making 5D automatic, giving partner a choice of sacks. Even B>if South is considering a redouble, he has chosen not to do so, after B>all, and the basic facts that make removing the double unwise in the B>first place are still staring East in the face. I believe that pass is B>still a LA, and agree with the adjustment to NS +690. But it is a B>reasonably close call, and I don't have any particular quarrel with a B>more sympathetic reading of West's position. 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 Thu Jul 1 13:52:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:52:36 +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 NAA14089 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:52:20 +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 10zXt4-000H4R-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:51:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 04:34:33 +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 , "John (MadDog) Probst" writes > >nope, 5. You switched once, and so did the other NS's. > >Nope 6 pairs, 1 of them will have switched out too. this is nonsense. I pressed the wrong button while I was composing. Sorry -- 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 Jul 1 13:52:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:52:26 +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 NAA14084 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:52:15 +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 10zXt3-0004h1-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:51:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 04:19:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: DWS off-line In-Reply-To: <005b01bec336$d9d640a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <005b01bec336$d9d640a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >Craig Senior wrote: > >> From: A. L. Edwards >> >> >> >>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) >> >I think we can easi-Leigh wait until this thread a-Bates. Let's >hope >> David's service is restored without a Hitch. I can just imagine him >til >> Friday staring north by northwest out his rear window. >> >Looking at the birds, and getting vertigo. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > Actually he's down in London for an L&E meeting, and we're about to set off in 5 hours time (TD's go to bed a little after 2) to win another 1.6 ACBL points. (Jack Daniels permitting) :)) chs 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 Jul 1 13:52:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:52:24 +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 NAA14080 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:52:03 +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 10zXt4-000Opf-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:51:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 04:50:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: <3779F0D7.5695D570@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3779F0D7.5695D570@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >"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 [semaphore arms extend] Yep this is correct. But you have forgotten the fact you actually played against the B pairs - all of them, and you are awarding no value for the fact that you had not 1 matchpoint but half a top available against them. The question is not how many comparisons (which is why the Swedes fell on their noses for Mitchells) but degree of competition. Some of the competition comes from your efforts against your direct opponents and some of it comes from the nett balance of comparisons and you are only considering the comparisons. Now if the total competition is the check total, then you want half of that to come from the NS line and half from the EW line. ... and *you* have ably shown that nett 6 (A) less 2 (B) gives half of the available competition coming from your line. Do you not suppose that the other half comes from the other line??? QED. >except 2 special B pairs : only 1 which is why a double weave is better than share-and-relay and different boards on different rounds helps too. But it's *still* one eighth. > >So the balance is NOT correct, far from it. Comparisons don't balance. Agreed. Competition does :)) > >I agree with the Swedes, you need a second, and probably a >third swith to better this. When you run such a movement I want to sit in the same line as the strongest pair and as far away from them as possible, alternatively as close as possible to the weakest pair, sharing as many arrow switches as possible. I rate it as worth slightly more than 2%. > >I believe they have made detailed calculations to determine >which swithces are best. > Sure they have, and they're right when they consider comparisons only (which is why their Howell movements are fine as you can ignore the effect of playing against a pair as you play *all* pairs) but they have *Forgotten* they have direct opponents. [semaphore arms retract] Read the fancy math at the end of the article (your 6-2 is my R-2Q -2Q term). cheers john. PS mort subite is pretty evil stuff. -- 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 Jul 1 14:28:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 14:28:51 +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 OAA14283 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 14:28:10 +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 10zYRv-0001LG-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 04:27:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 05:22:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM In-Reply-To: <199906302322.TAA15882@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906302322.TAA15882@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Hirsch Davis" >> I don't really care one way or another about the revoke penalty. What I do >> care about is that if the revoke penalty must exist is that it be >> administered uniformly in all revoke situations, and that the offenders not >> receive an advantage in the specific instances where the revoke causes a >> misplay or bad claim. > >Let's consider a simplified case. We are down to two cards left in >hearts and spades, no trumps: > 2 > 2 > 65 -- > -- 65 > 3 > 3 > >Either declarer or dummy is on lead. Unknown to declarer or anybody >else except West, West has revoked in spades, and the revoke is >established. Defenders have won no tricks since the revoke, including >the revoke trick, but obviously they are about to win the last two. > >Case 1: S plays spades. Two trick penalty. >Case 2; S plays hearts. One trick penalty. >Case 3: S concedes, not stating a line of play. ??? all three cases 2 tricks (2 & 3 via 64C) > >Would any of the cases be any different if South knew there had been a >revoke but couldn't tell which suit he needed to lead to get the two >tricks? case 2 I'm still out on this one. I don't think 64C applies. case 3 still 2 tricks (64C applies) > What if he could have worked out which suit but didn't (cases >2 or 3)? Case 2 One trick when he's wrong (64C doesn't apply now). he stopped playing bridge. case 3 Two tricks. Best, saves thinking (and I hate it) :)) chs 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 Jul 1 16:10:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:10:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14706 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:10:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([195.89.178.95]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 5146000 ; Thu, 01 Jul 1999 06:09:05 -0000 Message-ID: <001d01bec387$d7ddef40$58b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: DWS off-line Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:05:22 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For the worm's-eye view? mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 01 July 1999 06:38 Subject: Re: DWS off-line >>> >>> He wanted you all to know, in case someone was awaiting his >>opinion >>> >>> with baited breath. >> > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 16:09:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:09:31 +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 QAA14696 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:09:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-252-250.s504.tnt1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.252.250]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA04922 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003c01bec388$301e1900$fafc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "bridge-laws" References: <199907010109.SAA18809@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:08:48 -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: bridge-laws Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 9:09 PM Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM > > > > So when I find this out, I call the director and explain that I should > > > have my score adjusted to +510, claiming that I was insufficiently > > > compensated. West revoked at two tables, and in both cases the revoke > > > was a harmless revoke, leading declarer to take no fewer tricks than > > > he would have in any case. But how can it be equitable that someone > > > else could get more of a bonus than I did for the same type of revoke? > > > Clearly, the revoke penalty is not being administered uniformly in all > > > revoke situations, and the offenders at my table received an unfair > > > advantage by revoking with a plain-suit card instead of with a trump. > > > Therefore, since it could be argued that the results at the two tables > > > are inequitable, that the term "equity" is never defined in the Laws, > > > and that since the definition of "equity" is in doubt, and that > > > doubtful points must be resolved in favor of my side being the > > > non-offenders, I argue that the director is bound by Law to adjust my > > > score to +510. > > > > > > So if you're the director, do you buy this argument and give me the > > > extra trick? If not, perhaps you'd better define more precisely just > > > what you mean by "equity" when you think it should include a revoke > > > penalty. > > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > Unlucky. Equity has nothing to do with anything that happens at another > > table. > > How do you know, since (as you've argued) equity isn't defined by the > Laws? I doubt that the above situation can be considered equitable, > therefore this is a doubtful point that has to be resolved in my > favor, no? > You got all of your tricks plus the penalty trick. It's a better score than you could have gotten by any normal play. There's nothing here to trigger L64C. > > IMO it is used to undo damage that is a directly caused by an > > infraction. No causal link, no adjustment. In both cases you cite, the > > revoke penalty is clearly specified by Law. There was no further damage > > caused by the revoke at either table. An equity adjustment would never be > > considered. > > > > As far as a possible definition of equity that would be more meaningful when > > applied to the revoke laws, I tried that in a previous post, but I'll repeat > > it: ... the score that the non-offenders would likely have received had the > > infraction not produced further damage during the play. > > I think this may be the crux of the problem. IMO, a revoke (or other > infraction) that causes damage, causes damage to the whole hand; it > doesn't quite make sense to me to pinpoint a specific trick at which a > revoke "produced damage". > > How do you rule in this situation? I'm playing 3NT. Dummy has AQxxxx > and no side entry. I have Kx. I have 10 top tricks if the suit > breaks. I start running the suit at trick 2. East has Jxx in the > suit but revokes on the third round, at trick 4, then wins the jack at > trick 5 and runs a bunch of tricks in other suits to get me down 4. A > normal director would adjust the score back to 10 tricks That would be my ruling also, in this example. If you had a shot at 11 or 12 tricks with the revoke penalty, but did not get them because you took a wrong view due to the revoke, I would give you those also. Since you never had a chance at them, you don't get them. >(assuming > there's no possible 11th trick from a squeeze or something). So by > your definition of "equity", as I understand it, the revoke didn't > produce any damage at trick 4, since I won the trick, but it produced > "further damage" during the play, since East won trick 5, a trick I > should have won, and gained the lead so that they could cash side-suit > tricks at tricks 6, 7, 8, 9, etc., tricks on which East/West should > not have been on lead. Do you count this as "further damage during > the play"? Do you try to adjust by figuring out what my score would > have been if I had remained on lead at trick 6 to take the rest of my > tricks? Or do you try to adjust by figuring out what my score would > have been if my small card had won at trick 5 despite the fact that > East played the jack on it? How do you distinguish "damage directly > caused by a revoke" from "further damage during the play"? To try to > draw a distinction seems to be an exercise in futility. > It's a distinction we have to make all of the time for all kinds of infractions, futile or not. Way back, long before I ever dreamed I would get into debates about bridge law on the internet, I attended a lecture that Kojak gave for club directors at a NABC. In it he emphasized three conditions that need to be met for a score adjustment: 1) There must be an infraction of law. 2) There must be damage 3) There must be a causal link between the infraction and the damage. If any of these conditions are not met, there is no basis to adjust the score. This is one of the earliest things I was ever taught about rulings. You appear to be arguing that it is futile to attempt to determine the causal link between an infraction and damage. If you don't determine this, how do you ever know when an adjustment is necessary or not, for any infraction? > If someone revokes, the whole hand is screwed up by the mere fact that > they have a card in their hand they're not supposed to have. This may > cause "further damage" in the form of that person winning a trick > they're not supposed to, or in creating a stopper they're not supposed > to have, or messing up the timing of a hand or breaking up a squeeze > that should have come home or using the extra card to win a trick that > your partner should have won and got endplayed on, or any number of > other things, in addition to giving declarer a miscount of the hand. > All of these cause damage. REVOKES SCREW UP THE GAME, PERIOD. Agreed. > I > don't understand why you're trying to elevate "giving declarer a > miscount" to some sort of higher class of screw-up that deserves a > special rule by referring to it as "further damage" or "consequential > damage" as opposed to "direct damage" or something like that. It all > seems rather bizarre, and pointless, to me. > > -- Adam > I'm simply arguing that we resolve a doubtful situation in favor of the non-offenders. Nothing more complex than that. The peculiarities of the revoke laws create a situation where the non-offenders can suffer a score reduction even though all three of the conditions above are met. I don't find arguing that we should protect the non-offenders as best we can under the Law to be pointless at all. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 16:16:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:16:23 +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 QAA14731 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:16:16 +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 XAA14288 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:16:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01fc01bec388$0b515240$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199906301628.MAA15322@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00e901bec343$16173f40$20eea4d8@hdavis> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:54:13 -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: > > > > > I know we have discussed problems equivalent to this one, but I don't > > remember if we reached consensus or what it was. If the facts are as > > I state them below, what is the correct ruling for each side? > > > > At the table, after some preliminaries that don't matter, North bids > > 3H, East bids 5C, South bids 5H, West doubles, and all pass. South > > takes nine tricks, -500. Only NS are vulnerable. Further facts: > > > > 1. East's 5C bid was illegal because of UI. The only legal call was > > pass. > > > > 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call > > it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all > > probable" for L12C2 purposes. > > > > 3. In hearts, eleven tricks are cold. South held himself to nine via > > no fewer than _three_ separate irrational plays. (I was impressed! > > And I am being generous to South.) > > > > 4. I don't think it matters, but if 5C is played, it will be down 3 > > doubled, 500 NS. > > If we follow the Kaplan doctrine, as I understand it, there was no damage in > this situation. Only because 5H was doubled and was cold with rational play. If 5H had not been doubled, N/S would have been damaged by the infraction. >The causal link between the infraction and the bad score > was due to bad play, rather than the infraction. Accordingly, score stands. > This would likely be my ruling at the table, but... > > I'm not convinced that this is right. Despite the poor play by S, under > normal circumstances he would only be in 3 or 4 hearts undoubled. The > illegal call has pushed him to a contract where E/W have the opportunity for > a very good score indeed. But N/S have the opportunity for a very good score indeed if they play in a sane manner, so there was no damage to be redressed. Had 5H not been doubled, then the damage caused by the infraction would be irreparable, and a score adjustment for N/S would be in order (-100 for 4H down 1, going by the 75% chance Steve gives for that bid). >Nevertheless, I leave S his score, based on the contention that the S play > is truly irrational and not merely careless. I feel it appropriate to > adjust the E/W score, however, as leaving that alone allows them a top that > would not have been possible in the absence of an infraction. Forget "absence of infraction," which does not apply to the OS. They get the most unfavorable result that was likely, period, and that is obviously -140 for 3H making, again going by Steve's 25% chance for that contract. If a worse result was at all probable, 5C down 800, for instance, they get that score even if it would not have occurred without the infraction. There may be some question as to whether 5H making was at all probable, but I believe the answer is no. We must assume it had zero probability, going by the one data point available. > ISTM this > type of situation calls for a split score. S played irrationally, breaking > the link between the infraction and the damage, so he gets to keep his -500. > However, we don't allow E/W to reap the windfall from their infraction, and > roll the contract back to 3H, if there was a reasonable possibility that S > would have left it there. We let E/W continue to reap the benefits of the > irrational play by S, so... > > My ruling (at least for the purpose of stimulating discussion about this > issue) is N/S: -500, E/W: -140. > Right ruling, but doubtful reasoning. I have tried in the past, without clear success, to verify the principle that the NOS gets redress for irreparable damage no matter how irrational their actions after the infraction. It is only when damage could have been avoided by merely playing sane bridge, as in this case, that annulment of redress is in order. Any argument with that? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 18:49:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:16:53 +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 RAA15154 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:16:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA24137 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:14:10 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 1 Jul 99 08:14 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 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 In-Reply-To: John Probst asked: >Are you using the duplicate or rubber bridge laws to govern the >game? Duplicate for L16 type rulings. The general opinion is that there is no difference in intent for the two sets (Apart from adopting zonal options on a few issues). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 1 18:58:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:16:53 +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 RAA15154 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:16:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA24137 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:14:10 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 1 Jul 99 08:14 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 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 In-Reply-To: John Probst asked: >Are you using the duplicate or rubber bridge laws to govern the >game? Duplicate for L16 type rulings. The general opinion is that there is no difference in intent for the two sets (Apart from adopting zonal options on a few issues). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 2 15:05:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:05:57 +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 PAA09205 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:05:49 +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 IAA07328 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:56:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990701083319.00707a30@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 08:33:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI In-Reply-To: <199906301628.MAA15322@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:28 PM 6/30/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >I know we have discussed problems equivalent to this one, but I don't >remember if we reached consensus or what it was. If the facts are as >I state them below, what is the correct ruling for each side? > >At the table, after some preliminaries that don't matter, North bids >3H, East bids 5C, South bids 5H, West doubles, and all pass. South >takes nine tricks, -500. Only NS are vulnerable. Further facts: > >1. East's 5C bid was illegal because of UI. The only legal call was >pass. > >2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call >it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all >probable" for L12C2 purposes. > >3. In hearts, eleven tricks are cold. South held himself to nine via >no fewer than _three_ separate irrational plays. (I was impressed! >And I am being generous to South.) > >4. I don't think it matters, but if 5C is played, it will be down 3 >doubled, 500 NS. Point by point: (1) So we assume a pass. (2) Close, but by the ACBL's 1/3 standard, passing 3H wasn't likely, so we assume 4H. South held himself to nine tricks, so 4H-1, NS-100. (3) Here is where consensus is lacking. Kaplan doctrine advocates would say that equity was restored for N-S when 5H was reached with 11 tricks cold, and would split the score, NS-500/EW+100. Non-Kaplanists would rule NS-100/EW+100, attributing 400 points of damage (-500 to -100) to the infraction, 950 points of damage (+850 to -100) to South's irrational play. (4) As Steve suggests, it doesn't 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 Fri Jul 2 15:33:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:33:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09632 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:33:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA26963 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 09:24:02 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 09:24:02 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Another Revoke Problem Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- -- KQ109 J3 Immaterial Immaterial 1064 -- 73 5 I was faced with the following interesting situation recently. Declarer was on the table (his only loser being the C3). He now instructed dummy to "Run the Diamonds". On the first round instead of following, he pitched a spade. Dummy now placed the DQ in a played position and while East was contributing a card to this second trick, Declarer said "stop", at the same time indicating his wish to correct the revoke. Is the revoke established? If the answer is yes, at what point did it become established? If the answer is no, at what point would it have become established? Laurie Kelso From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 2 15:39:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:39:23 +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 PAA09719 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:39:14 +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 KAA28492; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:32:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199907011732.KAA28492@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Jul 1999 02:08:48 PDT." <003c01bec388$301e1900$fafc7ad1@hdavis> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 10:32:46 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > It's a distinction we have to make all of the time for all kinds of > infractions, futile or not. Way back, long before I ever dreamed I would > get into debates about bridge law on the internet, I attended a lecture that > Kojak gave for club directors at a NABC. In it he emphasized three > conditions that need to be met for a score adjustment: > > 1) There must be an infraction of law. > 2) There must be damage > 3) There must be a causal link between the infraction and the damage. > > If any of these conditions are not met, there is no basis to adjust the > score. This is one of the earliest things I was ever taught about rulings. > You appear to be arguing that it is futile to attempt to determine the > causal link between an infraction and damage. If you don't determine this, > how do you ever know when an adjustment is necessary or not, for any > infraction? No, no, no! The argument isn't about determining whether an infraction causes damage. Of course, that's not futile, and it needs to be done. The argument is about the definition of "damage". Most of us (it seems) believe that if a revoke causes you to take fewer tricks than you would have without the revoke, the loss of those fewer tricks is the damage. You're arguing that somehow the loss of a penalty trick you might have gotten in a different situation also constitutes damage---something that most of us strongly disagree with. To me, "not getting a freebie" is not the same as "damage". The futility I referred to is in trying to draw a distinction between "damage caused directly by the revoke" and "future damage caused as a consequence of the revoke". Revokes cause damage, in general, and we have to figure out what the damage is; but your argument depends on trying to classify the damage into these two different kinds---that somehow we have to draw a line dividing the damage into two parts; then apply Law 64 to the revoke and the damage that occurred directly from the revoke, then figure out the non-offenders' score based on that; and *then* treat the future damage as a separate issue in which we determine damage based on the score we already assigned from applying the first part. (This might be the correct procedure if the offenders committed two infractions, but it sounds to me like you're trying to penalize the offenders twice for the same infraction.) As you said on June 29: # 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. and my argument is that trying to determine this "difference" is futile. So far, you haven't provided any definition of either "future damage" or "consequential damage caused by the revoke" that would distinguish it from the other kind of damage. Let me approach it from a different angle. Going back to the "revoke creating a stopper" example: xx xxx Qx AQxxxx Axx xxx AKJTx Kx Playing 3NT, South wins the spade lead and starts clubs. East has Jxx of clubs but revokes on the third round, wins the fourth round, and the defense cashes four spades and four hearts. Down 4, or down 2 after you apply the standard revoke penalty, but the director adjusts the score to making 6, same as he would have gotten without the revoke. But now South argues that the score should be "making 7". South's argument: At trick 5, East won a trick with a card he should have played earlier; this damage is a direct consequence of the revoke. At that point, East will owe South two tricks by L64A2. The score at that point should be +520, since South has 11 tricks (five clubs---since East stole one---, five diamonds, one spade), plus the two-trick revoke penalty. But East's revoke created "consequential damage" or "future damage" by putting him on lead at the wrong time, when declarer should have been on lead, and equity demands that we restore this damage by adjusting South's score back to what it should have been, i.e. +520, or otherwise East will have gained a one-trick profit from his revoke. Nobody would accept this argument. The problem is that the 520 score is purely mythical. To argue that East gained a profit, one would have to invent a play of the hand in which East wins trick 5, but dummy remains on lead at trick 6 to take the rest of the tricks South is entitled to. Of course, this cannot happen; a situation like this is mythical, and so therefore is the score obtained from such a situation. And therefore, the attempt to draw a line between "damage directly caused by the revoke" and "future damage" is absurd. My point is this: If it's absurd to assume that the play continues by putting dummy on lead when East is really on lead, and therefore to use this impossible situation to compute a score used to determine equity---then it's JUST AS ABSURD to assume that the play continues with declarer having an accurate count of the opponents' hands even after an opponent revokes, and to compute equity based on that impossible situation. Here's an example where a revoke leads to a "misplay": Kxxx Axx QJxx xx AJT9x xxx AKx xx Playing 4S, South wins the heart lead and leads a spade from dummy. East, who has the stiff queen, accidentally plays a club. Therefore, South wins the ace and runs the jack. East wins and the defense cashes four more tricks for down 2. The standard revoke penalty adjusts the score to "making 4". Director rules that L64C doesn't apply, because 10 tricks are the limit anyway (neither opponent has a stiff heart). South argues that he should be awarded 11 tricks by L64C. His reasoning: the revoke caused "consequential damage" by causing him to take an unsuccessful line of play, i.e. taking a "marked" finesse in trumps. Therefore, the score should be figured as if South had taken the correct line, i.e. playing for the drop. In that case, South takes his 10 tricks, plus he gets a 1-trick revoke penalty. After trick 2 was complete, South had a line of play to get him +450 (counting the revoke penalty), but the revoke caused him to misplay and get stuck with just +420. Therefore, there was damage caused by the revoke. Can you see how absurd this is? The +450 score is just as mythical as the +520 score on the previous hand. In order to get +450, South has to play spades for the drop despite the fact that East showed out on the first round---and the likelihood of that is exactly the same as the likelihood that South on the 3NT hand would be able to continue clubs from dummy despite the fact that East won the previous trick---which is exactly the same as the likelihood that an ice cube would survive in hell for several thousand years. In practice, it is completely impossible for South to get +450, and therefore it's absurd to argue that South was damaged by having his chance at +450 taken away. Trying to draw a line between "direct damage" and "consequential damage" is just as absurd as it is in the previous example. To put it another way: The final result cannot legally be +450 because it does not meet either the "likely" or "at all probable" conditions imposed by L12C2. > I'm simply arguing that we resolve a doubtful situation in favor of the > non-offenders. Nothing more complex than that. The peculiarities of the > revoke laws create a situation where the non-offenders can suffer a score > reduction even though all three of the conditions above are met. "Reduced" from what? The non-offenders have had their score reduced from some mythical score that never could have existed. > I don't find arguing that we should protect the non-offenders as best we can > under the Law to be pointless at all. Protecting them from what? As I've argued all along, the non-offenders are entitled to at least as good a score as they would have gotten without the revoke. You're trying to protect them from having some fictional score that exists only in Fantasyland taken away from them. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 2 15:58:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:52:10 +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 PAA09959 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:51:55 +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 KAA02441 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:30:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA16327 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:30:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:30:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907011430.KAA16327@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Only because 5H was doubled and was cold with rational play. If 5H had > not been doubled, N/S would have been damaged by the infraction. I don't see what the double has to do with anything. The infraction pushes NS into a cold game that they just might have missed without the infraction. Why does it matter whether the cold game was doubled or not? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 2 22:56:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 22:56:33 +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 WAA24661 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 22:56:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (R-G-188-65.access.net.il [192.117.188.65]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA05313; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 19:39:05 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <377B99ED.EBD69656@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 19:40:13 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <199906302302.TAA15840@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, let' play bridge , don't use artificial scoring when no need. If you analyzed the hands and there is no need for very clever play (quadruple finesses or three suits super squeezes or whatever other pompous definitions ) shouldn't change the table score... If E-W is known as a regular user of UI then penalize them as tough as you believe... Dany Steve Willner wrote: > > I wrote: > > > At the table, after some preliminaries that don't matter, North bids > > > 3H, East bids 5C, South bids 5H, West doubles, and all pass. South > > > takes nine tricks, -500. Only NS are vulnerable. Further facts: > > > > > > 1. East's 5C bid was illegal because of UI. The only legal call was > > > pass. > > > > > > 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call > > > it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all > > > probable" for L12C2 purposes. > > > > > > 3. In hearts, eleven tricks are cold. South held himself to nine > > via > > > no fewer than _three_ separate irrational plays. (I was impressed! > > > And I am being generous to South.) > > It was North, not South, who declared and botched the play. Mea > culpa. I don't think it matters, though. If his play of this hand > doesn't qualify as "irrational" or "egregious error," there's no such > thing. > > > > 4. I don't think it matters, but if 5C is played, it will be down 3 > > > doubled, 500 NS. > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Interpretation No. 3 from the WBFLC at Lille says that the OS score is > > subject to adjustment if there is an advantage gained by them, > > "provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by > > the good play of the offenders." Therefore adjust the N/S score per > > L12C2, +100 for 3H down one, the most unfavorable result that was at > > all probable. > > Nine tricks were scored, so presumably this was meant to be 3H=, -140 > for EW (the OS). > > > What to do for N/S is more complicated. While some will say they were > > not damaged, hence no redress, I believe that they *were* damaged > > because they would have played 3H or 4H in the absence of the > > infraction. I would assign them a result of 4H down two, -200, the > > most favorable result that was likely had there been no infraction. > > Likewise, presumably 4H-1, -100 for NS. (I'm not sure whether 4H would > have been doubled or not, and there might be a good case for -200 for > NS. This is a case of bridge judgment, not really interesting for the > legal question I'm asking about.) > > > For instance, if 5H had been doubled there would be no > > redress because they would have thrown away a top by their irrational > > play (N/S score would still be adjusted as above, however). > > Even 5H= +650 would have been a decent score although far from the > clear top 5Hx= +850 would have been. > > 5H was doubled, so I take it your final ruling is -500/-140 ? That > would agree with Hirsch Davis. > > So far, everyone has given both sides the result of actual play, i.e. > nine tricks. The only question has been what contract to score those > nine tricks in. Anybody want to argue for a different number of tricks > for one side or the other? Other comments? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 2 22:57:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 22:57:15 +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 WAA24688 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 22:57:04 +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 1102s6-000Ccf-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 12:56:51 +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 Sat Jul 3 00:55:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA27203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:55:30 +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 AAA27198 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:55:19 +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 1104ib-000CyB-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:55:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:21:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: DWS off-line References: <005b01bec336$d9d640a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Actually he's down in London for an L&E meeting, and we're about to set >off in 5 hours time (TD's go to bed a little after 2) to win another 1.6 >ACBL points. (Jack Daniels permitting) :)) chs john Only 1.0 points were available. The bad news is that I also lost 33p to John via spread bets on our final percentage. The good news is that I agreed to play with a young lady next time I am in London, thus avoiding John! Oh, hi, btw! -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 01:58:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:12:37 +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 RAA13364 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:12:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA17114 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:32:58 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 1 Jul 99 09:32 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Adjustment 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 In-Reply-To: <199906302302.TAA15840@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) wrote: > So far, everyone has given both sides the result of actual play, i.e. > nine tricks. The only question has been what contract to score those > nine tricks in. Anybody want to argue for a different number of tricks > for one side or the other? Other comments? I'd be ruling result stands for NOS but if I was adjusting I would be influenced by the following: "When doubled a bad player finds it impossible to think clearly. Also he is so sure the cards lie badly and that he must go down, he's almost relieved that he won't be failing in a hand that he should have made." (Zia Mahmood: Bridge My Way - an excellent book btw) I've seen other writers express similar sentiments and would suggest that it is "likely" that a bad player who severely bungles 5Hx would make 4H (undoubled). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 02:17:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:17:31 +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 CAA28125 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:17:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from p21s14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.34] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 1105zt-0003Hf-00; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:17:06 +0100 Message-ID: <001001bec4a5$d92ff7c0$228e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Adam Beneschan" Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:12:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott >The argument is about the definition of "damage". Most of us (it >seems) believe that if a revoke causes you to take fewer tricks than >you would have without the revoke, the loss of those fewer tricks is >the damage. You're arguing that somehow the loss of a penalty trick >you might have gotten in a different situation also constitutes >damage---something that most of us strongly disagree with. To me, >"not getting a freebie" is not the same as "damage". > --------------- \x/ ---------------- +++ I think a pair is damaged if the irregularity leads to a score inferior to the one they were booked for in the instant before the irregularity. There remains then the question of what caused the inferior result. Having regard to discussions in other circles I do not believe I should go beyond this at present.~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 02:58:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:36:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14586 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:35:56 +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 KAA06755 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <023201bec3e5$5df336a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: AI after UI Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:13:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 1:14 AM Subject: Re: AI after UI > In-Reply-To: > John Probst asked: > > >Are you using the duplicate or rubber bridge laws to govern the > >game? > > Duplicate for L16 type rulings. The general opinion is that there is no > difference in intent for the two sets (Apart from adopting zonal options > on a few issues). > Without the L90 augmentation adopted by many TDs/ACs, I presume. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com AKA Cato From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 03:07:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:49:06 +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 RAA15127 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:48:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <4835-1676>; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:45:30 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA07621 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:29:07 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Avg+ and Avg- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:32:04 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F399@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: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883749BBF2@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >I thought there was some sort of "complement" rule when artificial >scores are awarded at the same table. Avg+ gets 60% or session >percentage, whichever is greater, and avg- gets what is left over. Not >true? Just ACBL? Nowhere? > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Not true. Avg+ gets the greater of 60% and session percentage, while avg- gets the lesser of 40% and session percentage. This need not be complementary. Your complement ruling wouldn't be fair; someone gets a heavier penalty if his/her opponents are playing better! Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 03:58:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:52:13 +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 PAA09965 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:52:01 +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 KAA01335 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:04:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA16291 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:04:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:04:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907011404.KAA16291@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Player makes own wrong ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Are you saying that the amount of > information conveyed by the remark is somehow a function of South's actual > holding? No. > The information content of the remark is really just a matter of what the > listeners either did or might have gleaned from it. Yes, exactly. > But in this case the opponents agree that the remark was a joke, They agree it was intended as a joke. That is not the same thing. > which > means that it carried no serious implication about the desirability or > undesirability of a club lead. Not necessarily. It is a judgment matter for the TD. Please read the exact language again. If the TD, on hearing all the facts, reaches the judgment you have, that's fine. All I'm saying is that this outcome cannot be assumed on the facts presented. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 04:52:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:17:50 +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 RAA13669 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:17:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-6.uunet.be [194.7.146.6]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08569 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:25:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <377B4C24.B61C2586@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 13:08:20 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <199906302302.TAA15840@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00e801bec356$c4327f00$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: > > > So far, everyone has given both sides the result of actual play, > i.e. > > nine tricks. The only question has been what contract to score > those > > nine tricks in. Anybody want to argue for a different number of > tricks > > for one side or the other? Other comments? > > > The number of tricks won would be changed only if the infraction could > be shown to have affected declarer's play, seldom the case. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com I am quite lenient in giving OS the contract at 11 tricks. Botching a play in 5HX, presumably after some happenings at the table, is not the same as playing in a quiet 4H. I give OS -650. NOS, not so sure. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 04:58:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:17:55 +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 RAA13676 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:17:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-6.uunet.be [194.7.146.6]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07867 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:22:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <377B419D.97052A95@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 12:23:25 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Book on movements References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While answering Marv, I have just discovered I do understand what John is talking about. Sorry John, I don't know if it is you who did not explain well enough, or me who is too thick to see it, but just in case there are others who are a sthick as me, let me try to refrase. The use of arrow-switches for bettering balance is a well known procedure and the Swedes have that point right. But it does not solve a different problem : that of the splitting of the field into two lines, who may be of different strength. Which results in you playing against players of more or less than average strength. No amount of arrow switching can solve that problem. John's approach is that by deliberatly undercompensating for better balance, one compensates for the seeding. Have I got that right ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 05:46:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:17:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13683 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:17:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-6.uunet.be [194.7.146.6]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07881 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:22:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <377B42D4.F1E5A752@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 12:28:36 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- References: <066401bec31f$f17c24c0$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: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > >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. > > > I thought there was some sort of "complement" rule when artificial > scores are awarded at the same table. Avg+ gets 60% or session > percentage, whichever is greater, and avg- gets what is left over. Not > true? Just ACBL? Nowhere? > I won't talk for the ACBL, but I'm sure they don't have regulations that say this. My guess is : Nowhere Otherwise, how do you solve Av+/Av+ when one side gets more than 60% on the session. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 05:58:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA12750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:58:53 +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 QAA12739 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:58:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm6-34.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.231]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA08159; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 23:23:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <377C30D2.5F428A50@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 23:24:03 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws , Herman De Wael Subject: Fifth Friday & Revoke & claim (new) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi... I am sending this to you in case the BLML is out of service for a while. I haven't been following the revoke and claim discussion until I got a call about this ruling. I started to read them but there are so many, I am not sure if a consensus has been reached and if this is the same problem Declarer has three cards 9, 8, 4 of spades which is trump. Declarer leads the 9 of spades and LHO who holds the K, 7 of spades and the Diamond T plays the T of D. Declarer now claims stating that LHO has revoked. He is not aware of the 7 spades in LHO's hand. He thinks only the K is outstanding. As he claims, he says there has been a revoke and the rest are mine! The director awarded one trick to declarer stating "they did not win the revoke trick so one trick to declarer.. Declarer feels he should get 2 tricks, one for the revoke and the other for winning a trick with a card that could have been played on the revoke trick. Which is it? Also. our next fifth friday game should be on July 29. Will it be a go? I hope so. Things have been really hectic here. We had the US Open in Golf here in the middle of June and 45,000 people descended on our little town of 5000. It was exciting though. Things are slowly getting back to normal. Hope you are having a great summer. Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 06:04:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA12513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:53:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12505 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:53:47 +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 PAA01460; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:46:05 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990702154632.00996490@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 15:46:32 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: BLML sort of back on the air Cc: tmp-blml@acsys.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All The hack on octavia turned out to be far more insidious than I first expected. Effectively, octavia was never touched - a spammer sent out a vast number of messages out to the world from somewhere, with a forged return address of octavia.anu.edu.au. Many (thousands!) of these messages bounced, and it is these bounces that are currently hammering octavia. I have tightened down the sendmail process on octavia so it doesn't go feral again and crash the machine. (For the net.geeks out there, it is the latest and greatest anti-spam sendmail, fat lot of good that did us though :-) ). However, this means that octavia is effectively congested for email access. Postings to BLML should eventually get through, but not with their usual speed (such as it is). You are welcome to try posting to BLML again, but be aware that you may get a 'connection deferred/refused' for a while, till this all dies down. If octavia has not fully recovered by early next week I will try and bring up the new 'rgb' host earlier than planned and move the list to there. Cheers, Markus P.S. apologies to those of you who get duplicates - I just want this to get through before the weekend. Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 06:33:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 06:33:29 +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 GAA01645 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 06:33:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from ehc.edu (98ac7f3d.ipt.aol.com [152.172.127.61]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2232.9) id N5YDRCVA; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:29:10 -0400 Message-ID: <377D21B6.1A90B56D@ehc.edu> Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:31:50 -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: L74B3 (premature detachment) References: <199906302122.RAA15728@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks for the replies. I hadn't realized until this week what nine months away from BLML and six months of sporadic play has done to my ability to rule! In all honesty, this situation has been the only challenging problem at my games in months. I have corrected the ruling to 7NT=. Also I removed the procedural penalty and replaced it with a stern warning. That and the 7NT= should do the trick. For those interested, the ruling involved the top two scoring pairs for that game, and the 7.5-matchpoint swing from the ruling swapped their order of finish. That's why I wanted to make sure that the final ruling was proper. Once again, thanks. John -- | Dr. John A. Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu <---note new address!!! | From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 06:43:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:18:07 +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 RAA13690 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:17:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-6.uunet.be [194.7.146.6]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08532 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:25:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <377B4A9E.6BA39D4D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 13:01:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <199906301628.MAA15322@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > I know we have discussed problems equivalent to this one, but I don't > remember if we reached consensus or what it was. If the facts are as > I state them below, what is the correct ruling for each side? > > At the table, after some preliminaries that don't matter, North bids > 3H, East bids 5C, South bids 5H, West doubles, and all pass. South > takes nine tricks, -500. Only NS are vulnerable. Further facts: > > 1. East's 5C bid was illegal because of UI. The only legal call was > pass. > That's simple. > 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call > it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all > probable" for L12C2 purposes. > for NOS : 4H=likely, so 12C2 score would be +650 for OS : 4H = probable, so 12C2 score would be -650 > 3. In hearts, eleven tricks are cold. South held himself to nine via > no fewer than _three_ separate irrational plays. (I was impressed! > And I am being generous to South.) > So we might rule that the damage to South is in play, he would have got +850 by the plays. > 4. I don't think it matters, but if 5C is played, it will be down 3 > doubled, 500 NS. Indeed it does not matter. I would rule to OS : -650 I would rule to NOS : 50% of -500 and 50% of +650 But that is just my non-ACBL, L12C3 vote. ACBL, L12C2 : +650. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 06:58:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:52:04 +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 PAA09947 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:51:44 +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 KAA03006 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA16339 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:46:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:46:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907011446.KAA16339@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > It is astonishing that we do not have a clear, simple and united answer on > this question. Yes, I agree. I thought we had reached consensus some while ago, but it appears not. I hope BLML can help push us forward. > ...adjust the score for EW. We take away the > undeserves advantage they got with their infraction. My choice would be to > give them -650, applying 12c2 and assuming that NS could have played better > in 4H. The contract at the table was 5Hx, which would have scored up absent irrational play by North. I take it you award the OS -850. > What to do with NS? Since there was no consequent damage (they should have > obtained +650 with normal play) there is no reason to adjust their score. The NOS would have had +850. If you are letting them keep the table result, it will be -500. If you were to adjust to what the contract would have been without the infraction (4H or 4Hx), it will be -100 or -200. I think Ton is awarding -500 (table result) to NS and -850 ("likely" result in 5Hx) to EW. I hope he will correct me if I'm wrong. > If 5C was still a normal bid, not made by less than 25% (?), I don't give a > procedural penalty. No reason for a PP this time. It was a confusing situation, and the player misjudged the LA's, as any of us might on a bad day. (We all think we are immune to this, but I don't believe it.) But in a more normal case, a PP is certainly possible. > My suggestion is to adopt this approach, but if you want to wait for a > couple of months we might have a reconfirmed (?) agreement in the WBF about > these cases. Thanks. That will be great. Please keep us informed. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 07:39:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 07:39:47 +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 HAA02114 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 07:39:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-33-200.s200.tnt8.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.33.200]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id RAA11613; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:39:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00c201bec4d3$4ad6fea0$c821accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Nancy T Dressing" , "bridge-laws" References: <377C30D2.5F428A50@pinehurst.net> Subject: Re: Fifth Friday & Revoke & claim (new) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:38:46 -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: Nancy T Dressing To: bridge-laws ; Herman De Wael Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 11:24 PM Subject: Fifth Friday & Revoke & claim (new) > Hi... I am sending this to you in case the BLML is out of service for a > while. I haven't been following the revoke and claim discussion until I > got a call about this ruling. I started to read them but there are so > many, I am not sure if a consensus has been reached and if this is the > same problem > > Declarer has three cards 9, 8, 4 of spades which is trump. Declarer > leads the 9 of spades and LHO who holds the K, 7 of spades and the > Diamond T plays the T of D. Declarer now claims stating that LHO has > revoked. He is not aware of the 7 spades in LHO's hand. He thinks only > the K is outstanding. As he claims, he says there has been a revoke and > the rest are mine! The director awarded one trick to declarer stating > "they did not win the revoke trick so one trick to declarer.. Declarer > feels he should get 2 tricks, one for the revoke and the other for > winning a trick with a card that could have been played on the revoke > trick. Which is it? > This is a very different problem, and has nothing to do with the other discussion. Declarer was correct, and the TD was wrong. Declarer has won one trick. The next two tricks are won by W, but since at least one of them was won by a card that could have legally been played to the revoke trick, it is a two trick penalty. The TD really should have checked the Law Book. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 07:41:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:18:11 +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 RAA13700 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:18:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-6.uunet.be [194.7.146.6]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07856 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:22:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <377B4071.21D9E526@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 12:18:25 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Book on movements References: <3779F0D7.5695D570@village.uunet.be> <001101bec332$a3150f00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > So the balance is NOT correct, far from it. > > > > > The word "balance" must be defined, and maybe is not the right word to > use because it is ambiguous. We use the word in relation to (1) > seeding of fields, (2) the number of comparisons with each of the > other pairs, and in an apparently new sense (to me, anyway) (3) > offsetting the effects of imperfect seeding (seeding cannot be > perfect, because strengths 1+2+3 = 2+2+2, but that does not lead to > balanced (sense 3) results. > The word balance is well defined in books on movements, as being the comparison with all other pairs on an equal number of boards. > I like John Probst's approach, which is to assign some scores in a > make-believe one-winner game, and see what happens. I like the approach as well, but in its simplest form it does not teach us anything. I agree with John when he states that the effect of playing against someone is ignored in the "balance" argument, but his trick does not solve this either. > If you have a > couple of pairs with strength (1), a couple with strength(3) and a > bunch with strength (2), then assume that each (1) scores 90 on every > board, each (3) scores 150, and each (2) scores 120, This is exactly what is wrong with the simple approach. What does a (1) score against a (3) - compared to a (2) against a (2) ? > a "well-balanced" > one-winner arrow-switched Mitchell should see all (2) pairs having > about the same score. I haven't had time to run this simulation, but I > bet that the 1/8 rule works better than what the Swedes would > recommend, and is therefore "best." > Well, if you are only going to "bet", you should not draw conclusions. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 07:48:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 07:48:50 +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 HAA02183 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 07:48:40 +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 RAA15397 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:48:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA17540 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:48:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:48:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907022148.RAA17540@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call > > it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all > > probable" for L12C2 purposes. > From: Herman De Wael Thanks, Herman, but I'm still confused. > for NOS : 4H=likely, so 12C2 score would be +650 > for OS : 4H = probable, so 12C2 score would be -650 > So we might rule that the damage to South is in play, he > would have got +850 by the plays. Right (except as I corrected myself later, it was North). Even with any one of his three (!) irrational plays, he could have had +850. The second one took him down to ten tricks and the third one down to nine. Hard to believe! > I would rule to OS : -650 Presumably for 11 tricks in 4H undoubled. If you are giving them a score for eleven tricks in hearts, why not -850 in 5Hx? Are you reading "had the irregularity not occurred" to apply to the OS? I thought we had settled that it doesn't. > I would rule to NOS : 50% of -500 and 50% of +650 > But that is just my non-ACBL, L12C3 vote. > ACBL, L12C2 : +650. Presumably for 5Hx-2 and 4H+1. Why do you give them eleven tricks after the irrational play? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 07:58:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:34:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14527 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:34:31 +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 LAA15085; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <025601bec3f2$4e3a5420$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <066401bec31f$f17c24c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:43:15 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Marvin L. French > I thought there was some sort of "complement" rule when artificial > scores are awarded at the same table. Avg+ gets 60% or session > percentage, whichever is greater, and avg- gets what is left over. Not > true? Just ACBL? Nowhere? > Okay, I'll answer my own question. The ACBL Laws Commission gave this interpretation of L12C1 (Spring 1998): "The Laws Commission feels that the phrase "at most 40% of the available matchpoints" should refer to a pair being awarded the remaining matchpoints when they have committed an offense against a pair whose percent score is greater than 60% (i.e., Top minus 63% of Top when the non-offending side has achieved 63% on all other boards played.)" The current ACBLScor program incorporates this policy. I seem to remember a thread on this subject, with some people agreeing with this [censored] interpretation. Why on earth should the OS's adjusted score depend on how well the NOS is doing in the session? How could anyone believe this was the intent of L12C1? When there is no avg+ opposite, a pair with avg- gets 40% from ACBLScor, no matter what scores they have for the rest of the session. The WBFLC interpretation of avg- (40%, or session percentage on other boards, whichever is less) has not been implemented. Imagine a weak team getting one of their best boards from an average minus! We are still waiting for the ACBL LC's comments (Orlando meeting last fall) on the WBFLC Laws interpretations in Lille. Is this classified information, or what? Karen Allison, Gary Blaiss, please tell us what the story is. Let's hope that the ACBL adopts the WBFLC's official method of handling avg- for *all* average minuses, since it is the only one that makes sense. Those running ACBLScor should be sure they have the latest version, downloadable from the ACBL web site. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 08:21:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:39:30 +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 RAA14729 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:39:20 +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 XAA07149; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 23:13:19 -0700 Message-Id: <199907020613.XAA07149@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 02 Jul 1999 09:24:02 PDT." Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 23:13:22 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: > > -- > -- > KQ109 > J3 > > > Immaterial Immaterial > > > 1064 > -- > 73 > 5 > > > I was faced with the following interesting situation recently. Declarer was > on the table Well, that's the first problem. It would be better if declarer remained in his chair. > (his only loser being the C3). He now instructed dummy to "Run > the Diamonds". On the first round instead of following, he pitched a spade. > Dummy now placed the DQ in a played position and while East was contributing > a card to this second trick, Declarer said "stop", at the same time > indicating his wish to correct the revoke. > > Is the revoke established? If the answer is yes, at what point did it become > established? If the answer is no, at what point would it have become > established? Well, in trying to go through the Laws to figure this out, I seem to have found that saying "Run the diamonds" is incorrect procedure. By Law 45B, declarer plays a card from dummy either by naming the card or picking it up. Law 46 gives the rules for when declarer names a card incompletely, but in all of those rules, it's assumed that declarer said *something*. If declarer says "Run the diamonds" and then says nothing at the next trick, he hasn't named a card, and really, Law 45D should apply if dummy goes ahead and plays a card anyway. (Law 45B says declarer plays "a card" by naming it, and thus I can't see any way to allow declarer to name more than one card to be played on successive tricks by saying something like "run the diamonds".) Unfortunately, this incorrect procedure is fairly common, at least where I play, and no one seems to mind. My ruling is that dummy's card has not been played, and therefore the revoke has not been established. By Law 45D and/or 62C, East gets to withdraw the card he played, if he so chooses, without penalty. When would the revoke become established? I'd say it would become established when declarer plays; or when he gives some indication of approval that the card dummy played is the one he actually wanted to play, which I'm going to rule is equivalent to "naming" the card and therefore playing it. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 08:35:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:03:21 +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 QAA10198 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:03:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id LAA15670; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:35:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JD1RJ8EPM2000YA9@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:35:02 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 01 Jul 1999 11:35:02 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 11:34:58 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Adjustment after UI To: "'Steve Willner'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1BD@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 It is astonishing that we do not have a clear, simple and united answer on this question. As long as these cases do not get the same answer from all over the world, we are not grown up as a sport, I think. Let me tell you what the answer is in the Netherlands, based on the laws and the interpretation given by international authorities, among which Kaplan is the most important. Mentioning Kaplan, I want to say that there is not such a thing as the Kaplan doctrine with te interpretation as given in the answers on this question so far. Furthermore the WBFLC in Lille has expressed that when applying the laws (16A2 for example) 'damage' combines consequent and subsequent damage. This decision has been accepted by the ACBLLC recently! This curtails the discussion about the damage for NS: even when there was no consequent damage (I follow the facts as given) there still was subsequent damage (south wouldn't have played 5 hearts without the infraction). This makes it possible to adjust the score for EW. We take away the undeserves advantage they got with their infraction. My choice would be to give them -650, applying 12c2 and assuming that NS could have played better in 4H. What to do with NS? Since there was no consequent damage (they should have obtained +650 with normal play) there is no reason to adjust their score. That is the answer. I subtract 1 point for -620 as the adjusted score for EW, but I don't like -140 at all. If 5C was still a normal bid, not made by less than 25% (?), I don't give a procedural penalty. Things change if 4H makes but 5H doen't. Then the 5C bid causes consequent damage regardless the play by NS and the TD should award an adjusted score. The question is what score. That is difficult. I agree with those saying that the TD should not present players with undeserved good scores. There is no simple arithmetic solution. Try to do equity and protect the field (even 60% seems possible; +140 for 3H made will still be a zero, but if the TD is convinced that playing 4H would give declarer only 9 tricks +140 is the best score available) My suggestion is to adopt this approach, but if you want to wait for a couple of months we might have a reconfirmed (?) agreement in the WBF about these cases. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] Verzonden: donderdag 1 juli 1999 1:02 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: Adjustment after UI I wrote: > > At the table, after some preliminaries that don't matter, North bids > > 3H, East bids 5C, South bids 5H, West doubles, and all pass. South > > takes nine tricks, -500. Only NS are vulnerable. Further facts: > > > > 1. East's 5C bid was illegal because of UI. The only legal call was > > pass. > > > > 2. If East passes, South might pass but probably would bid 4H. Call > > it a 25% chance of passing, i.e. pass is not "likely" but is "at all > > probable" for L12C2 purposes. > > > > 3. In hearts, eleven tricks are cold. South held himself to nine > via > > no fewer than _three_ separate irrational plays. (I was impressed! > > And I am being generous to South.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 08:58:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:03:30 +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 QAA10207 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:03:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA17569; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:20:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JD1OX6KKVG000M15@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:20:00 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 01 Jul 1999 10:19:58 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 10:19:54 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Book on movements To: "'John Probst'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1BC@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 -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: John (MadDog) Probst [mailto:john@probst.demon.co.uk] Verzonden: woensdag 30 juni 1999 19:13 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: Book on movements In article <3779F0D7.5695D570@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >"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. nope, 5. You switched once, and so did the other NS's. >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. Nope 6 pairs, 1 of them will have switched out too. >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. They certainly have, there were three experts involved, each with his own expertise. Hans Olof Hallen, a former assistent chief TD of the EBL and an expert in movements for decades was one of them. Then they had a mathematical profesor who had his computers running for weeks to get the best movements out of it. And the third is Per Jannersten, who was the business man but also knows more about bridge-movements than any 'mitchell-TD. Doing these calculations as shown in this message is very useful to start understanding what switches mean and do, but my advise is not to try to improve these movements. A lot of effort without real success, I predict you. There is just one disadvantage, it is too heavy to put in my suitcase as long as my wife joins me to championships. But most of the time Per J. has a shop there too. ton > and you still have taken no account of your direct competition. 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 Sat Jul 3 09:01:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA25830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:49:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA25821 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:49:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from pbes05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.191] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1103gv-0004pu-00; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:49:22 +0100 Message-ID: <000801bec491$358ba9c0$bfa593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Markus Buchhorn" Cc: Subject: Re: BLML sort of back on the air Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 12:42:35 +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: tmp-blml@acsys.anu.edu.au Date: 02 July 1999 07:08 Subject: BLML sort of back on the air > >Hi All > > >However, this means that octavia is effectively congested for email access. ++++ a traffic jam without David ....... is this possible? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 09:10:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:10:02 +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 JAA02732 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:09:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-33-200.s200.tnt8.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.33.200]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id TAA03878 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 19:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00d101bec4df$e44daf00$c821accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "bridge-laws" References: <199907011732.KAA28492@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 19:08:57 -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: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws Cc: Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 1:32 PM Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM > > Hirsch Davis wrote: [snip] > No, no, no! The argument isn't about determining whether an > infraction causes damage. Of course, that's not futile, and it needs > to be done. > Phew! For a while there, I thought we weren't even speaking the same language :) > The argument is about the definition of "damage". Exactly. >Most of us (it > seems) believe that if a revoke causes you to take fewer tricks than > you would have without the revoke, the loss of those fewer tricks is > the damage. You're arguing that somehow the loss of a penalty trick > you might have gotten in a different situation also constitutes > damage---something that most of us strongly disagree with. To me, > "not getting a freebie" is not the same as "damage". > The player gets a lower score than he might have gotten as a direct result of an infraction. To me, that's damage. It doesn't matter that the infraction was the source of the potential score. It could also have been a defensive miscue, or a great play by the player. Whatever. There was potential to achieve the score by normal play. IMO that's enough. > The futility I referred to is in trying to draw a distinction between > "damage caused directly by the revoke" and "future damage caused as a > consequence of the revoke". Revokes cause damage, in general, and we > have to figure out what the damage is; but your argument depends on > trying to classify the damage into these two different kinds---that > somehow we have to draw a line dividing the damage into two parts; > then apply Law 64 to the revoke and the damage that occurred directly > from the revoke, then figure out the non-offenders' score based on > that; and *then* treat the future damage as a separate issue in which > we determine damage based on the score we already assigned from > applying the first part. (This might be the correct procedure if the > offenders committed two infractions, but it sounds to me like you're > trying to penalize the offenders twice for the same infraction.) As > you said on June 29: > No, we don't have to make any such distinctions. All we have to do is figure out the maximum score the non-offenders could have achieved by normal play. If they didn't achieve this score, was it due to the infraction? If so, adjust. Not all that hard. Note that the maximum score that the non-offenders could achieve is sometimes less, sometimes more than the score they would have achieved in the absence of the infraction. So, in determing equity for the non-offenders, IMO we should use the higher of these two values. > # 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. > > and my argument is that trying to determine this "difference" is > futile. So far, you haven't provided any definition of either "future > damage" or "consequential damage caused by the revoke" that would > distinguish it from the other kind of damage. > Probably because I don't think such a distinction is necessary. Damage is either caused by an infraction, not caused by an infraction, or impossible to tell. We correct the first, don't correct the second, and give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders on the third. My definition of damage FWIW is the difference between the potential and actual score received by the non-offenders. If they are the same, there is no damage. If they are different, there is damage. If that difference was caused by poor play, tough luck. If that difference was caused by an opponent's infraction, we adjust. > Let me approach it from a different angle. Going back to the "revoke > creating a stopper" example: > > xx > xxx > Qx > AQxxxx > > Axx > xxx > AKJTx > Kx > > Playing 3NT, South wins the spade lead and starts clubs. East has Jxx > of clubs but revokes on the third round, wins the fourth round, and > the defense cashes four spades and four hearts. Down 4, or down 2 > after you apply the standard revoke penalty, but the director adjusts > the score to making 6, same as he would have gotten without the > revoke. But now South argues that the score should be "making 7". > South's argument: At trick 5, East won a trick with a card he should > have played earlier; this damage is a direct consequence of the > revoke. At that point, East will owe South two tricks by L64A2. The > score at that point should be +520, since South has 11 tricks (five > clubs---since East stole one---, five diamonds, one spade), plus the > two-trick revoke penalty. But East's revoke created "consequential > damage" or "future damage" by putting him on lead at the wrong time, > when declarer should have been on lead, and equity demands that we > restore this damage by adjusting South's score back to what it should > have been, i.e. +520, or otherwise East will have gained a one-trick > profit from his revoke. > > Nobody would accept this argument. The problem is that the 520 score > is purely mythical. Exactly. At no point did S have an actual play for 520. However, if S had switched to diamonds when the CJ didn't fall, he would have taken 9 tricks, and received a one trick revoke penalty (two if E cashed the JC). So, the maximum possible score by S with normal play would be 11 tricks. Since S would have taken 12 tricks in the absence of the infraction, that should be the measure of equity. Of course, one could argue that continuing clubs when the J was still out and two suits were unstopped was sufficiently irrational that the link between the infraction and the damage is now broken... ;) >To argue that East gained a profit, one would > have to invent a play of the hand in which East wins trick 5, but > dummy remains on lead at trick 6 to take the rest of the tricks South > is entitled to. Of course, this cannot happen; a situation like this > is mythical, and so therefore is the score obtained from such a > situation. And therefore, the attempt to draw a line between "damage > directly caused by the revoke" and "future damage" is absurd. > Agreed, but this has never been what I was saying (or at least trying to say). > My point is this: If it's absurd to assume that the play continues by > putting dummy on lead when East is really on lead, and therefore to > use this impossible situation to compute a score used to determine > equity---then it's JUST AS ABSURD to assume that the play continues > with declarer having an accurate count of the opponents' hands even > after an opponent revokes, and to compute equity based on that > impossible situation. Here's an example where a revoke leads to a > "misplay": > > Kxxx > Axx > QJxx > xx > > AJT9x > xxx > AKx > xx > > Playing 4S, South wins the heart lead and leads a spade from dummy. > East, who has the stiff queen, accidentally plays a club. Therefore, > South wins the ace and runs the jack. East wins and the defense > cashes four more tricks for down 2. The standard revoke penalty > adjusts the score to "making 4". Director rules that L64C doesn't > apply, because 10 tricks are the limit anyway (neither opponent has a > stiff heart). > > South argues that he should be awarded 11 tricks by L64C. His > reasoning: the revoke caused "consequential damage" by causing him to > take an unsuccessful line of play, i.e. taking a "marked" finesse in > trumps. Therefore, the score should be figured as if South had taken > the correct line, i.e. playing for the drop. In that case, South > takes his 10 tricks, plus he gets a 1-trick revoke penalty. After > trick 2 was complete, South had a line of play to get him +450 > (counting the revoke penalty), but the revoke caused him to misplay > and get stuck with just +420. Therefore, there was damage caused by > the revoke. > Exactly. > Can you see how absurd this is? No. This is a real score achievable by normal play. However, that normal play will usually never occur because of the revoke. However, if S happens to be a fast player, was intending to finesse against E, and has the spade Jack on the table because he never noticed the black on black play (this would never really happen at the table, would it?), 450 is exactly the score he will likely receive when the dust settles. >The +450 score is just as mythical as > the +520 score on the previous hand. In order to get +450, South has > to play spades for the drop despite the fact that East showed out on > the first round---and the likelihood of that is exactly the same as > the likelihood that South on the 3NT hand would be able to continue > clubs from dummy despite the fact that East won the previous > trick---which is exactly the same as the likelihood that an ice cube > would survive in hell for several thousand years. The difference is that 450 is a real potential score, while 520 was indeed a fantasy. >In practice, it is > completely impossible for South to get +450, Not impossible, just highly improbable. However, the score is *possible* and the reason that S cannot achieve it is due to the revoke. IMO the fact that it was only made possible because of the revoke is irrelevant. >and therefore it's absurd > to argue that South was damaged by having his chance at +450 taken > away. Trying to draw a line between "direct damage" and > "consequential damage" is just as absurd as it is in the previous > example. > In one example, the score could never be achieved at the table. In the other, it could. This is the key difference between your examples. > To put it another way: The final result cannot legally be +450 because > it does not meet either the "likely" or "at all probable" conditions > imposed by L12C2. > That is part of the reason I have argued that L12C2 is a flawed standard of equity in a revoke situation. For a moment, 450 is a possible score for the non-offenders under the revoke laws. They cannot achieve it, but that is due to the irregularity. They have been damaged. > > > I'm simply arguing that we resolve a doubtful situation in favor of the > > non-offenders. Nothing more complex than that. The peculiarities of the > > revoke laws create a situation where the non-offenders can suffer a score > > reduction even though all three of the conditions above are met. > > "Reduced" from what? The non-offenders have had their score reduced > from some mythical score that never could have existed. > It exists all the time. I've awarded hundreds of one and two trick revoke penalties that have resulted in scores that the non-offenders could never have achieved by normal play. The reason that they achieved these scores is that the revoke did not affect the normal play of the hand. So, the non-offenders were able to get their penalty tricks. It is the situation where the revoke *does* affect the play of the hand that the non-offenders are damaged. Yes, we bring them back to the best likely score that they would have achieved in the absence of an infraction. But is that really equity when the infraction has made a higher score possible? > > > I don't find arguing that we should protect the non-offenders as best we can > > under the Law to be pointless at all. > > Protecting them from what? As I've argued all along, the > non-offenders are entitled to at least as good a score as they would > have gotten without the revoke. You're trying to protect them from > having some fictional score that exists only in Fantasyland taken away > from them. > > -- Adam No. I'm trying to protect a real score that would have been available during the play of the hand if the infraction had not influenced that play. On those hands where the revoke does not influence play, that is exactly the score the non-offenders receive. It's not a fantasy, and results in very real matchpoints or IMPs. ACBLscore does not distinguish between real tricks and those that were awarded as revoke penalties. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 09:10:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:10:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta3.mail.telepac.pt (mail7.telepac.pt [194.65.3.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02738 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:10:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.telepac.pt ([194.65.206.147]) by mta3.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail v03.02.07 118-124-101) with ESMTP id <19990702231008.DTXY10828@mail.telepac.pt> for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:10:08 +0100 Message-ID: <377D46B8.8E1EC709@mail.telepac.pt> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 00:09:55 +0100 From: Lino =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tralh=E3o?= (telepac) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: pt,en,fr,es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: denominations specified References: <199906151707.NAA17917@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi In Definitions part of the Laws we can read: Denomination — The suit or notrump specified in a bid. Law 29C says: Call Out of Rotation Is Conventional If a call out of rotation is conventional, the provisions of Laws 30, 31, and 32 shall apply to the denominations specified, rather than the denominations named. By the definitions, a "denomination" is something like a "kind of contract". So what does "denominations specified" mean? If "denominations specified" mean "suits specified" (not agreeing with definitions) what about a forcing 1NT (after a 1S opening) out of rotation, corrected, under Law 31A2, by a natural 2NT bid. Ofender parter must pass next turn or whenever it is his turn to call? In my opinion "definitions specified" means "contract suggested" or "distributional texture sugested" by the call. Is this correct ? Comments please (solve my doubts)! Lino Tralhao From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 09:26:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:29:02 +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 AAA26756 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:28:44 +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 KAA03870 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:28:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA17151 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:28:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:28:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907021428.KAA17151@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > (3) Here is where consensus is lacking. Kaplan doctrine advocates would > say that equity was restored for N-S when 5H was reached with 11 tricks > cold, and would split the score, NS-500/EW+100. Non-Kaplanists would rule > NS-100/EW+100, attributing 400 points of damage (-500 to -100) to the > infraction, 950 points of damage (+850 to -100) to South's irrational play. Thanks, Eric. So Eric is with the majority (but not Ton) in scoring nine tricks in hearts (the table result) for both sides. The NOS play in either 4H or 5Hx, while he has the OS play in 4H. Under Eric's arguments, I would have thought the OS would play in 3H and get -140, since passing 3H was "at all probable." I thought my question was a simple one. Silly me. [Markus: thanks for your heroic efforts on behalf of BLML.] From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 09:39:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA21068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 20:42:33 +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 UAA21054 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 20:42:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip87.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.87]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990702104229.RVSS27305.fep2@ip87.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 12:42:29 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 10:39:19 GMT Message-ID: <37978b5a.6289658@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 Fri, 2 Jul 1999 09:24:02 +1000 (EST) skrev Laurie Kelso: >on the table (his only loser being the C3). He now instructed dummy to "Run >the Diamonds". On the first round instead of following, he pitched a spade. >Dummy now placed the DQ in a played position and while East was contributing >a card to this second trick, Declarer said "stop", at the same time >indicating his wish to correct the revoke. >Is the revoke established? Yes. Dummy is playing the cards in accordance with declarers instructions. Declarer "hands over" his control of the play by saying "Run the diamonds". >If the answer is yes, at what point did it become established? When dummy played DQ. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 09:55:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA25927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:53:32 +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 XAA25912 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:53:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from p51s04a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.164.82] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10zgDP-0007hj-01 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:45:20 +0100 Message-ID: <003e01bec3bf$1b9e94a0$52a493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Subject: Fw: please help. Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:22:16 +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: gester@globalnet.co.uk Date: 07 June 1999 20:49 Subject: Re: please help. >The whole hullabaloo aboutthe establishment of a revoke leaves out the >references to a very much earlier Law which states what MUST happen when >attention is drawn to an irregularity. Unfortunately we are on a trip and I >left my Bible at home. Could youplease send out an E-Mail and maybe that >will clear up the haze surrounding this thread? +++ Oh naive! Such innocence in a full Colonel. +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 09:55:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:55:44 +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 JAA03099 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:55:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip22.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.22]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990702235555.ZYAM27305.fep2@ip22.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 01:55:55 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fifth Friday & Revoke & claim (new) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 23:55:26 GMT Message-ID: <37894db1.13673055@post.tele.dk> References: <377C30D2.5F428A50@pinehurst.net> In-Reply-To: <377C30D2.5F428A50@pinehurst.net> 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, 01 Jul 1999 23:24:03 -0400 skrev Nancy T Dressing: >Declarer has three cards 9, 8, 4 of spades which is trump. Declarer >leads the 9 of spades and LHO who holds the K, 7 of spades and the >Diamond T plays the T of D. Declarer now claims stating that LHO has >revoked. This is complicated, and we need more information. If I take your information literally, the revoke is not established (there is a revoke, but the revoking side has not played to the next trick, and they haven't accepted the claim, I pressume). Therefore the revoke must be corrected, the DT becomes a penalty card (doesn't matter), and there's no difference from the normal play. It sounds as if it was treated as an established revoke. In that case two tricks must be transferred to NOS, one because OS later won a trick, and one more because they yet later won a trick in the revoked suit. However declarer has tried to make his own ruling on the revoke and claim. That may result in him losing his right to redress. I think that it would be too harsh, but a warning at least is called for. But as I wrote we need more information. [Reading L63.3... ] I just find that I'm not sure how that law is to be understood. So far I've thougt that any claim/concession from OS establishes the revoke. I still think so. But I also thought that it would be established if OS accepts a claim or a concession from the NOS. Now I'm not so sure. Is it so? Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 09:58:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 19:03:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f45.hotmail.com [207.82.250.56]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA17793 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 19:02:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 2750 invoked by uid 0); 1 Jul 1999 11:15:38 -0000 Message-ID: <19990701111538.2749.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 01 Jul 1999 04:15:37 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: Norman Scorbie To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: DWS off-line Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 04:15:37 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote > >> >I think we can easi-Leigh wait until this thread a-Bates. Let's > >hope > >> David's service is restored without a Hitch. I can just imagine him > >til > >> Friday staring north by northwest out his rear window. > >> > >Looking at the birds, and getting vertigo. Then John Probst, possibly somewhat missing the point of the thread so far, wrote > > >Actually he's down in London for an L&E meeting, and we're about to set >off in 5 hours time (TD's go to bed a little after 2) to win another 1.6 >ACBL points. (Jack Daniels permitting) :)) chs john Personally, I don't see why everyone's getting in such a Frenzy. I have a Suspicion that we'd hardly have been Spellbound by any potential DWS contributions. And all this business about keeping poor old DWS up until all hours at the Probst house. Is this some sort of Family Plot? Norman (couldn't quite get Strangers On A Train in there, but working on it. And using Torn Curtain would have been an unseemly and probably unwarranted attack on the decor chez Mr. Probst). ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 10:05:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 06:10:08 +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 GAA01397 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 06:09:44 +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 NAA17748; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 13:09:06 -0700 Message-Id: <199907022009.NAA17748@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Fifth Friday & Revoke & claim (new) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Jul 1999 23:24:03 PDT." <377C30D2.5F428A50@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 13:09:07 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy Dressing wrote: > Declarer has three cards 9, 8, 4 of spades which is trump. Declarer > leads the 9 of spades and LHO who holds the K, 7 of spades and the > Diamond T plays the T of D. Declarer now claims stating that LHO has > revoked. He is not aware of the 7 spades in LHO's hand. He thinks only > the K is outstanding. As he claims, he says there has been a revoke and > the rest are mine! The director awarded one trick to declarer stating > "they did not win the revoke trick so one trick to declarer.. Declarer > feels he should get 2 tricks, one for the revoke and the other for > winning a trick with a card that could have been played on the revoke > trick. Which is it? I'm assuming only declarer and LHO have any trumps left? Declarer is correct. LHO will win a trick with the high trump no matter what happens. (We don't know whether this will happen at trick 12 or trick 13, but it doesn't matter.) The high trump could have been legally played on the revoke trick. L64A2 therefore says declarer gets two tricks. This is an easy one. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 10:17:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA25913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:53:13 +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 XAA25905 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:53:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from p51s04a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.164.82] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10zgDN-0007hj-00; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:45:17 +0100 Message-ID: <003b01bec3bf$1a041e80$52a493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: L74B3 (premature detachment) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 12:25:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 30 June 1999 22:50 Subject: Re: L74B3 (premature detachment) >> From: John Kuchenbrod ---------------- \x/ ------------------ >> (1) do you agree with the ruling? > >With the PP, yes, at least if the player has been warned before. If >not, a warning would suffice. > >It looks to me as though score adjustment under L73F2 is called for. >Detaching the card is a "manner" or at least "the like" within the >meaning of L73D1, or so it seems to me. > ----- \x/ ----------- +++ If 73F2 does not cover it then 84E does. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 10:17:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:17:27 +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 KAA03206 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:17:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip22.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.22]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990703001709.UDC18064.fep4@ip22.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:17:09 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: denominations specified Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 00:17:08 GMT Message-ID: <379d5619.15825440@post.tele.dk> References: <199906151707.NAA17917@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> <377D46B8.8E1EC709@mail.telepac.pt> In-Reply-To: <377D46B8.8E1EC709@mail.telepac.pt> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sat, 03 Jul 1999 00:09:55 +0100 skrev Lino Tralhão: > By the definitions, a "denomination" is something like a "kind of contract". No. From the law, definitions: Denomination The suit or notrump specified in a bid. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 10:39:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 22:38:09 +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 WAA24257 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 22:38:01 +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 IAA01331 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 08:50:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990702083752.00704044@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 08:37:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990701083319.00707a30@pop.cais.com> References: <199906301628.MAA15322@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:33 AM 7/1/99 -0400, I wrote: >Point by point: > >(1) So we assume a pass. > >(2) Close, but by the ACBL's 1/3 standard, passing 3H wasn't likely, so we >assume 4H. South held himself to nine tricks, so 4H-1, NS-100. > >(3) Here is where consensus is lacking. Kaplan doctrine advocates would >say that equity was restored for N-S when 5H was reached with 11 tricks >cold, and would split the score, NS-500/EW+100. Non-Kaplanists would rule >NS-100/EW+100, attributing 400 points of damage (-500 to -100) to the >infraction, 950 points of damage (+850 to -100) to South's irrational play. > >(4) As Steve suggests, it doesn't matter. I had overlooked the fact that South's 25% chance of passing meets the ACBL standard for "at all probable". So the above is incorrect. Regardless of whether we give N-S -100 or -500, E-W should get -140. 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 Jul 3 10:52:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:52:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1.mail.telepac.pt (mail1.telepac.pt [194.65.3.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03546 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:51:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.telepac.pt ([194.65.203.31]) by mta1.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail v03.02.07 118-124-101) with ESMTP id <19990703005209.EGCY25907@mail.telepac.pt> for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 01:52:09 +0100 Message-ID: <377D5E88.157C195C@mail.telepac.pt> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 01:51:51 +0100 From: Lino =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tralh=E3o?= (telepac) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: pt,en,fr,es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: denominations specified References: <199906151707.NAA17917@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> <377D46B8.8E1EC709@mail.telepac.pt> <379d5619.15825440@post.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: > Sat, 03 Jul 1999 00:09:55 +0100 skrev Lino Tralhão: > > > By the definitions, a "denomination" is something like a "kind of contract". > > No. From the law, definitions: > > Denomination > The suit or notrump specified in a bid. You may have a Notrump contract, a spades contract, ... > > > Bertel > -- > Denmark, Europe > http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 10:58:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:32:55 +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 KAA03340 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:32:36 +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 110Diy-0006gU-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:32:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:54:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: AI AFTER References: <9906302042.0T3G602@bbs.hal-pc.org> In-Reply-To: <9906302042.0T3G602@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Two small comments. First, presumably North's thirteenth card was the missing club? Second, RogerP wrote: >Holding the W cards my analysis of the AI is that partner promises 4+ >cashing tricks opposite a possible bust. Really? I don't think that is what double says: I think it shows a very strong hand and a general desire to penalise. You must double *very* rarely in competitive situations if you wait for a *promise* of 4+ cashing tricks. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 11:45:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:30:45 +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 KAA03319 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:30:36 +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 UAA06062; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 20:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990702202648.008a0d80@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 20:26:48 -0400 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: DWS off-line In-Reply-To: References: <005b01bec336$d9d640a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:21 PM 7/2/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>Actually he's down in London for an L&E meeting, and we're about to set >>off in 5 hours time (TD's go to bed a little after 2) to win another 1.6 >>ACBL points. (Jack Daniels permitting) :)) chs john > > Only 1.0 points were available. > > The bad news is that I also lost 33p to John via spread bets on our >final percentage. Betting on the result of an ACBL event? I believe that is against the rules. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 11:50:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:28:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA26733 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:28:11 +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 KAA10564 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:27:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA07770; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907021427.KAA07770@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > > > -- > -- > KQ109 > J3 > > >Immaterial Immaterial > > > 1064 > -- > 73 > 5 > > >I was faced with the following interesting situation recently. Declarer was >on the table (his only loser being the C3). He now instructed dummy to "Run >the Diamonds". On the first round instead of following, he pitched a spade. >Dummy now placed the DQ in a played position and while East was contributing >a card to this second trick, Declarer said "stop", at the same time >indicating his wish to correct the revoke. > >Is the revoke established? If the answer is yes, at what point did it become >established? If the answer is no, at what point would it have become >established? > > I would argue that no, it is not an established revoke. Declarer must designate a card to play to the next trick, and has not done so. Yes, he has stated his intent to run diamonds, but that is not binding. His agent has detached a card from dummy without instruction, so rho can change his card without penalty; any change is, IMO, UI to declarer. The revoke is therefore not established, and must be corrected (L62). I would give a PP to declarer (a first instance would be a warning) for failing to follow correct procedure in naming cards from dummy (L45). Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 11:58:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:33:03 +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 KAA03345 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:32:38 +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 110Dj1-000ENq-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:32:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:09:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <199906302302.TAA15840@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906302302.TAA15840@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >So far, everyone has given both sides the result of actual play, i.e. >nine tricks. The only question has been what contract to score those >nine tricks in. Anybody want to argue for a different number of tricks >for one side or the other? Other comments? Well, you have not given us the hand. If eleven tricks were cold, then it is likely that N/S would have made 4H even though they went two off in 5H. My own instinct for the ruling is that since N/S took an action that was irrational, wild or gambling, that they keep their table score. E/W, on the other hand should get done for the worst reasonable amount that would have occurred without the infraction, which seems to be eleven tricks in 4H. So I give N/S -500, E/W -650. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 12:30:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:32:57 +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 KAA03349 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:32:39 +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 110Dj4-000KfW-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:32:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:18:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: revoke and claim References: <199906281732.NAA13822@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906281732.NAA13822@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >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. The thing I don't like about L12A1 is that there is a tendency to use it to make life easier: it only applies when there is no Law to cover the actual situation. However, it might be fair to conclude from the various articles we have had recently that there really is no definitive Law to cover multiple infractions involving a claim/concession and a revoke. Given that, L12A1 becomes legal. Perhaps we might consider a method until 2007 of dealing with these situations under particular guidelines and legitimising these guidelines by L12A1? -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 12:35:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 21:03:40 +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 VAA21814 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 21:03:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem117.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.245] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10zbbe-00084N-00; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:50:03 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Clear enough Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 06:31:21 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan --------------------------------------------------------- "Perhaps the greatest consolation of the oppressed is to consider themselves superior to their tyrants." - Julien Green. -ooOoo- ---------- > From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Clear enough > Date: 08 June 1999 09:26 > > 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. > ++++ There is a difficulty in this generalisation. A player who is aware that his partner may do 'it' has an edge over opponents, if they are ignorant of the relevant history, in picking up the clues when it does happen. That advantage is unfair. Opponents are entitled to a level playing field, and should be made equally aware. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 12:43:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:47:34 +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 KAA03450 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:47:22 +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 110DxQ-0008Kl-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:47:05 +0000 Message-ID: <5oWP2pBUzVf3Ewpu@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 01:44:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem In-Reply-To: <199907020613.XAA07149@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199907020613.XAA07149@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes snip > When >would the revoke become established? I'd say it would become >established when declarer plays; or when he gives some indication of >approval that the card dummy played is the one he actually wanted to >play, he gave approval for the play of the Queen of diamonds by saying "play the diamond king, then the diamond queen then the diamond ten then the diamond nine" - or words to that effect. revoke established. > which I'm going to rule is equivalent to "naming" the card and >therefore playing it. > > -- Adam -- John (MadDog) Probst|In Mitchell Movements|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road |Arrow switch 1 in 8 |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | All else is wrong |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |Trust me on this one!|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 12:58:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:33:04 +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 KAA03358 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:32:42 +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 110Diy-000ENq-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:32:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:13:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883749BBF2@xion.spase.nl> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F399@xion.spase.nl> In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F399@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote: >>I thought there was some sort of "complement" rule when artificial >>scores are awarded at the same table. Avg+ gets 60% or session >>percentage, whichever is greater, and avg- gets what is left over. Not >>true? Just ACBL? Nowhere? >Not true. Avg+ gets the greater of 60% and session percentage, while >avg- gets the lesser of 40% and session percentage. This need not be >complementary. Your complement ruling wouldn't be fair; someone gets >a heavier penalty if his/her opponents are playing better! You know, I'm with Marvin: I think the rule exists, even though it is grossly unfair [some PTF nonsense, I presume]. I think I have seen it in the ACBL literature somewhere. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 13:24:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 13:24:44 +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 NAA04458 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 13:24:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-13.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.43]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA22407; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:24:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <377D82BA.8D437AE@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 23:25:46 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Beneschan CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Fifth Friday & Revoke & claim (new) References: <199907022009.NAA17748@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes, LHO and declarer are the only ones with trump. The offender called the director *before* making any play or comment about the revoke to inform the director she had revoked. I would assume then the revoke is not established. Offender would play the king winning the trick and would have to lead the diamond (penalty card). Where does declarer stand now with the claim while offender still has a trump unknown to declarer? Declarer was also very upset with the director and created quite a fuss about the ruling. I would give him a pp and caution him about his behavior. Adam Beneschan wrote: > Nancy Dressing wrote: > > > Declarer has three cards 9, 8, 4 of spades which is trump. Declarer > > leads the 9 of spades and LHO who holds the K, 7 of spades and the > > Diamond T plays the T of D. Declarer now claims stating that LHO has > > revoked. He is not aware of the 7 spades in LHO's hand. He thinks only > > the K is outstanding. As he claims, he says there has been a revoke and > > the rest are mine! The director awarded one trick to declarer stating > > "they did not win the revoke trick so one trick to declarer.. Declarer > > feels he should get 2 tricks, one for the revoke and the other for > > winning a trick with a card that could have been played on the revoke > > trick. Which is it? > > I'm assuming only declarer and LHO have any trumps left? Declarer is > correct. LHO will win a trick with the high trump no matter what > happens. (We don't know whether this will happen at trick 12 or trick > 13, but it doesn't matter.) The high trump could have been legally > played on the revoke trick. L64A2 therefore says declarer gets two > tricks. This is an easy one. > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 13:26:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:33:05 +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 KAA03341 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:32:36 +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 110Diy-000KfX-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:32:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:43:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Player makes own wrong ruling References: <3.0.1.32.19990628214144.0154fac8@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990628214144.0154fac8@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >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. South has transgressed in a light-hearted way that has caused trouble. West's transgression is considerably more serious: he has misled a novice over the Laws in a position where it is likely to work to hei benefit. I do not know what sort of punishment should be meted out to South, but it should definitely not exceed that handed out to West. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 13:33:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA16794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:36:28 +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 SAA16779 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:36:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from p92s05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.147] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10ze4S-0001d4-00; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:27:57 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01bec3ab$ea37c520$93a593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: L74B3 (premature detachment) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:23:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Date: 29 June 1999 02:10 Subject: Re: L74B3 (premature detachment) > >-----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. ++++ The first time I played in the Waterworth Cup in Liverpool I was declarer in 3 NT which had to make four tricks from A.Q.x. opposite K. T. x.x. Having Taken A. and Q. I played small from dummy and RHO followed smoothly; before I had played from hand LHO had a card out, so I finessed and LHO discarded. Both opponents were very experienced players and perhaps I looked a little green. RHO asked me why I had finessed, to which I replied that I had been obliged to reach a decision whether the knave on my left was in the hand or in the chair. See the proprieties in the laws. [Law 74B3] ~ Grattan. ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 13:44:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:47:34 +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 KAA03449 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:47:22 +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 110DxQ-000FKz-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:47:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 01:33:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: DWS off-line 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: > >>Actually he's down in London for an L&E meeting, and we're about to set >>off in 5 hours time (TD's go to bed a little after 2) to win another 1.6 >>ACBL points. (Jack Daniels permitting) :)) chs john > > Only 1.0 points were available. we got those by 5% though over 30 boards > > The bad news is that I also lost 33p to John via spread bets on our >final percentage. > > The good news is that I agreed to play with a young lady next time I >am in London, thus avoiding John! Mine's better looking than yours :))))))) > > Oh, hi, btw! > He also lost 5p on whether we'd be late or not. (We were early which is amazing). And he also went down in 5Cx which is cold. And he also overcalled on a 4-card suit at the 2-level in the sandwich seat but it got us a top in 3N down a bushel when oppo were cold for 4H I blame the Jack Daniels. Spread bet offer: Next time: Your score - my score 1.6-2.4% -- John (MadDog) Probst|In Mitchell Movements|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road |Arrow switch 1 in 8 |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | All else is wrong |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |Trust me on this one!|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 13:58:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:47:53 +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 KAA03462 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:47:30 +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 110DxQ-000F21-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:47:05 +0000 Message-ID: <44IPSiBtwVf3EwIa@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 01:41:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Laurie Kelso writes > > > > -- > -- > KQ109 > J3 > > >Immaterial Immaterial > > > 1064 > -- > 73 > 5 > > >I was faced with the following interesting situation recently. Declarer was >on the table (his only loser being the C3). He now instructed dummy to "Run >the Diamonds". On the first round instead of following, he pitched a spade. >Dummy now placed the DQ in a played position and while East was contributing >a card to this second trick, Declarer said "stop", at the same time >indicating his wish to correct the revoke. ok so declarer might have said "DK," play .., xS. .. "DQ," .. "oh s**t" revoke established, no question. As soon as dummy put the card in the played position (I won't argue semantics here, sufficient he picked it up meaning it has been designated) chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst|In Mitchell Movements|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road |Arrow switch 1 in 8 |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | All else is wrong |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |Trust me on this one!|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 14:21:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:34:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02898 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:34:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem110.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.110] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 110Con-0005Bi-00; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:34:06 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 08:13:10 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- "Perhaps the greatest consolation of the oppressed is to consider themselves superior to their tyrants." - Julien Green. -ooOoo- ---------- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI > Date: 01 July 1999 13:33 > ------------------------- \x/ ------------------------ > (3) Here is where consensus is lacking. Kaplan doctrine advocates would > say that equity was restored for N-S when 5H was reached with 11 tricks > cold, and would split the score, NS-500/EW+100. Non-Kaplanists would rule > NS-100/EW+100, attributing 400 points of damage (-500 to -100) to the > infraction, 950 points of damage (+850 to -100) to South's irrational play. > ------------------------ \x/ ----------------------- +++ Which leaves some of us to think for ourselves? Puzzling though since, pace the sceptical DWS, my correspondence with Edgar [ no, David, I will not show you the scars in my palms] leads to the agreed position that an innocent pair has to stand that part of the damage caused by their own "wild or gambling action" - Edgar's words. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 14:21:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 14:21:49 +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 OAA04947 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 14:21:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-33-200.s200.tnt8.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.33.200]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA08603 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:26:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00d701bec50b$75a1c240$c821accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <44IPSiBtwVf3EwIa@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:21:00 -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: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 8:41 PM Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem > In article , > Laurie Kelso writes > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > KQ109 > > J3 > > > > > >Immaterial Immaterial > > > > > > 1064 > > -- > > 73 > > 5 > > > > > >I was faced with the following interesting situation recently. Declarer was > >on the table (his only loser being the C3). He now instructed dummy to "Run > >the Diamonds". On the first round instead of following, he pitched a spade. > >Dummy now placed the DQ in a played position and while East was contributing > >a card to this second trick, Declarer said "stop", at the same time > >indicating his wish to correct the revoke. > > ok so declarer might have said "DK," play .., xS. .. > "DQ," .. > "oh s**t" > > revoke established, no question. > > As soon as dummy put the card in the played position (I won't argue > semantics here, sufficient he picked it up meaning it has been > designated) > > chs john > -- I'm going to disagree with this, as Dummy's mechanics have nothing at all to do with whether or not a card is played. If we accept that "run the diamonds" is sufficient for have Declarer to have designated a card in advance, then that card would be considered played as soon as it was legal to do so, that is immediately after W played to the preceding trick. At that point, it is Dummy's turn to play, Declarer has designated a card, and the rest is irrelevant mechanics. If we don't accept the proposition that "run the diamonds" is a legitimate designation of a card to the next trick, then Dummy has not yet played and the revoke is not established. IMO, "run the diamonds" is a very clear designation of Declarer's play even though the format is not as specified in the laws, and the revoke is established. Hirsch Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 14:26:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 21:03:44 +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 VAA21821 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 21:03:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem117.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.245] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10zbbh-00084N-00; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:50:05 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:36:53 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- "Perhaps the greatest consolation of the oppressed is to consider themselves superior to their tyrants." - Julien Green. -ooOoo- --------- > From: Adam Beneschan > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Cc: adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: Advice from on high. > Date: 28 June 1999 22:19 > > > Craig Senior wrote: > > > This is fundamentally a marketing-driven problem -------------\x/------------------ Adam: > 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. > +++ This a point of view on policy under the laws, not a question of law. The only road to influence this is domestic to the USA and likewise for others in their own domestic scenes. I will never know how much or little Edgar related his distrust of NBOs in regulating systems to his own patch. For my part I do think system regulation is an area in which we must allow regulators to judge what is best for their own territories, not a view I take about principles of the Laws. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 14:37:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:47:41 +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 KAA03451 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:47:23 +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 110DxQ-000F22-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:47:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 01:26:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: <377B4071.21D9E526@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <377B4071.21D9E526@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes > >> a "well-balanced" >> one-winner arrow-switched Mitchell should see all (2) pairs having >> about the same score. I haven't had time to run this simulation, but I >> bet that the 1/8 rule works better than what the Swedes would >> recommend, and is therefore "best." >> > >Well, if you are only going to "bet", you should not draw >conclusions. > Quite simply, one should arrow switch more of the boards if the movement is all-play-all, because we can now ignore the effect of direct opponent. otherwise using "comparisons" and ignoring the effect of playing half the field but not the other half completely screws up the Swedes. When it's all=play-all that's fine but in a Mitchell it doesn't work. I'm North South. I play all the East Wests. I can have half a top off each and every one of them. I can also get a matchpoint off all my own line too. If you only worry about the comparisons what the hell is the point in getting a score against a direct opponent. *That counts too* It's why my trite little example works and the Swedes have to go to ridiculous postures to say "We know it doesn't look right, but trust us we've used computers". Trust *me* guys. I used my f*****g brains. Chs John -- John (MadDog) Probst|In Mitchell Movements|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road |Arrow switch 1 in 8 |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | All else is wrong |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |Trust me on this one!|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 15:05:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:33:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03348 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:32:39 +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 110Dj3-0006gU-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:32:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:13:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <199907011446.KAA16339@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907011446.KAA16339@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Kooijman, A." >> It is astonishing that we do not have a clear, simple and united answer on >> this question. > >Yes, I agree. I thought we had reached consensus some while ago, but >it appears not. I hope BLML can help push us forward. > >> ...adjust the score for EW. We take away the >> undeserves advantage they got with their infraction. My choice would be to >> give them -650, applying 12c2 and assuming that NS could have played better >> in 4H. > >The contract at the table was 5Hx, which would have scored up absent >irrational play by North. I take it you award the OS -850. Why? We know they were not getting that score. Without the infraction, E/W were getting -650 at best. With the infraction they were getting +500. Let's give them -650. ---------- Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> So we might rule that the damage to South is in play, he >> would have got +850 by the plays. >Right (except as I corrected myself later, it was North). Even with >any one of his three (!) irrational plays, he could have had +850. The >second one took him down to ten tricks and the third one down to nine. >Hard to believe! >> I would rule to OS : -650 >Presumably for 11 tricks in 4H undoubled. If you are giving them a >score for eleven tricks in hearts, why not -850 in 5Hx? Are you >reading "had the irregularity not occurred" to apply to the OS? I >thought we had settled that it doesn't. No, it doesn't, but they are not getting -850 with the irregularity: we know that! -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 15:36:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 22:20:01 +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 WAA23842 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 22:19:54 +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 IAA00570 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 08:32:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990702081945.00704238@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 08:19:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Player makes own wrong ruling In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990630204730.0077f14c@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199906302153.RAA15763@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:47 PM 6/30/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that the amount of >information conveyed by the remark is somehow a function of South's actual >holding? How can that be, since nobody but South knows what he is holding? >No, the only way South's holding could possibly be germane is in helping to >assess the verity of the claim that the remark was purely in jest. Even >there, it's not at all clear which holdings would support a finding that >South was really joking and which would tend to undermine such a claim. > >The information content of the remark is really just a matter of what the >listeners either did or might have gleaned from it. If there is any doubt >or disagreement, I am prepared to resolve this question in favor of the >NOS. But in this case the opponents agree that the remark was a joke, which >means that it carried no serious implication about the desirability or >undesirability of a club lead. To find otherwise requires you to ignore the >table consensus about the facts. George Meredith wrote, "The well of true wit is truth itself." Every good joke or jest contains an element of truth. The point of looking at South's hand is to determine whether it really might have suggested to him that he'd probably be better off if his partner didn't lead a club. If it did, he shouldn't be allowed to get away with what would otherwise be a clear infraction just becaused he phrased his remark in a jocular manner. Personally, though, I don't believe we, as TDs, should be forced to make that particular call. 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 Jul 3 15:37:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:32:59 +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 KAA03343 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:32:38 +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 110Diy-000KfV-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:32:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:28:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: > -- > -- > KQ109 > J3 > >Immaterial Immaterial > > 1064 > -- > 73 > 5 > >I was faced with the following interesting situation recently. Declarer was >on the table (his only loser being the C3). He now instructed dummy to "Run >the Diamonds". On the first round instead of following, he pitched a spade. >Dummy now placed the DQ in a played position and while East was contributing >a card to this second trick, Declarer said "stop", at the same time >indicating his wish to correct the revoke. > >Is the revoke established? If the answer is yes, at what point did it become >established? If the answer is no, at what point would it have become >established? Earlier discussions of the instruction "Run the clubs" both here and at EBU Panel weekends have tended to agree that bridge is played one trick at a time, so that the instruction is not one that has to be followed, and really constitutes a statement of intent. Thus declarer is allowed to change his mind. Presumably therefore he has not actually played from dummy until he indicates it. Thus the revoke is not established. I do not like it one single bit! L45B tells us how dummy's card is played, and that procedure has not been followed, so dummy's card is not played. Therefore the revoke is not established. Yuk! Of course, the moment declarer plays from his hand as well, he has established the revoke. If he corrects the revoke after RHO has played, it is unestablished IMO: at least RHO may correct his card under L45D! -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 15:58:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA16230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:18:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16208 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:18:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem117.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.245] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10zqEf-0001vP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 00:27:17 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: establishment Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 23:13:51 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan --------------------------------------------------------- "Perhaps the greatest consolation of the oppressed is to consider themselves superior to their tyrants." - Julien Green. -ooOoo- ---------- > From: Grattan > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; David Stevenson > Cc: William (Kojak) Schoder > Subject: Re: establishment > Date: 01 July 1999 08:48 > > Grattan > --------------------------------------------------------- > "Perhaps the greatest consolation of the oppressed is > to consider themselves superior to their tyrants." - Julien Green. > > -ooOoo- > ---------- > I wrote: > +++ As you remark, I saw no reason to state my position twice. When > I quote a specific discussion and agreement with Kaplan, you may believe > me or not as you like. I realize you are entitled to think your opinion > superior to his, but since he had more responsibility for this Law than > either of us I do think his stance of interest. Kojak will speak for himself > but those able to penetrate his irony may well perceive what he is saying. > **Accident or purposeful the next player's action is still an infraction.** > I did agree with Kaplan that from the moment he announces > his discovery the player MUST rectify his error and no subsequent illegal > act by any other player can affect this. I continue with this shared > opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > II ++ Just to tidy this up before DWS gets his breath back. ** Accident or purposeful the partner's action is illegal if deemed a play of the card, and irrelevant to the issue if not.** ++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 16:04:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:33:05 +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 KAA03342 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:32:36 +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 110Diy-000KfW-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:32:10 +0000 Message-ID: <11KXrlAL+Tf3Ewps@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:39:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fifth Friday & Revoke & claim (new) References: <377C30D2.5F428A50@pinehurst.net> In-Reply-To: <377C30D2.5F428A50@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: >Declarer has three cards 9, 8, 4 of spades which is trump. Declarer >leads the 9 of spades and LHO who holds the K, 7 of spades and the >Diamond T plays the T of D. Declarer now claims stating that LHO has >revoked. He is not aware of the 7 spades in LHO's hand. He thinks only >the K is outstanding. As he claims, he says there has been a revoke and >the rest are mine! The director awarded one trick to declarer stating >"they did not win the revoke trick so one trick to declarer.. Declarer >feels he should get 2 tricks, one for the revoke and the other for >winning a trick with a card that could have been played on the revoke >trick. Which is it? Let us consult the Law book. Declarer claims as the DT was played. The TD is called, and he opens his Law book, and reads from it. I cannot copy the Law as usual because I have not sorted out my computer problems, but if you look at L63A you will see that the revoke is not established. I infer from what you have told us that the defence did not accept this claim for all the tricks! So the player corrects his card and there is no revoke penalty. However, I find it difficult to believe what you have written: is there something you are not telling us? Declarer has 984 of trumps, the defence K7 and a diamond, and the TD gave declarer one trick when he is getting two without the revoke. Is that really correct? If the position is as you said then there is no revoke penalty and declarer will get his two tricks. -------- Hirsch Davis wrote: >This is a very different problem, and has nothing to do with the other >discussion. Declarer was correct, and the TD was wrong. Declarer has won >one trick. The next two tricks are won by W, but since at least one of them >was won by a card that could have legally been played to the revoke trick, >it is a two trick penalty. The TD really should have checked the Law Book. If the revoke had been established this would have been correct. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 16:17:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:48:22 +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 KAA03469 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:47:38 +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 110DxX-0008Kr-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:47:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 01:25:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: <377B419D.97052A95@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <377B419D.97052A95@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >While answering Marv, I have just discovered I do understand >what John is talking about. > >Sorry John, I don't know if it is you who did not explain >well enough, or me who is too thick to see it, but just in >case there are others who are a sthick as me, let me try to >refrase. > >The use of arrow-switches for bettering balance is a well >known procedure and the Swedes have that point right. I agree with this, provided it is an all play all, because the Swedes ignore the effect of direct competition with only half of the field in a Mitchell > >But it does not solve a different problem : that of the >splitting of the field into two lines, who may be of >different strength. Indeed, in an all-play-all, you get the same shots as everyone else at the weak and strong pairs so you can ignore the effect of the direct opponent. Now you are in a position to try to balance the comparisons (which the Swedes do far better than I could be bothered too) >Which results in you playing against players of more or less >than average strength. > >No amount of arrow switching can solve that problem. Nope, if you arrowswitch slightly more than one eigthth of the rounds you achieve *very* good comparison *regardless* of the strength of the players in each line. If you look at my example on DWS's website, what is being shown is the effect of one pair's score (NS 1) on your score wherever you choose to sit and with 1 in 8 means it doesn't matter where you sit. This means you are disconnected from the effect of a strong/weak pair in your line or in the other line. No matter where you sit their effect on your score is going to be the same. No matter whether you play them or not the effect on your score is the same. Oh dear - did I say "no matter whether you play them or not"? Oh dear - does this mean that the effect of playing against a pair is significant. Oh dear - have the Swedes forgooten to take note of this? Oh dear - did the Swedes get it wrong in Mitchells? You bet. cheers john. -- John (MadDog) Probst|In Mitchell Movements|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road |Arrow switch 1 in 8 |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | All else is wrong |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |Trust me on this one!|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 16:51:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 21:03:32 +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 VAA21806 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 21:03:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem117.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.245] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10zbbi-00084N-00; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:50:07 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "David Stevenson" Cc: "William (Kojak) Schoder" Subject: Re: establishment Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:48:15 +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: Re: establishment > Date: 15 June 1999 03:15> important one> -----------------------\x/---------------------------- > 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. -----------------\x/----------------------------- +++ As you remark, I saw no reason to state my position twice. When I quote a specific discussion and agreement with Kaplan, you may believe me or not as you like. I realize you are entitled to think your opinion superior to his, but since he had more responsibility for this Law than either of us I do think his stance of interest. Kojak will speak for himself but those able to penetrate his irony may well perceive what he is saying. Accident or purposeful the next player's action is still an infraction. I did agree with Kaplan that from the moment he announces his discovery the player MUST rectify his error and no subsequent illegal act by any other player can affect this. I continue with this shared opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 16:56:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:34:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02899 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:34:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem110.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.110] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 110Cop-0005Bi-00; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:34:08 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Laurie Kelso" Cc: "bridge-laws" , "David Stevenson" , "William (Kojak) Schoder" , "Grattan Endicott" Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 21:05:03 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan --------------------------------------------------------- "Perhaps the greatest consolation of the oppressed is to consider themselves superior to their tyrants." - Julien Green. -ooOoo- ---------- > From: Laurie Kelso > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Another Revoke Problem > Date: 02 July 1999 00:24 > --------------------------- \x/ ----------------- > He now instructed dummy to "Run > the Diamonds". On the first round instead of following, he pitched a spade. > Dummy now placed the DQ in a played position and while East was contributing > a card to this second trick, Declarer said "stop", at the same time > indicating his wish to correct the revoke. > > Is the revoke established? If the answer is yes, at what point did it become > established? If the answer is no, at what point would it have become > established? ------------------------------ \x/ -------------------------- > +++ Let us examine what we know. Dummy places the DQ in a played position *after* it has been played. In normal play a lead to a trick is only made when it is indisputable who is on lead after the previous trick has been quitted. So prima facie we are looking for a point within the indicated range. Now, sadly David, I did not ever discuss the question with Kaplan, but it seems to me that in fact the point we are looking for is in the instant after the quitting of the previous trick. Declarer has already made his intention known to dummy and at this juncture I think there is a dumb communication with partner - a look or even just an air of expectancy - which would constitute a means by which declarer "otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick" [Law 63A2]. That is what I would go for; has any genius a better thought? I shall question any suggestion that the revoke could have been established prior to the lead of the Diamond K [ :-)) ] - adopting a position that the instruction given at that time is not specific to any trick. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 16:57:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA05161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 14:45:56 +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 OAA05155 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 14:45:48 +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 XAA77585 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:45:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0XO9W00N Fri, 02 Jul 99 23:58:13 Message-ID: <9907022358.0XO9W00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 02 Jul 99 23:58:13 Subject: ANOTHER REVOKE PROBL To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk May I point out- [a] all four hands contributed a card to the trick? Correct. [b] the trick was quitted? Supposedly. [c] the lead was with dummy? Correct [d] dummy moved a card to the played position? Correct. Question, was the second card a played card or is it to be retracted? What about the first card? Was the card properly named by declarer? I think not. L46B1 applies. The rank was not complete, but was named as if to play the highest diamond, which was done. Now to the second card. Was it properly named. No. but it was designated in the same manner as the first. In fact it was plain that the intent of the designation was to play a succession of diamonds until they were exhausted. This is clear because declarer did not protest the play of the king of the first trick, nor of the queen of the next trick. He protested that he revoked after his RHO played. Sounds like an established revoke to me. Law 45B states that dummy's card is played by declarer naming it and dummy picks it up. Did this not in fact happen, albeit the cards were played to successive tricks as was intended. So in this case, to retract the second diamond as a card not played seems to yield the result that offender has profited from his violation of proper procedure. Cheers Roger Pewick >> >> >> -- >> -- >> KQ109 >> J3 >> >> >>Immaterial Immaterial >> >> >> 1064 >> -- >> 73 >> 5 >> >> >>I was faced with the following interesting situation recently. >Declarer was >on the table (his only loser being the C3). He now >instructed dummy to "Run >the Diamonds". On the first round instead of >following, he pitched a spade. >>Dummy now placed the DQ in a played position and while East was >contributing >a card to this second trick, Declarer said "stop", at the >same time >indicating his wish to correct the revoke. >> >>Is the revoke established? If the answer is yes, at what point did it >become >established? If the answer is no, at what point would it have >become >established? >> >> >I would argue that no, it is not an established revoke. >Declarer must designate a card to play to the next trick, >and has not done so. Yes, he has stated his intent to >run diamonds, but that is not binding. His agent has >detached a card from dummy without instruction, so rho can >change his card without penalty; any change is, IMO, UI to >declarer. The revoke is therefore not established, and >must be corrected (L62). I would give a PP to declarer >(a first instance would be a warning) for failing to >follow correct procedure in naming cards from dummy (L45). > Tony (aka ac342) > Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 16:59:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:49:54 +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 KAA03516 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:49:45 +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 RAA22110; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:48:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199907030048.RAA22110@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 02 Jul 1999 19:08:57 PDT." <00d101bec4df$e44daf00$c821accf@hdavis> Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 17:49:00 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > # 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. > > > > and my argument is that trying to determine this "difference" is > > futile. So far, you haven't provided any definition of either "future > > damage" or "consequential damage caused by the revoke" that would > > distinguish it from the other kind of damage. > > > > Probably because I don't think such a distinction is necessary. Damage is > either caused by an infraction, not caused by an infraction, or impossible > to tell. Except you were the one who, in an earlier post, said there was a difference. [example where East revokes with a stiff queen then South finesses into it] > > Can you see how absurd this is? > > No. This is a real score achievable by normal play. However, that normal > play will usually never occur because of the revoke. Actually, I'd consider this to be "highly irrational" play, not "normal". East shows out on the first round of trumps, and South doesn't finesse???? I think even a beginner would get this one right. > However, if S happens > to be a fast player, was intending to finesse against E, and has the spade > Jack on the table because he never noticed the black on black play (this > would never really happen at the table, would it?), 450 is exactly the score > he will likely receive when the dust settles. . . . > > The difference is that 450 is a real potential score, while 520 was indeed a > fantasy. Actually, it's possible to get +520 on the previous hand. East wins with the jack of clubs, but declarer doesn't notice, and on the next trick, leads a club from dummy; East, who is in a daze because he just realized what happens, plays a card without complaint, legalizing the lead out of turn. OK, it's highly improbable, but really no moreso than a declarer refusing to finesse in the other example. (I'll admit that both probabilities are slightly higher than an ice cube's chance in hell, however.) > >In practice, it is > > completely impossible for South to get +450, > > Not impossible, just highly improbable. OK, *practically* impossible. Note, however, that when we adjust scores in other situations by L12C2, we don't consider bizarre occurrences such as defenders throwing away their winners and trumping their partner's winners for no reason and following low to declarer's spot cards, when considering the most unfavorable result that is "at all probable". Nor do we consider the possibility that someone will make an idiotic blunder---even if it's an idiotic blunder that happens to work in the blunderer's favor for some bizarre reason. I don't see why the same principle shouldn't apply here. I'd consider a refusal to finesse on that hand to be a bizarre occurrence, or idiotic blunder, of the same sort. > However, the score is *possible* > and the reason that S cannot achieve it is due to the revoke. IMO the fact > that it was only made possible because of the revoke is irrelevant. Wait . . . the reason South *can* achieve it is due to the revoke, and the reason South *cannot* achieve it is due to the revoke. So because of the revoke, South both can and cannot achieve +450 simultaneously. Sounds like a good place for a quote from _Alice in Wonderland_. This is probably why I've been so vehement about arguing this point: it seems to require assigning a result that can take place only if the revoke both did and did not occur at the same time. It appears that the whole argument is essentially based on a violation of the basic laws of logic. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 20:40:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:40:37 +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 UAA07045 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:40:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip38.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.38]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990703103945.EVQV5292.fep1@ip38.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 12:39:45 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 10:39:48 GMT Message-ID: <3784dd68.2825769@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 Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:28:22 +0100 skrev David Stevenson: >is allowed to change his mind. Presumably therefore he has not actually >played from dummy until he indicates it. That creates a strange situation if no problems occur: When has he actually indicated it? In normal play there will be no reaction from him. That gives declarer a chance to see what his RHO is going to play to the trick and then change his decision, doesn't it? Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 20:40:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:40:26 +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 UAA07048 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:40:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip38.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.38]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990703103951.EVRB5292.fep1@ip38.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 12:39:51 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 10:39:54 GMT Message-ID: <3797e715.5303335@post.tele.dk> References: <44IPSiBtwVf3EwIa@probst.demon.co.uk> <00d701bec50b$75a1c240$c821accf@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <00d701bec50b$75a1c240$c821accf@hdavis> 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 Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:21:00 -0400 skrev Hirsch Davis: >then Dummy has not yet played and the revoke is not established. IMO, "run >the diamonds" is a very clear designation of Declarer's play even though the >format is not as specified in the laws, and the revoke is established. Would you also argue that he must play the cards if for instance he has forgotten a trump and one of the opponents are to lead? I think that the command "run the ..." is a pending order, effected when dummy plays a card. Maybe it should be specifically banned in the laws? Otherwise it should be put down that dummy has the control of the play until the suit is finished or declarer gives a new command - and that command can *not* take back a physically played card (once the play of the suit is started, there is nothing inadvertent about the next card), but it can prevent further play of cards in the suit. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 20:40:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:40:05 +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 UAA07038 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:39:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip38.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.38]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990703103938.EVQQ5292.fep1@ip38.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 12:39:38 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: denominations specified Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 10:39:41 GMT Message-ID: <378ce622.5060281@post.tele.dk> References: <199906151707.NAA17917@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> <377D46B8.8E1EC709@mail.telepac.pt> <379d5619.15825440@post.tele.dk> <377D5E88.157C195C@mail.telepac.pt> In-Reply-To: <377D5E88.157C195C@mail.telepac.pt> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sat, 03 Jul 1999 01:51:51 +0100 skrev Lino Tralhão: >You may have a Notrump contract, a spades contract, ... [Example with law 31A 2a] Let us assume that N in an auction bids 2NT while it was W's turn, and let's further assume that his bid promises diamonds and nothing else. W now intervenes and insist on his bid, and *he* bids 2NT. If N now bids 3D then he has repeated the denomination, although he hasn't repeated the "suit". In that case his partner must pass once. If he bids anything else, his partner must pass for the rest of the auction. The purpose of the word "denomination" is to avoid writing "suit" which would be misleading. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 23:19:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:19:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07834 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:19:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp233-159.worldonline.nl [195.241.233.159]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA10900; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 15:19:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001301bec26e$0e6d7c80$9fe9f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:29:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry I missed the double, but the approach doesn't change. I don't give -850 to the offenders, but the score related to a table result without their infraction of bidding 5C. In that case NS plays 4H and I take the decision to let them make 11 tricks (deciding the score for the offenders), which is questionable but not unreasonable. ton -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 12:12 AM Subject: RE: Adjustment after UI >> From: "Kooijman, A." >> It is astonishing that we do not have a clear, simple and united answer on >> this question. > >Yes, I agree. I thought we had reached consensus some while ago, but >it appears not. I hope BLML can help push us forward. > >> ...adjust the score for EW. We take away the >> undeserves advantage they got with their infraction. My choice would be to >> give them -650, applying 12c2 and assuming that NS could have played better >> in 4H. > >The contract at the table was 5Hx, which would have scored up absent >irrational play by North. I take it you award the OS -850. > >> What to do with NS? Since there was no consequent damage (they should have >> obtained +650 with normal play) there is no reason to adjust their score. > >The NOS would have had +850. If you are letting them keep the table >result, it will be -500. If you were to adjust to what the contract >would have been without the infraction (4H or 4Hx), it will be -100 or >-200. > >I think Ton is awarding -500 (table result) to NS and -850 ("likely" >result in 5Hx) to EW. I hope he will correct me if I'm wrong. > >> If 5C was still a normal bid, not made by less than 25% (?), I don't give a >> procedural penalty. > >No reason for a PP this time. It was a confusing situation, and the >player misjudged the LA's, as any of us might on a bad day. (We all >think we are immune to this, but I don't believe it.) But in a more >normal case, a PP is certainly possible. > >> My suggestion is to adopt this approach, but if you want to wait for a >> couple of months we might have a reconfirmed (?) agreement in the WBF about >> these cases. > >Thanks. That will be great. Please keep us informed. > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 23:26:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:26:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07883 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:25:52 +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 JAA23876 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA05556; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907031325.JAA05556@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:28:22 +0100 skrev David Stevenson: > >>is allowed to change his mind. Presumably therefore he has not actually >>played from dummy until he indicates it. > >That creates a strange situation if no problems occur: When has he >actually indicated it? In normal play there will be no reaction from >him. That gives declarer a chance to see what his RHO is going to play >to the trick and then change his decision, doesn't it? > >Bertel >-- No, I don't think so. I think this would be covered by "could have known". That is, if the declarer could have known that this could hurt his opp, then the director can assign an adjusted score. As well, I thinkany information gleaned from this bad procedure would be UI to the declarer, with the NOs fully protected. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 23:49:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:49:10 +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 XAA08032 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:49:03 +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 IAA02817 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 08:48:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0CPGZ006 Sat, 03 Jul 99 09:02:44 Message-ID: <9907030902.0CPGZ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 99 09:02:44 Subject: ANOTHER REVOKE PROB To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Earlier discussions of the instruction "Run the clubs" both here and B>at EBU Panel weekends have tended to agree that bridge is played one B>trick at a time, A player who claims 12 tricks after the opening lead has played one trick at a time? Roger Pewick so that the instruction is not one that has to be B>followed, and really constitutes a statement of intent. Thus declarer B>is allowed to change his mind. Presumably therefore he has not actually B>played from dummy until he indicates it. Thus the revoke is not B>established. B>-- B>David Stevenson B>Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: B>http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 3 23:52:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:52:33 +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 XAA08066 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:52:22 +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 PAA15136; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 15:51:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA02977; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 15:51:41 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 15:51:41 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Kooijman, A." cc: "'John Probst'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Book on movements In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1BC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Kooijman, A. wrote: (On the movement/balance discussion) > They certainly have, there were three experts involved, each with his own > expertise. Hans Olof Hallen, a former assistent chief TD of the EBL and an > expert in movements for decades was one of them. Then they had a > mathematical profesor who had his computers running for weeks to get the > best movements out of it. That doesn't mean a thing. Did you ever read Frederic Frost's book on "probabilities in contract bridge"? The whole book can be explained with 1 simple formula that any senior high-school kid can derive in half an hour. However, using the formula to calculate all cases in the book took a couple of years (in the pre-pocket calculator era). The same goes for Hallen's book. Hallen et al use a certain metric to calculate the balance of a movement. This is a simple calculation in itself but in any movement, there are a lot of ways one can arrow-switch. For example: take a simple 7 table, 7 round Mitchell. One can arrow switch in 1, 2 or 3 rounds (since arrow switching in N rounds is equivalent to arrow-switching the other 7-N). For the one round switches, there are 7 possibilities, for 2 rounds 21, for 3 rounds 35. That's 63 possible combinations, and it will be even more if you allow for partial arrow switches. Calculating the balance for all of them, then selecting the best one takes time, even though the individual calculations are simple. The same would happen if we replace Hallen's metric by John's metric. However, what Hallen et al forget to discuss (and what is far more interesting in my opinion) are the merits of the metric that is being used and that's what we're doing at the moment. The better the metric, the better the movement. > There is just one disadvantage, it is too heavy to put in my > suitcase as long as my wife joins me to championships. There are 2 simple solutions to that. Your wife (and most TD's) will prefer the one where the book is put on CD-rom :-) Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 4 03:07:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 03:07:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA09524 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 03:07:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem102.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.230] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 110TGM-0004ZS-00; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 18:07:39 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Steve Willner'" , Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 18:06:29 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan --------------------------------------------------------- The universe is not hostile, nor is it friendly. It is simply indifferent. - Holmes. --oooOOooo-- > From: Kooijman, A. > To: 'Steve Willner' ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: Adjustment after UI > Date: 01 July 1999 10:34 > > It is astonishing that we do not have a clear, simple and united answer on > this question ----- \x/ -------- ++++ Is it not an even greater surprise when there is general agreement on something? ++++ > Mentioning Kaplan, I want to say that there is not such a > thing as the Kaplan doctrine with te interpretation as given in the answers > on this question so far. ---------- \x/ ------------- ++++ Well, yes and no. Edgar was quite prepared to see two different interpretations of a law - he considered that where there was strong pressure for the law to provide something he knew the ACBL would not entertain, the law had to be worded so as to allow of either interpretation. In one case, certainly, he allowed two different laws to offer different answers to the same question - and said so -"the Director can make up his mind which to follow" (for 'Director' read 'regulating authority'). This was his philosophy. I am highly pleased at the efforts now in hand to achieve a single interpretation of law and to make rulings and appeals as consistent as possible throughout the game. I have committed myself to the argument that the only way to achieve this is to express the laws in unarguable language, putting into the Law Book statements that were left to interpretation and commentary when Kaplan was the pilot. Meanwhile you may notice an abnormal tendency (in me) not to commit myself too far in some threads ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 4 04:14:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 04:14:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA10025 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 04:14:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem116.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.116] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 110UIg-00069k-00; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 19:14:07 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 19:12:58 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan --------------------------------------------------------- The universe is not hostile, nor is it friendly. It is simply indifferent. - Holmes. --oooOOooo-- ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem > Date: 02 July 1999 23:28 > > ------------ \x/ -------------- > Earlier discussions of the instruction "Run the clubs" both here and > at EBU Panel weekends have tended to agree that bridge is played one > trick at a time, so that the instruction is not one that has to be > followed, and really constitutes a statement of intent. Thus declarer > is allowed to change his mind. Presumably therefore he has not actually > played from dummy until he indicates it. Thus the revoke is not > established. > > I do not like it one single bit! L45B tells us how dummy's card is > played, and that procedure has not been followed, so dummy's card is not > played. Therefore the revoke is not established. Yuk! > -------------- \x/ ---------------- +++ The case is arguable. But it is not practical bridge, is it? Consider how often dummy is told to run a suit, he plays the next card of it, and declarer is satisfied. If it is said that card is not played, declarer's RHO has to sit there and wait for something to happen. Is that how the game is played in practice? Or do all four players know the trick is in progress? If so, then there must have been some kind of communication to trigger the lead. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 4 06:27:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA11161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 06:27:59 +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 GAA11155 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 06:27:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-231-34.s288.tnt7.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.231.34]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA28227 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 16:27:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002a01bec592$6245ef00$22e7a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <44IPSiBtwVf3EwIa@probst.demon.co.uk> <00d701bec50b$75a1c240$c821accf@hdavis> <3797e715.5303335@post.tele.dk> Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 16:26:50 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Bertel Lund Hansen To: Sent: Saturday, July 03, 1999 6:39 AM Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem > Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:21:00 -0400 skrev Hirsch Davis: > > >then Dummy has not yet played and the revoke is not established. IMO, "run > >the diamonds" is a very clear designation of Declarer's play even though the > >format is not as specified in the laws, and the revoke is established. > > Would you also argue that he must play the cards if for instance he > has forgotten a trump and one of the opponents are to lead? > I'm not sure what you're asking. If one of the opponents is on lead, then it is not yet Dummy's turn to play, and Declarer can cancel his order to run the suit (if we allow such an order in the first place). > I think that the command "run the ..." is a pending order, effected > when dummy plays a card. > I agree, but the order is not effected when Dummy plays the card, but when it becomes legal for Dummy to play the card, that is, immediately after the previous trick is complete. Declarer does not get the benefit of Dummy's mechanics to change his mind. > Maybe it should be specifically banned in the laws? Otherwise it > should be put down that dummy has the control of the play until the > suit is finished or declarer gives a new command - and that command > can *not* take back a physically played card (once the play of the > suit is started, there is nothing inadvertent about the next card), > but it can prevent further play of cards in the suit. > Dummy's card is not played when it is "physically" played, it is played when designated by Declarer. To be very concete, let's say we allow the command "run the diamonds". The top diamond is played from Dummy, and all four players follow in turn. In the normal course of events, Declarer would now have to name a card, at which point it would be considered played, and Dummy would then physically move the card. However, with the command in place, Declarer has already named the card. If the command is allowed, then the card to be played has already been specified by Declarer. It is immediately played upon conclusion of the previous trick, regardless of Dummy's physical act of moving it. The only issue is whether the way Declarer designated the card is legal. I don't think there's a bridge player outside of the novice game who doesn't know exactly which rank and denomination is specified by the command "run the diamonds", so we clearly know which card is played. The only question is whether or not it is legal to so designate it before it is actually Dummy's turn to play to the trick in question. > Bertel > -- > Denmark, Europe > http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 4 08:31:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 08:31:28 +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 IAA11953 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 08:31:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.123.107]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19990703223336.MCQ112692.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 10:33:36 +1200 Message-ID: <377E8C11.B978FF8A@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 10:17:53 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: Damage? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How do you rule in this case? Matchpoints Dealer South All Vul 52 104 AK87654 102 108 AQ943 AQ8632 KJ9 Q10 932 874 QJ KJ76 75 J AK9653 W N E S 1D(1) 1H 2D(2) 3D(3) P 3H P P Dbl(4) P 4D Dbl All Pass (1) 11-15 pts, 2 or 3 suited unbalanced no five card major. (2) Limited and not forcing, 1NT would be an artificial GF. (3) Unassuming cue-bid implying heart support. (4) At this point south asked about the 3D bid and was told "Asks for a stopper for NT". The correct explanation above was not given until the end of the hand. Double is Takeout up to 3S. There is a clear infraction, MI. South claims damage based on a distorted view of East's hand. He can picture two clubs?, 2 diamonds (since no stopper), and a likely well placed SK, given the NT probe, plus possible diamond ruff(s). He also places North with likely heart length (3 or 4) since primary support has not been shown. And so expects North to pass this double often. On the other hand, with the correct explanation there is no implication of diamond tricks or heart length in partner's hand. Therefore South contends in the absence of MI the hand likely belongs to the opponents and he will not double. Wayne mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 4 12:26:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 12:26:07 +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 MAA13323 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 12:25:58 +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, 3 Jul 1999 22:26:57 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <378ce622.5060281@post.tele.dk> References: <377D5E88.157C195C@mail.telepac.pt> <199906151707.NAA17917@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> <377D46B8.8E1EC709@mail.telepac.pt> <379d5619.15825440@post.tele.dk> <377D5E88.157C195C@mail.telepac.pt> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 22:18:36 -0400 To: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: denominations specified Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:39 AM -0400 7/3/99, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >The purpose of the word "denomination" is to avoid writing "suit" >which would be misleading. Um. I always thought the reason "denomination" is used is because "notrump" is not a suit. Not quite the same thing. L31A speaks to whether the corrected call repeats "the denomination of his bid out of rotation." Seems to me that if the bid was 2NT, the denomination of that bid was NT, whatever the bid showed. So if he now bids 3D, 31A2B applies, not 31A2A. 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/AwUBN37GK72UW3au93vOEQK5YACeL1NgjrKOgid5zMSSf1q5fpqvkCoAoIok q2gRLVFJx9Vkg9dFnwKpDfXh =FltA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 4 12:35:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 12:35:19 +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 MAA13418 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 12:35:12 +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, 3 Jul 1999 22:36:10 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 22:29:51 -0400 To: "Grattan" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: establishment Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:48 AM -0400 7/1/99, Grattan wrote: > I did agree with Kaplan that from the moment he announces >his discovery the player MUST rectify his error and no subsequent illegal >act by any other player can affect this. I continue with this shared >opinion. I respect your opinion Grattan, but I fear I must repeat my previous question: if this is the case, then why does law 63A1 contain the parenthetical clause "any such play, legal *or illegal* [emphasis mine] establishes the revoke"? Put another way, what is the purpose of that clause? 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/AwUBN37IVb2UW3au93vOEQIDJACcCviRvg9gZM8n51A8EZ3tVWCmS6oAoKxI DoDXkrERKszeBJPfATi3RzJQ =J4kQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 4 19:17:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:17:55 +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 TAA15985 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:17:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem49.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.49] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 110iOe-0007Lf-00; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 10:17:13 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: Subject: Re: establishment Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 09:46:42 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan --------------------------------------------------------- The universe is not hostile, nor is it friendly. It is simply indifferent. - Holmes. --oooOOooo-- > From: Ed Reppert > To: Grattan > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: establishment > Date: 04 July 1999 03:29 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 3:48 AM -0400 7/1/99, Grattan wrote: > > I did agree with Kaplan that from the moment he announces > >his discovery the player MUST rectify his error and no subsequent illegal > >act by any other player can affect this. I continue with this shared > >opinion. > > I respect your opinion Grattan, but I fear I must repeat my previous > question: if this is the case, then why does law 63A1 contain the > parenthetical clause "any such play, legal *or illegal* [emphasis mine] > establishes the revoke"? Put another way, what is the purpose of that > clause? > ++++ It applies when the infractor does not draw attention to his fault before the revoke is established i.e. when the conditions in 62A1 do not exist and its prior compulsory requirement is not therefore to be complied with. The use of 'must' in 62A1 was deliberate, and also the placement of this law at the front, to make it override less forceful statements in the remainder of 62 and in Law 63. It is a stronger statement than that in 63A1, for example. Regards ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 4 19:19:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA16010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:19:16 +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 TAA16000 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:18:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem49.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.49] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 110iOc-0007Lf-00; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 10:17:11 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "John Probst" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 09:22:03 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan --------------------------------------------------------- The universe is not hostile, nor is it friendly. It is simply indifferent. - Holmes. --oooOOooo-- ---------- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > To: Grattan > Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem > Date: 04 July 1999 02:33 > > In article 01.core.theplanet.net>, Grattan writes > > snip > >> ---------------- \x/ ------------------- > >Declarer has already made his intention known to dummy and at this > >juncture I think there is a dumb communication with partner - a > >look or even just an air of expectancy - which would constitute a > >means by which declarer "otherwise designates a card to be played > >to the following trick" [Law 63A2]. That is what I would go for; has > >any genius a better thought? ------------------------------ \x/ ------ > I had thought this grattan, but I also thought that declarer could say > "No Stop" before dummy picks the card up. That's why I thought the > revoke becomes established round about the point where it is picked up > by dummy, rather than when it reaches the played position. > > It does seem to me that declarer can stop the play of the Queen, in > which case it is not yet played. But I was very sympathetic to your > position too. rgds john > ++++ Yes, I have no quarrel with much of that. But I do not accept that it is in conformity with the practical evidence to say that the card is not yet played, and I think blml should not debate the matter in an ivory tower. I think I have to move my instant of establishment somewhat, maybe to the point where declarer confirms that the card is played by following to the trick, although your suggested point looks wholly sound to me. I abide with my view that after the previous trick is played it is manifest that at a point not later than declarer's play from hand (legal or illegal) declarer has mutely conveyed to dummy the desire to continue as earlier instructed. The question in my mind is not 'whether?' - not even 'how?' which matters little - but 'when?'. It is also to be adjudged that the card from dummy is played prior to the play from hand, even if the two events were to be considered simultaneous [Law 58A]. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ p.s. I hope you do not mind, John, my copying this to blml. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 4 21:23:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA16949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 21:23:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA16943 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 21:23:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp204-176.worldonline.nl [195.241.204.176]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA20128; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 13:23:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001601bec2e7$fd984000$62d2f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan" , Subject: Another 'thing' Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:02:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Grattan >--------------------------------------------------------- >The universe is not hostile, nor is it friendly. >It is simply indifferent. - Holmes. > --oooOOooo-- If it was your famous Sherlock I keep silent, otherwise I want to inform you about this phrase: The best proof for extraterrestrial intelligence is the fact that 'they' never tried to get in touch with us. ton From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 5 00:31:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA17650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 00:31:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17644 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 00:31:07 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id pXAHa10575 (4243) for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 10:29:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 10:29:44 EDT Subject: Back from 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 back from a great holiday in the Florida Keys and a tournament in Fort Lauderdale. I just finished scanning 420 messages from BLML and am thoroughly confused. think I'll start with a clean slate from here. If anybody wants my opinion on anything please write on my slate, otherwise I think I'll probably be chasing around in circles and/or my tail. (Careful now, no sick humor!) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 5 03:57:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 03:57:23 +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 DAA18654 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 03:57:14 +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 110qVl-0004RE-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 17:57:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:54:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fifth Friday & Revoke & claim (new) References: <377C30D2.5F428A50@pinehurst.net> <37894db1.13673055@post.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <37894db1.13673055@post.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >But as I wrote we need more information. [Reading L63.3... ] > >I just find that I'm not sure how that law is to be understood. So far >I've thougt that any claim/concession from OS establishes the revoke. >I still think so. But I also thought that it would be established if >OS accepts a claim or a concession from the NOS. Now I'm not so sure. >Is it so? Yes: L63.3 includes "... or acquiesces ...". -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 5 04:50:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 04:50:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA18946 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 04:49:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem46.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.174] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 110rKf-00034i-00; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:49:42 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: establishment Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:41:11 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan --------------------------------------------------------- The universe is not hostile, nor is it friendly. It is simply indifferent. - Holmes. --oooOOooo-- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: establishment > Date: 15 June 1999 20:48 > > > From: Schoderb@aol.com > > And where does this > > leave the provision of Law 81C5, and the many TDs and ACs on this mortal coil? > Steve W. replied: > This one, at least, I think I can answer ------------------------ \x/ -------------------------- > > 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.) ---------------- \x/ ----------------- ++++ I like the 'poor' bit - actually the melee that goes on provides me with entertainment, and not everything disputed gets into my list of priorities. Indeed if I think the thread is just a procedural wrangle I delete it unread. I agree with Bill Schoder that until the Committee changes something we are where we were before; the problem is perhaps to know where that is at times but it is up to the members of WBFLC to sort it out corporately. I am urging an agreed procedure for doing this, bearing in mind that WBFLC members are rejecting new departures without intra-committee discussion. But I doubt we are going to wait until 2007 to sort out the legacy we have been handed. If the WBF succeeds in moving towards a universal jurisprudence of bridge law I am convinced (and have urged) that the decisions must be incorporated unambiguously in the Laws, and at once. There is no other way to tie down maverick opinion, nor indeed to reach the outback ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 5 09:11:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 09:11:08 +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 JAA20169 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 09:10:54 +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 110vPB-0006SH-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:10:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:44:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >Grattan >--------------------------------------------------------- >The universe is not hostile, nor is it friendly. >It is simply indifferent. - Holmes. > --oooOOooo-- > >---------- >> From: David Stevenson >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem >> Date: 02 July 1999 23:28 >> > >------------ \x/ -------------- >> Earlier discussions of the instruction "Run the clubs" both here and >> at EBU Panel weekends have tended to agree that bridge is played one >> trick at a time, so that the instruction is not one that has to be >> followed, and really constitutes a statement of intent. Thus declarer >> is allowed to change his mind. Presumably therefore he has not actually >> played from dummy until he indicates it. Thus the revoke is not >> established. >> >> I do not like it one single bit! L45B tells us how dummy's card is >> played, and that procedure has not been followed, so dummy's card is not >> played. Therefore the revoke is not established. Yuk! >> >-------------- \x/ ---------------- > >+++ The case is arguable. But it is not practical bridge, is it? >Consider how often dummy is told to run a suit, he plays the >next card of it, and declarer is satisfied. If it is said that card >is not played, declarer's RHO has to sit there and wait for >something to happen. Is that how the game is played in >practice? Or do all four players know the trick is in >progress? If so, then there must have been some kind of >communication to trigger the lead. ~ Grattan ~ +++ Sure. But the corollary is that if you do consider that "Run the clubs" is a legal and binding designation [despite not being mentioned in the Laws as such] then you do not allow declarer to change his mind - and we have said both here and at Panel weekends with you present that declarer is allowed to change his mind, and you have not [as far as I remember] disagreed. As far as practical bridge is concerned I do not see a problem. If declarer has said "Run the clubs" then when a trick is finished and dummy reaches for the next club, declarer will say something if he does not wish it to be played. Fine, that is practical, and if nothing goes wrong, few people argue, but it does not make it a legal way of playing a card. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 5 09:11:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 09:11:03 +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 JAA20170 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 09:10:54 +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 110vPB-000Nuv-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:10:39 +0000 Message-ID: <8mZk9hA+16f3EwZm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:52:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: establishment References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >Grattan >--------------------------------------------------------- >"Perhaps the greatest consolation of the oppressed is >to consider themselves superior to their tyrants." - Julien Green. > > -ooOoo- > >---------- >> From: Grattan >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; David Stevenson > >> Cc: William (Kojak) Schoder >> Subject: Re: establishment >> Date: 01 July 1999 08:48 >> >> Grattan >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> "Perhaps the greatest consolation of the oppressed is >> to consider themselves superior to their tyrants." - Julien Green. >> >> -ooOoo- >> ---------- >> I wrote: >> +++ As you remark, I saw no reason to state my position twice. When >> I quote a specific discussion and agreement with Kaplan, you may believe >> me or not as you like. I realize you are entitled to think your opinion >> superior to his, but since he had more responsibility for this Law than >> either of us I do think his stance of interest. Kojak will speak for >himself >> but those able to penetrate his irony may well perceive what he is saying. >> **Accident or purposeful the next player's action is still an infraction.** >> I did agree with Kaplan that from the moment he announces >> his discovery the player MUST rectify his error and no subsequent illegal >> act by any other player can affect this. I continue with this shared >> opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +++ >> > II >++ Just to tidy this up before DWS gets his breath back. > ** Accident or purposeful the partner's action is illegal if deemed > a play of the card, and irrelevant to the issue if not.** > ++ > All I am trying to get you to do, Grattan, is to explain matters, rather than just state them as undeniable truths despite the fact that they do not seem that way, While you were in Malta, Kojak explained Kaplan's position on this to us. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 5 09:11:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 09:11:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20171 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 09:10:57 +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 110vPF-0003xf-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:10:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:55:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ANOTHER REVOKE PROB References: <9907030902.0CPGZ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> In-Reply-To: <9907030902.0CPGZ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: > >B>Earlier discussions of the instruction "Run the clubs" both here and >B>at EBU Panel weekends have tended to agree that bridge is played one >B>trick at a time, > >A player who claims 12 tricks after the opening lead has played one trick at >a time? No, he has claimed. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 5 10:27:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 10:27:34 +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 KAA20551 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 10:27:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveich.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.145]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA02064 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 20:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990704202435.011e69bc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 20:24:35 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Damage? In-Reply-To: <377E8C11.B978FF8A@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:17 AM 7/4/99 +1200, Wayne wrote: >How do you rule in this case? > >Matchpoints >Dealer South >All Vul > > 52 > 104 > AK87654 > 102 >108 AQ943 >AQ8632 KJ9 >Q10 932 >874 QJ > KJ76 > 75 > J > AK9653 > >W N E S > 1D(1) >1H 2D(2) 3D(3) P >3H P P Dbl(4) >P 4D Dbl All Pass > >(1) 11-15 pts, 2 or 3 suited unbalanced no five card major. >(2) Limited and not forcing, 1NT would be an artificial GF. >(3) Unassuming cue-bid implying heart support. >(4) At this point south asked about the 3D bid and was told "Asks for >a stopper for NT". The correct explanation above was not given until >the end of the hand. Double is Takeout up to 3S. > >There is a clear infraction, MI. > >South claims damage based on a distorted view of East's hand. He can >picture two clubs?, 2 diamonds (since no stopper), and a likely well >placed SK, given the NT probe, plus possible diamond ruff(s). He also >places North with likely heart length (3 or 4) since primary support has >not been shown. And so expects North to pass this double often. > >On the other hand, with the correct explanation there is no implication >of diamond tricks or heart length in partner's hand. > >Therefore South contends in the absence of MI the hand likely belongs to >the opponents and he will not double. > If it's up to me, the result stands (presumably, 4D dbld down 1), though I don't expect this to be the majority position. To receive redress for damage, it is not enough that the opponents commit an infraction and you get a poor result; it must also be the case that your damage is a consequence of the infraction. This is of course the basis for the Kaplan doctrine, but it actually has a broader significance than that controversial principle. In general, the Kaplan doctrine refers to the obligation of the NOS to continue to play bridge to at least some minimum degree of competence after the infraction in order to be entitled to redress. Failing that, the NOS may be denied redress if their incompetence is judged so egregious that it, and not the infraction, can be reasonably blamed for their bad score. Even so, the OS will still be charged with the L12C2 adjustment if it would otherwise have applied. But to get to that point (and I appreciate that many here do not accept that doctrine in the first place), we must still reach a threshhold question, once we have determined that an infraction has occurred and that the NOS have suffered damage. That question is whether the damage resulted from the infraction. South has spun a pretty tale of how he might have passed with a correct explanation, but I've got serious doubts. One of his key arguments is that with a correct explanation, he would not have counted on his partner to hold cashing diamond tricks. But his partner DID have cashing diamond tricks, so his "misapprehension" on this point was actually a correct inference. That he mistakenly credited partner with a trump stack on this auction seems like just a case of wishful thinking. Anyway, his double was headed for success. The MI has given his side a chance to convert a below average score of +100 (since 3D should make) into a top of +200. It is partner's 4D bid which deprives them of the good score they could have had, not the MI. And, if North was willing to take out partner's penalty double of 3H, he might well have bid 4D without the double. After all, his hand is not so poor for defense as it might be, and the double hardly makes it worse. Notice that this analysis does require us to find any egregious misplay by NS; indeed there was none. Either North or South might have bid differently but neither action was a gross error (although the double by South was, IMO, wrong). It is simply a matter of judging whether the MI, rather than the subsequent development of the auction, was the primary causal agent. As I said, I expect to be in the minority on this one, but what else is new? ;) Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 5 11:55:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 11:55:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20992 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 11:55:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm6-7.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.204]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA22603; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 21:55:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <378010F1.545082A5@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 21:57:06 -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: Fifth Friday & Revoke & claim (new) References: <377C30D2.5F428A50@pinehurst.net> <11KXrlAL+Tf3Ewps@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes, the director awarded declarer one trick, stating the offender did not win the revoke trick, one trick will be transferred. (he did not read from the law book. He doesn't even have one nearby.) Then declarer hit the roof., said he deserved two tricks!!! Which of course he did. Partner of declarer said, boy, she sure knows when to revoke!! This upset the person who had misplayed as she felt it was a suggestion that she was cheating and, now, this has been discussed all over the community. The Director is in his late seventies and has been directing for nearly fifty years and feels he doesn't need a law book. I suggested to the players involved that next time they question his rulings to ask him politely to read it from the book to them. He did state to one of the players the next day that his ruling might not have been correct. He often allows poor behavior by players and from the complaints about this ruling has said he will talk to declarer about holding his temper! Fireworks and wild celebrations here tonight. Have heard that the sign on the British Embassy in Washington, DC says "Due to circumstances beyond our control, we are closed today!" ;-)) David Stevenson wrote: > Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > >Declarer has three cards 9, 8, 4 of spades which is trump. Declarer > >leads the 9 of spades and LHO who holds the K, 7 of spades and the > >Diamond T plays the T of D. Declarer now claims stating that LHO has > >revoked. He is not aware of the 7 spades in LHO's hand. He thinks only > >the K is outstanding. As he claims, he says there has been a revoke and > >the rest are mine! The director awarded one trick to declarer stating > >"they did not win the revoke trick so one trick to declarer.. Declarer > >feels he should get 2 tricks, one for the revoke and the other for > >winning a trick with a card that could have been played on the revoke > >trick. Which is it? > > Let us consult the Law book. Declarer claims as the DT was played. > The TD is called, and he opens his Law book, and reads from it. > > I cannot copy the Law as usual because I have not sorted out my > computer problems, but if you look at L63A you will see that the revoke > is not established. I infer from what you have told us that the defence > did not accept this claim for all the tricks! > > So the player corrects his card and there is no revoke penalty. > > However, I find it difficult to believe what you have written: is > there something you are not telling us? Declarer has 984 of trumps, the > defence K7 and a diamond, and the TD gave declarer one trick when he is > getting two without the revoke. Is that really correct? > > If the position is as you said then there is no revoke penalty and > declarer will get his two tricks. > > -------- > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > >This is a very different problem, and has nothing to do with the other > >discussion. Declarer was correct, and the TD was wrong. Declarer has won > >one trick. The next two tricks are won by W, but since at least one of them > >was won by a card that could have legally been played to the revoke trick, > >it is a two trick penalty. The TD really should have checked the Law Book. > > If the revoke had been established this would have been correct. > > -- > David Stevenson > > Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 5 20:15:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 20:15:37 +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 UAA22882 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 20:15:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-93-206.uunet.be [194.7.93.206]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13708 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:15:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37808181.17D90E5A@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 11:57:21 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Sure. But the corollary is that if you do consider that "Run the > clubs" is a legal and binding designation [despite not being mentioned > in the Laws as such] then you do not allow declarer to change his mind - > and we have said both here and at Panel weekends with you present that > declarer is allowed to change his mind, and you have not [as far as I > remember] disagreed. > > As far as practical bridge is concerned I do not see a problem. If > declarer has said "Run the clubs" then when a trick is finished and > dummy reaches for the next club, declarer will say something if he does > not wish it to be played. Fine, that is practical, and if nothing goes > wrong, few people argue, but it does not make it a legal way of playing > a card. > I would consider "run the clubs" to be a legal designation for one trick at a time. Of course once one of them gets ruffed, the designation stops. And also if declarer says "stop", the designation has ended. But also, I consider the next club to be a named card once the previous trick is quitted. I would never recommend using that particular form of shorthand. Rather, I use the shorthand of saying "yes" to dummy to indicate that I continue playing the suit. I know, insufficient indication, but the "unless the intention of declarer is incontrovertible" makes it correct after all... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 6 02:19:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 02:19:13 +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 CAA24630 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 02:19:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl3.philips.com with ESMTP id SAA20213 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:18:58 +0200 (MEST) (envelope-from Con.Holzscherer@ehv.sc.philips.com) Received: from smtprelay-eur1.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl3.philips.com via mwrap (4.0a) id xma020211; Mon, 5 Jul 99 18:18:58 +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 SAA01625 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:18:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ehv.sc.philips.com (sydney.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.213]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id SAA19399; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:18:53 +0200 (METDST) Message-ID: <3780DAEC.DE6D82AE@ehv.sc.philips.com> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 18:18:52 +0200 From: Con Holzscherer Organization: Systems Laboratory Eindhoven (PS-SLE) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/820) X-Accept-Language: en-US, en, nl, de-DE, nl-BE, de-AT, af, fr, it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- References: <066401bec31f$f17c24c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <025601bec3f2$4e3a5420$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 Laws Commission feels that the phrase "at most 40% of the > available matchpoints" should refer to a pair being awarded the > remaining matchpoints when they have committed an offense against a > pair whose percent score is greater than 60% (i.e., Top minus 63% of > Top when the non-offending side has achieved 63% on all other boards > played.)" > > The current ACBLScor program incorporates this policy. .... > some people agreeing with this [censored] interpretation. > Why on earth should the OS's adjusted score > depend on how well the NOS is doing in the session? I don't think the idea is at all ridiculous. A pair that scores an average of 63%, has an 'expected' score against an average pair of 63%. The hypothetical 'average pair' has an expected score against the giants of 37%. So, this pair would obtain an advantage by not playing a board (thru a fault of there own) against the giants if they would get 40% instead of their expected value of 37%. So, they would profit from committing an infraction! > How could anyone believe this was the intent of L12C1? I do not believe that this was the intention of the Lawmakers, but the question is not really relevant. The WBFLC has spoken and told us how we should interpret this law. ......... > Let's hope that the ACBL adopts the WBFLC's official method of > handling avg- for *all* average minuses, I agree. > since it is the only one that makes sense. I do not agree. I do think that relating an artificial score to the expected result [which depends on the strength of both pairs] makes eminent sense. Con Holzscherer Systems Laboratory Eindhoven, Philips Semiconductors B.V. E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 6 09:34:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:34:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA26454 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:30:12 +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 111IAl-000O7i-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 23:29:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 00:17:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Damage? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990704202435.011e69bc@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19990704202435.011e69bc@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >At 10:17 AM 7/4/99 +1200, Wayne wrote: >>How do you rule in this case? >> >>Matchpoints >>Dealer South >>All Vul >> >> 52 >> 104 >> AK87654 >> 102 >>108 AQ943 >>AQ8632 KJ9 >>Q10 932 >>874 QJ >> KJ76 >> 75 >> J >> AK9653 >> >>W N E S >> 1D(1) >>1H 2D(2) 3D(3) P >>3H P P Dbl(4) >>P 4D Dbl All Pass >> >>(1) 11-15 pts, 2 or 3 suited unbalanced no five card major. >>(2) Limited and not forcing, 1NT would be an artificial GF. >>(3) Unassuming cue-bid implying heart support. >>(4) At this point south asked about the 3D bid and was told "Asks for >>a stopper for NT". The correct explanation above was not given until >>the end of the hand. Double is Takeout up to 3S. >> >>There is a clear infraction, MI. >> >>South claims damage based on a distorted view of East's hand. He can >>picture two clubs?, 2 diamonds (since no stopper), and a likely well >>placed SK, given the NT probe, plus possible diamond ruff(s). He also >>places North with likely heart length (3 or 4) since primary support has >>not been shown. And so expects North to pass this double often. The question I am asking myself is "what sort of hand can East have for a 3D bid?" So according to the explanation he now can't play in NT. Where did he expect to play if pard didn't have a stopper? Given his pass of 3H, he clearly could play in 3H. So explanation or no, South's action is absurd. For me result stands. chs 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 Jul 6 11:17:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:17:34 +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 LAA27096 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:17:22 +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 VAA03755 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA19527 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:17:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:17:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907060117.VAA19527@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Damage? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >W N E S > > 1D(1) > >1H 2D(2) 3D(3) P > >3H P P Dbl(4) > >P 4D Dbl All Pass > >(4) At this point south asked about the 3D bid and was told "Asks for > >a stopper for NT". The correct explanation above was not given until > >the end of the hand. Double is Takeout up to 3S. > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Anyway, his double was headed for success. The MI has given his side a > chance to convert a below average score of +100 (since 3D should make) into > a top of +200. It is partner's 4D bid which deprives them of the good score > they could have had, not the MI. And, if North was willing to take out > partner's penalty double of 3H, he might well have bid 4D without the > double. After all, his hand is not so poor for defense as it might be, and > the double hardly makes it worse. Michael seems to have overlooked a couple of key points: 1. The double of 3H was takeout. 2. Without the double of 3H, North would not have had another turn to bid. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with his conclusion that the result stands. Correct information -- the existence of a heart fit for EW -- would have made South's takeout double _more_ attractive and likewise North's 4D bid. But perhaps there's a point of analysis I've overlooked. Still, South's argument that he made a takeout double because he was expecting partner to have good cards in the opponents' suit is not one I find very convincing. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 6 15:05:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:05:18 +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 PAA27995 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:05:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA18582 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 22:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001701bec76d$1645fa00$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883749BBF2@xion.spase.nl><001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F399@xion.spase.nl> Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 22:02:22 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Martin Sinot wrote: > >Marvin L. French wrote: > > >>I thought there was some sort of "complement" rule when artificial > >>scores are awarded at the same table. Avg+ gets 60% or session > >>percentage, whichever is greater, and avg- gets what is left over. Not > >>true? Just ACBL? Nowhere? > > >Not true. Avg+ gets the greater of 60% and session percentage, while > >avg- gets the lesser of 40% and session percentage. This need not be > >complementary. Your complement ruling wouldn't be fair; someone gets > >a heavier penalty if his/her opponents are playing better! Not *my* complementary rule, but that of the ACBL Laws Commission. > > You know, I'm with Marvin: I think the rule exists, even though it is > grossly unfair [some PTF nonsense, I presume]. I think I have seen it > in the ACBL literature somewhere. > Good memory. It was an ACBL Laws Commission interpretation, spring 1998, that I found in the ACBLScor Tech Files. It has been incorporated into the scoring software. Moreover, despite the WBFLC interpretation of avg-, coming from Lille last year, ACBLScor assigns a 40% score to all one-sided avg- adjustments. The WBF LC interpretation was: 4. Consideration was given to the meaning of 'average minus' where used in L12C1. Having debated the options, the Committee held that 'average minus' means the player's session percentage or 40%, whichever is less. No doubt the debated (and rejected) options included the ACBL LC's "complementary rule." I speculate that the ACBL LC looked at the phrase "available matchpoints" in L12C and decided that it was illegal to adjust with two unbalanced scores whose total exceeds top on a board. That doesn't make sense either, since avg+/avg+ is a frequent adjustment when both sides are not at fault, but I can't think of any other rationale they might have used Is it possible that the ACBL LC doesn't know that the By-Laws of the World Bridge Federation state that the WBF LC is responsible for interpreting the Laws? While other LCs may offer interpretations when it seems necessary, their interpretations can only be considered tentative, pending WBFLC agreement. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 6 15:25:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:25:24 +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 PAA28066 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:25:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA20945 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 22:25:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009501bec76f$e4ceadc0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199906302302.TAA15840@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 22:22:41 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > >So far, everyone has given both sides the result of actual play, i.e. > >nine tricks. The only question has been what contract to score those > >nine tricks in. Anybody want to argue for a different number of tricks > >for one side or the other? Other comments? > > Well, you have not given us the hand. If eleven tricks were cold, > then it is likely that N/S would have made 4H even though they went two > off in 5H. > > My own instinct for the ruling is that since N/S took an action that > was irrational, wild or gambling, that they keep their table score. > E/W, on the other hand should get done for the worst reasonable amount > that would have occurred without the infraction, which seems to be > eleven tricks in 4H. > > So I give N/S -500, E/W -650. > > Are we then to assume that if there is a revoke by the NOS, the OS score assigned should not include any benefit from the revoke? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 7 00:16:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 00:16:34 +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 AAA00792 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 00:16:19 +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 KAA18878 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA19854 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:16:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:16:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907061416.KAA19854@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >>I thought there was some sort of "complement" rule when artificial > > >>scores are awarded at the same table. Avg+ gets 60% or session > > >>percentage, whichever is greater, and avg- gets what is left over. > From: "Marvin L. French" > Not *my* complementary rule, but that of the ACBL Laws Commission. > I speculate that the ACBL LC looked at the phrase "available > matchpoints" in L12C and decided that it was illegal to adjust with > two unbalanced scores whose total exceeds top on a board. That doesn't > make sense either, since avg+/avg+ is a frequent adjustment when both > sides are not at fault, but I can't think of any other rationale they > might have used I can think of another rationale. A villain is playing happily along when Meckwell (or another top pair) sit down at his table. They are probably having a 70% game in an average field. "What to do?" he thinks. "I know... I'll foul the boards and take 40%. That may not be great, but at least it will beat what I probably would have gotten if we had played the boards." The ACBL rule removes any possible benefit from the above ploy. That is not to say the rule is wise or fair or correct, but it's not ridiculous either. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 7 01:11:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 01:11:24 +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 BAA01055 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 01:11:17 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id vORQa18193 (14365); Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:08:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:08:15 EDT Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- 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 7/6/99 10:19:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > The ACBL rule removes any possible benefit from the above ploy. That > is not to say the rule is wise or fair or correct, but it's not > ridiculous either. What is ridiculous is to make "Bandaid Rules" to stop nefarious practices by bad guys. Rules should be made to regulate the game as provided for in the Laws. It is not too difficult to stop the kind of thing this ploy refers to. Give 'em zeros on the boards, convene a Conduct and Ethics Committee to "review" this Procedural Penalty and possible violation of Law 72B2, and if proven to have been done intentionally remove them from the playing of bridge. Takes guts (or some other part of anatomy) but, IMHO, its effects are far better for bridge than stopgap Bandaids in violation of Law 12. ......Kojak....... From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 7 02:24:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 02:24:02 +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 CAA01474 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 02:23:52 +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 MAA23130 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 12:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA19954 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 12:23:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 12:23:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks to everyone who has contributed on this subject. Let me try to sum up. Unfortunately, no consensus was reached, but I think we can state the pertinent questions. To review (and add one point I had left out earlier): there is an illegal 5C bid, after which the NOS bid 5H and get doubled. The 5Hx contract is cold, but because of wild, gambling, or irrational (WGI) play, it goes down two. If the illegal 5C bid is not made, most likely (75%) the NOS will play in 4H, but there is a modest chance (25%) of stopping in 3H. I have added the judgment that 4H will not be doubled. (In fact, there are interesting issues of bridge judgment about what can happen if 5C is changed to the required pass. I may post the hand later, but for now, let's just stick to the above and try to sort out the legal issues.) We should also consider what happens if the NOS play slightly less irrationally and manage to take ten tricks. For the NOS, everyone wants to make them keep the result of their irrational play. The debate is over whether there should be some adjustment because they were playing a level higher than necessary and doubled to boot. The arguments go: 1. The NOS had all their equity intact after the infraction, when they were booked for a good score just by playing rationally (not even well). Therefore they were not damaged by the infraction, and they keep the table result (5Hx-2, -500). (This may be the Kaplan doctrine.) If they had made ten tricks, they would have received 5Hx-1, -200. 2. While the NOS were not damaged in a tangible way, they were damaged in the sense that their margin for error was decreased. We don't give back the irrational play, but we do put them in the lower contract they should have been in, 4H, -100. If they had made ten tricks, they would have received 4H=, +620. Certainly 1) is simpler, requiring no judgment whatever once you have concluded WGI. In fact, 2) may be very complicated if the final denomination would have been different or if there are issues of playing safe versus trying for overtricks. Suppose instead of bidding 5H, the NOS double 5C. It ought to go down a lot for a good score, but irrational defense lets it make. Followers of 1) can still just let the table result stand, but followers of 2) will have a complex adjustment to make. (It might be something like MP for 4H making minus MP for 5C down a bunch plus MP for 5C making.) I suppose followers of 2) can be slightly inconsistent and say that the irrational play wouldn't have happened in a different denomination. For the OS, everyone wants to take away the benefit from the infraction, but the question is whether to let the OS benefit from the NOS' irrational play. The arguments here go: 3. There is no reason the play would have been different, but we adjust the contract to what it would have been absent the infraction. This is 3H=, -140 ("at all probable") if nine tricks were made or 4H=, -620 if ten were made. 4. Adjustment for the OS is based on "at all probable," which does not include irrational play. On the other hand, we know the result in 5Hx, so in order to adjust the result of play, we need to change the contract. In 4H, the NOS might have taken eleven tricks, so we give the OS -650. It doesn't matter how many tricks the NOS actually took took in 5H. We are ruling on the result in 4H, which is different. 4a. We can adjust the OS number of tricks even if we don't change the contract. Even though eleven tricks were not won in 5Hx, winning them was at all probable. Therefore award -850 to the OS, again without regard to the number of tricks actually scored. (In fact, 4a did not have much support, but it seems legal if "had the irregularity not occurred" does not apply to the OS.) I welcome further comments, but frankly I don't think we are going to make further progress without official guidance. At least we know what the arguments are about. Thanks again to all. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 7 03:49:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 03:49:23 +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 DAA01742 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 03:49:06 +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 NAA28252 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 13:48:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA20040 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 13:48:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 13:48:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907061748.NAA20040@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > It is not too difficult to stop the kind of thing this ploy refers to. > Give 'em zeros on the boards, convene a Conduct and Ethics Committee.... If you have evidence in a specific case, of course I agree completely on the approach, and I further agree that it's wrong to distort the game for normal people because of what the rare dishonest types might do. But what evidence would you have? "Oh, I'm so clumsy, the cards just fell out of the board. I don't know how it happened." Or if the dirty deed could be done before Meckwell arrive at the table, "I don't know what happened. The boards came that way from the previous table." And is assigning something a bit less than 40% for avg- really much of a distortion? Anyway, your argument isn't with me. I am neither defending nor condemning what the ACBL LC decided; I'm only suggesting a possible reason for it. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 7 04:33:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 04:33:45 +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 EAA01899 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 04:33:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA08466 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00e101bec7de$06c51900$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907061416.KAA19854@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:30:54 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >>I thought there was some sort of "complement" rule when artificial > > > >>scores are awarded at the same table. Avg+ gets 60% or session > > > >>percentage, whichever is greater, and avg- gets what is left over. > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Not *my* complementary rule, but that of the ACBL Laws Commission. > > > I speculate that the ACBL LC looked at the phrase "available > > matchpoints" in L12C and decided that it was illegal to adjust with > > two unbalanced scores whose total exceeds top on a board. That doesn't > > make sense either, since avg+/avg+ is a frequent adjustment when both > > sides are not at fault, but I can't think of any other rationale they > > might have used > > I can think of another rationale. A villain is playing happily along > when Meckwell (or another top pair) sit down at his table. They are > probably having a 70% game in an average field. "What to do?" he > thinks. "I know... I'll foul the boards and take 40%. That may not be > great, but at least it will beat what I probably would have gotten if > we had played the boards." > > The ACBL rule removes any possible benefit from the above ploy. That > is not to say the rule is wise or fair or correct, but it's not > ridiculous either. I'm getting that *deja vue* feeling all over again. Steve made this point a while back, on rgb I think, but I forgot about it. I very much doubt that this is what the LC had in mind, but it's possible. Legislating against the possibility of gross cheating by creating such a gross rule is indeed neither wise nor fair nor correct. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 7 04:53:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 04:53:53 +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 EAA01990 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 04:53:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA11093 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00f101bec7e0$d67bec80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:51:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > For the OS, everyone wants to take away the benefit from the > infraction, but the question is whether to let the OS benefit from the > NOS' irrational play. The arguments here go: > > 3. There is no reason the play would have been different, but we adjust > the contract to what it would have been absent the infraction. This is > 3H=, -140 ("at all probable") if nine tricks were made or 4H=, -620 if > ten were made. > > 4. Adjustment for the OS is based on "at all probable," which does not > include irrational play. On the other hand, we know the result in 5Hx, > so in order to adjust the result of play, we need to change the > contract. In 4H, the NOS might have taken eleven tricks, so we give > the OS -650. It doesn't matter how many tricks the NOS actually took > took in 5H. We are ruling on the result in 4H, which is different. > > 4a. We can adjust the OS number of tricks even if we don't change the > contract. Even though eleven tricks were not won in 5Hx, winning them > was at all probable. Therefore award -850 to the OS, again without > regard to the number of tricks actually scored. (In fact, 4a did not > have much support, but it seems legal if "had the irregularity not > occurred" does not apply to the OS.) > Now you are into the area in which the TD/AC must judge whether different plays by the NOS might have occurred (e.g., he might have finessed the other way, she might not have revoked, he might have found the squeeze, etc.). Surely this isn't right. I thought there was a consensus (perhaps on RGB) a while back that a revoke by the NOS stands for both sides when assigning an adjusted score. If that is so, then irrational play should also stand. In sum, I believe that "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" should not include different card play by the NOS unless the actual play was directly affected by the infraction. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 7 05:44:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 05:44:07 +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 FAA02172 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 05:44:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA17286 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 12:43:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00f601bec7e7$db597b80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: establishment Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 12:39:48 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > If the WBF succeeds > in moving towards a universal jurisprudence of bridge law > I am convinced (and have urged) that the decisions must be > incorporated unambiguously in the Laws, and at once. > There is no other way to tie down maverick opinion, nor > indeed to reach the outback ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > There is clear precedence for doing this, and I urge the WBFLC to do it. For instance, the March 31, 1987 Laws were officially revised September 1990 to add new language. With the maverick ACBL LC and ACBL TDs apparently ignoring the interpretations coming from the WBFLC, there is no other way to reach this outback. I did notice that Rich Colker (Special Consultant to the NABC Appeals Committee) now agrees that the OS score can be adjusted even if the NOS score is not. Formerly he believed that this was illegal, and that the OS had to be penalized with a PP equivalent to the effect of an assigned score. He cites Lille WBFLC interpretation #3 (Procedures for awarding assigned adjusted scores) as requiring this change in his opinion. So, maybe the ACBL AC organization is heeding the WBFLC interpretations. Time will tell. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 7 06:20:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 06:20:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA02294 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 06:20:40 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id vIHLa07706 (3934); Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:19:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4026bc06.24b3bec0@aol.com> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:19:12 EDT Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- 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 7/6/99 1:51:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > And is assigning something a bit less than 40% for avg- really much of > a distortion? I'm lost. I though my posting said to give them zeros. Isn't that less than 40%? Besides the Law says 12C1 ".....at most 40%...... The thrust of what I was trying to say is that if something happens that is covered by Law, let's use the extant Law. If that then proves to be less than sufficient, let's get the Law improved, not add to the many "Rules" (and convoluted interpretations of Law) that are promulgated to cover a single incident that has already - or may in the future - occur. Am I the only one out here who remembers Edgar's 1987 "fix" of the Law (which is now our much better worded Law 79B) because he was cheated out of a win? We TDs had to go through a ridiculous exercise to declare that the fully filled out and signed score slip didn't accurately reflect the agreed upon tricks taken and therefore 79B did not apply so as to protect innocent players making innocent mistakes. Even the Guru was prone to Bandaids. I'm not arguing with you - just stating my opinion. Sure wish that the ACBL LC would give reasons so we could all examine the logic. In ACBLwe routinely give Av+ Av+ (and even Av+ Av) by Law in some situations, and this would not e in accord with the principle of having a board not count for more matchpoints than any other board. Like the other side of the pond says, Cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 7 06:21:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 06:21:34 +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 GAA02310 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 06:21:27 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id sXGPa07548 (3934); Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:19:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:19:13 EDT Subject: Re: establishment 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 7/6/99 3:50:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > With the maverick ACBL LC and ACBL TDs apparently ignoring the > interpretations coming from the WBFLC, there is no other way to reach this > outback. There am mavericks all over de place - not just the ACBL LC and ACBL TDs. We even got somma dem in the cradle of Western civiliz(s)ation, and udder zones. And, de ACBL AC ain't no shining star eider, dey gotta do what ACBL tells 'em to. BUT - I fully agree that care, precision, diplomacy, clear purposes, accomodation, courtesy, definitive logic, intense work, and reasoned approaches can save our worldwide game. (Yeah, I know, those same qualities would have prevented at least 2 World Wars and untold numbers of marriages.) Those are the qualities we need to apply to our present problems. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 7 10:47:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:47:12 +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 KAA03212 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:47:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA27125 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 17:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00fe01bec812$31debcc0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: establishment Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 17:46:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: > mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > With the maverick ACBL LC and ACBL TDs apparently ignoring the > > interpretations coming from the WBFLC, there is no other way to reach this > > outback. > There am mavericks all over de place - not just the ACBL LC and ACBL TDs. We > even got somma dem in the cradle of Western civiliz(s)ation, and udder zones. > And, de ACBL AC ain't no shining star eider, dey gotta do what ACBL tells > 'em to. > > BUT - I fully agree that care, precision, diplomacy, clear purposes, > accomodation, courtesy, definitive logic, intense work, and reasoned > approaches can save our worldwide game. (Yeah, I know, those same qualities > would have prevented at least 2 World Wars and untold numbers of marriages.) > Those are the qualities we need to apply to our present problems. > Treading the line between excessive tolerance and excessive governance must be very difficult. Those of us who are on one side or the other must be understanding of those caught in the middle. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 7 23:50:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 23:50:37 +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 XAA06363 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 23:50:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-231-213.s467.tnt7.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.231.213]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id JAA03173 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 09:50:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005a01bec87f$76c86940$d5e7a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 09:48:57 -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: Steve Willner To: Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 12:23 PM Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI > Thanks to everyone who has contributed on this subject. Let me try to > sum up. Unfortunately, no consensus was reached, but I think we can > state the pertinent questions. > [snip] > 1. The NOS had all their equity intact after the infraction, when they > were booked for a good score just by playing rationally (not even > well). Therefore they were not damaged by the infraction, and they > keep the table result (5Hx-2, -500). (This may be the Kaplan > doctrine.) If they had made ten tricks, they would have received > 5Hx-1, -200. > My understanding of the Kaplan Doctrine is somewhat different: Both sides keep the table score, not just the NOS. If the causal link between the infraction and the damage is broken by irrational play (not just merely bad play), then the infraction did not cause damage and the table result stands for both sides. The premise of allowing the score to stand for the NOS is that they were not damaged by the infraction. If this is so, that the infraction did not cause the damage, there would also be no basis for adjusting the score for the OS, who have just gotten very lucky. I don't agree with this, but this is what I was taught, and how these rulings are commonly made in the ACBL. I would appreciate clarification. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 04:43:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA08175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 04:43:18 +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 EAA08170 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 04:43:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA04060 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 11:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000101bec8a8$86c57120$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> <005a01bec87f$76c86940$d5e7a4d8@hdavis> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 11:41:13 -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: Steve Willner wrote: > > > > Thanks to everyone who has contributed on this subject. Let me try to > > sum up. Unfortunately, no consensus was reached, but I think we can > > state the pertinent questions. > > > > [snip] > > 1. The NOS had all their equity intact after the infraction, when they > > were booked for a good score just by playing rationally (not even > > well). Therefore they were not damaged by the infraction, and they > > keep the table result (5Hx-2, -500). (This may be the Kaplan > > doctrine.) If they had made ten tricks, they would have received > > 5Hx-1, -200. > > > > My understanding of the Kaplan Doctrine is somewhat different: And incorrect. > Both sides > keep the table score, not just the NOS. If the causal link between the > infraction and the damage is broken by irrational play (not just merely bad > play), then the infraction did not cause damage and the table result stands > for both sides. The premise of allowing the score to stand for the NOS is > that they were not damaged by the infraction. The infraction was followed by consequent damage and there was also subsequent damage (i.e., not a consequence of the infraction). The consequent damage is redressable, but the subsequent damage is not. If Kaplan had a "doctrine," this is it. > If this is so, that the > infraction did not cause the damage, there would also be no basis for > adjusting the score for the OS, who have just gotten very lucky. I don't > agree with this, but this is what I was taught, and how these rulings are > commonly made in the ACBL. I would appreciate clarification. > "Commonly made"? Where? I cannot recall any NABC Appeals case during the last 3 years (only casebooks I have) in which the OS got away with an infraction simply because redress for the NOS was denied on account of their irrational action(s) subsequent to the infraction. If there was such a case, it was incorrectly adjudicated. All I remember is that the OS was given a PP equivalent to the effect of an assigned score in such cases, an odd practice that has now been discontinued. The WBFLC clarified all this with interpretation #3 (Procedure for awarding assigned adjusted scores) in Lille, but that was only a clarification, not a new policy. Relay it to your teachers, and tell them to look at all the WBFLC interpretations of the Laws from Lille on David Stevenson's web site, www.blakjak.demon.co.uk (You won't find them on the ACBL web site, sad to say). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 05:21:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA08401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 05:21:58 +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 FAA08396 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 05:21:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem8.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.8] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 111xGD-0001rr-00; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 20:21:38 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , , Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 20:20:14 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan --------------------------------------------------------- The universe is not hostile, nor is it friendly. It is simply indifferent. - Holmes. --oooOOooo-- ---------- > From: Schoderb@aol.com > To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- > Date: 06 July 1999 21:19 > > In a message dated 7/6/99 1:51:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > -------------- \x/ ------------------------ > > I'm not arguing with you - just stating my opinion. Sure wish that the ACBL > LC would give reasons so we could all examine the logic. In ACBLwe routinely > give Av+ Av+ (and even Av+ Av) by Law in some situations, and this would not > e in accord with the principle of having a board not count for more > matchpoints than any other board. > > Like the other side of the pond says, Cheers, > > Kojak +++ Because I read every word from Kojak - uniquely - I looked at this. The thread is one I discounted as being simply a TD's concern. Should I have been reading? I am just wondering who is saying what about the final statement in Law 12C1? ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 07:06:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 07:06:48 +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 HAA09075 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 07:06:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-246-222.s603.tnt2.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.246.222]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA22700 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000e01bec8bc$6742f200$def67ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> <005a01bec87f$76c86940$d5e7a4d8@hdavis> <000101bec8a8$86c57120$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:05:10 -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: Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 2:41 PM Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks to everyone who has contributed on this subject. Let me > try to > > > sum up. Unfortunately, no consensus was reached, but I think we > can > > > state the pertinent questions. > > > > > > > [snip] > > > 1. The NOS had all their equity intact after the infraction, when > they > > > were booked for a good score just by playing rationally (not even > > > well). Therefore they were not damaged by the infraction, and > they > > > keep the table result (5Hx-2, -500). (This may be the Kaplan > > > doctrine.) If they had made ten tricks, they would have received > > > 5Hx-1, -200. > > > > > > > My understanding of the Kaplan Doctrine is somewhat different: > > And incorrect. > > > Both sides > > keep the table score, not just the NOS. If the causal link between > the > > infraction and the damage is broken by irrational play (not just > merely bad > > play), then the infraction did not cause damage and the table result > stands > > for both sides. The premise of allowing the score to stand for the > NOS is > > that they were not damaged by the infraction. > > The infraction was followed by consequent damage and there was also > subsequent damage (i.e., not a consequence of the infraction). The > consequent damage is redressable, but the subsequent damage is not. If > Kaplan had a "doctrine," this is it. > [snip] Uh...Marv, you're simply repeating what I said in different language. If what I said is an incorrect interpretation, say something different. To use your terminology, an irrational act can cause damage after an infraction to be deemed subsequent but not consequent. It would therefore not be redressable, which is what I said in the first place. The question I posed is whether or not this is a correct interpretation of what has been called the "Kaplan Doctrine". You appear to agree that it is. I made no comment about whether or not I think this is right (and if you read my earlier comment in this thread you will find it in much closer accord with the Lille interpretation than with the above). Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 08:48:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:48:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09610 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:48:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA23499; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005d01bec8ca$cc6e9220$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , References: Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:48:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Grattan Endicott wrote: > --------------------------------------------------------- > > +++ Because I read every word from Kojak - uniquely - I looked at this. > The thread is one I discounted as being simply a TD's concern. Should > I have been reading? I am just wondering who is saying what about the > final statement in Law 12C1? ~ Grattan ~ +++ > The ACBL LC is saying (Spring 1998) that when the OS gets more than 60% for its avg+, the NOS can only get what is left over from top. This rule is incorporated into the ACBLScor software, so is near-universal in ACBL-land. It appears to violate not only common sense, but also Lille interpretation #4 of the WBFLC, which says that avg- is 40% or the pair's session score, whichever is less.. Steve Willner thought of a possible reason for it: A pair having a very good game meets Meckwell, and rather than suffer a couple of zeroes from them, fouls a board or two, being willing to accept 40% as a score. The rule says, "Oh no, if the NOS is having a 70% game, you only get 30%." I find it hard to believe that this was the LC's rationale, but who knows? My guess was that the LC saw the phrase "available matchpoints" and decided that more points than top were not available for an avg+/avg- adjustment. Also hard to believe. Other reasoning might be, "L12C1 says *at most* 40%, so let's not give them more than top minus the average-plus matchpoints." You might also like to know that when there is a one-sided avg-, the adjustment is always 40%, never less, also not in conformance with Lille interpretation #4. By cc I ask LC member Karen Allison if she can enlighten us on this matter. She might also tell BLML about the ACBL LC's reactions to the WBFLC interpretations from Lille, which were discussed during the LC meeting in Orlando last fall. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 08:49:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:49:57 +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 IAA09629 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:49:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem36.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.164] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 1120VX-0005mN-00; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 23:49:39 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Cc: "William (Kojak) Schoder" Subject: Re: establishment Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 23:44:24 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- The universe is not hostile, nor is it friendly. It is simply indifferent. - Holmes. --oooOOooo-- > From: Schoderb@aol.com > To: mfrench1@san.rr.com; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: establishment > Date: 06 July 1999 21:19 > > In a message dated 7/6/99 3:50:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > With the maverick ACBL LC and ACBL TDs apparently ignoring the > > interpretations coming from the WBFLC, there is no other way to reach this > > outback. > There am mavericks all over de place - not just the ACBL LC and ACBL TDs. We > even got somma dem in the cradle of Western civiliz(s)ation, and udder zones. > And, de ACBL AC ain't no shining star eider, dey gotta do what ACBL tells > 'em to. > > BUT - I fully agree that care, precision, diplomacy, clear purposes, > accomodation, courtesy, definitive logic, intense work, and reasoned > approaches can save our worldwide game. (Yeah, I know, those same qualities > would have prevented at least 2 World Wars and untold numbers of marriages.) > Those are the qualities we need to apply to our present problems. > +++++ We are *all* to blame for the chaos in the practice of law in world bridge. It is no good slating the ACBL or the EBL or anyone else for their divergence. The straight truth is that the one thing Edgar would never do was to stand up to a Zone (or for that matter to his colleagues at the top of the WBF pyramid) and say 'you cannot do that' AND dog it out until he won. And the rest of us let it happen because Edgar was such a towering figure that it would have taken the united strength of all to demand it of him - and we were never quite that united. Now we have to use all our persuasive skills, every art of diplomacy and compromise, in the effort to bring the fleet back onto a single course. The need has been asserted, what we do not know is whether the captains are large enough to overcome pride and preconception and so achieve, or whether they will dig trenches in the ocean. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 08:49:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:49:58 +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 IAA09628 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:49:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem36.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.164] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 1120VU-0005mN-00; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 23:49:37 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 23:34:00 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o-o-o "It is not well for a ruler to have too strong tendencies for other affairs." - Goethe. + ooOOOoo + > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem > Date: 04 July 1999 19:44 > ----------------------- \x/ -------------------------- > As far as practical bridge is concerned I do not see a problem. If > declarer has said "Run the clubs" then when a trick is finished and > dummy reaches for the next club, declarer will say something if he does > not wish it to be played. Fine, that is practical, and if nothing goes > wrong, few people argue, but it does not make it a legal way of playing > a card. > +++ For what it is worth this is the note I have put on my memory board: " ? add to Law 45B: 'If declarer instructs dummy as to the play of a card on a trick subsequent to the current trick, that card is played when the previous trick has been quitted and dummy has placed the card in the played position.' " ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 10:27:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:27:29 +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 KAA10059 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:27:21 +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 11221p-0004UI-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 00:27:06 +0000 Message-ID: <6Z9VywAR31g3EwTg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:01:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00f101bec7e0$d67bec80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00f101bec7e0$d67bec80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: > >> For the OS, everyone wants to take away the benefit from the >> infraction, but the question is whether to let the OS benefit from the >> NOS' irrational play. The arguments here go: >> >> 3. There is no reason the play would have been different, but we adjust >> the contract to what it would have been absent the infraction. This is >> 3H=, -140 ("at all probable") if nine tricks were made or 4H=, -620 if >> ten were made. >> >> 4. Adjustment for the OS is based on "at all probable," which does not >> include irrational play. On the other hand, we know the result in 5Hx, >> so in order to adjust the result of play, we need to change the >> contract. In 4H, the NOS might have taken eleven tricks, so we give >> the OS -650. It doesn't matter how many tricks the NOS actually took >> took in 5H. We are ruling on the result in 4H, which is different. >> >> 4a. We can adjust the OS number of tricks even if we don't change the >> contract. Even though eleven tricks were not won in 5Hx, winning them >> was at all probable. Therefore award -850 to the OS, again without >> regard to the number of tricks actually scored. (In fact, 4a did not >> have much support, but it seems legal if "had the irregularity not >> occurred" does not apply to the OS.) >> >Now you are into the area in which the TD/AC must judge whether different >plays by the NOS might have occurred (e.g., he might have finessed the >other way, she might not have revoked, he might have found the squeeze, >etc.). Surely this isn't right. > >I thought there was a consensus (perhaps on RGB) a while back that a >revoke by the NOS stands for both sides when assigning an adjusted score. >If that is so, then irrational play should also stand. > >In sum, I believe that "the most unfavorable result that was at all >probable" should not include different card play by the NOS unless the >actual play was directly affected by the infraction. Only in the same contract. there is no reason to suppose that a player will do the same things in different situations. If you are on lead against 6C you will not necessarily lead the same card as against 6Cx when the double is Lightner, will you? Thus an AC must take note of this. That is merely an example. You cannot assume that people will take the same number of tricks when playing in a different contract, reached [of necessity] by different bidding. You may assume that people will revoke in the same position - but in different positions? Hmmmm. Whatever the Law says, in these positions, which are interpretative, I do not think that a guideline that players will play the same way when their objectives are different is fair or required. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 10:27:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:27:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10058 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:27:17 +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 11221p-0004UJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 00:27:07 +0000 Message-ID: <1JOWG0Ac51g3EwSK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:04:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- References: <199907061416.KAA19854@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00e101bec7de$06c51900$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00e101bec7de$06c51900$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> I can think of another rationale. A villain is playing happily >along >> when Meckwell (or another top pair) sit down at his table. They are >> probably having a 70% game in an average field. "What to do?" he >> thinks. "I know... I'll foul the boards and take 40%. That may not >be >> great, but at least it will beat what I probably would have gotten >if >> we had played the boards." >> >> The ACBL rule removes any possible benefit from the above ploy. >That >> is not to say the rule is wise or fair or correct, but it's not >> ridiculous either. >I'm getting that *deja vue* feeling all over again. Steve made this >point a while back, on rgb I think, but I forgot about it. I very much >doubt that this is what the LC had in mind, but it's possible. > >Legislating against the possibility of gross cheating by creating such >a gross rule is indeed neither wise nor fair nor correct. I thought everyone would like to know that Quango and I are in total agreement with Marvin on this. I think, Steve, that we might manage to find another rule to deal with this pair. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 11:09:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:09:19 +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 LAA10257 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:09:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA13414 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008101bec8de$7598ddc0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> <005a01bec87f$76c86940$d5e7a4d8@hdavis> <000101bec8a8$86c57120$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <000e01bec8bc$6742f200$def67ad1@hdavis> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:02:50 -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 Hirsch Davis wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > >> 1. The NOS had all their equity intact after the infraction, when > > > > they were booked for a good score just by playing rationally (not even > > > > well). Therefore they were not damaged by the infraction, and > > > > they keep the table result (5Hx-2, -500). (This may be the Kaplan > > > > doctrine.) If they had made ten tricks, they would have received > > > > 5Hx-1, -200. > > > > > > > > > > My understanding of the Kaplan Doctrine is somewhat different: > > > > And incorrect. > > > > > Both sides > > > keep the table score, not just the NOS. If the causal link between > > > the infraction and the damage is broken by irrational play (not just > > > merely bad), then the infraction did not cause damage and the table result > > > stands for both sides. The premise of allowing the score to stand for the > > > NOS is that they were not damaged by the infraction. > > > > The infraction was followed by consequent damage and there was also > > subsequent damage (i.e., not a consequence of the infraction). The > > consequent damage is redressable, but the subsequent damage is not. If > > Kaplan had a "doctrine," this is it. > > > > [snip] > > Uh...Marv, you're simply repeating what I said in different language. If > what I said is an incorrect interpretation, say something different. To use > your terminology, an irrational act can cause damage after an infraction to > be deemed subsequent but not consequent. It would therefore not be > redressable, which is what I said in the first place. The question I posed > is whether or not this is a correct interpretation of what has been called > the "Kaplan Doctrine". You appear to agree that it is. I do not agree with the interpretation in your paragraph starting "Both sides keep the table score...", as Kaplan never said that. > > I made no comment about whether or not I think this is right (and if you > read my earlier comment in this thread you will find it in much closer > accord with the Lille interpretation than with the above). > I only said that your understanding of the Kaplan Doctrine, as stated in the paragraph starting "Both sides keep the table score..." was incorrect. That is not what Kaplan believed or wrote. When we say that subsequent damage is not redressable, that does not mean we are saying that the infraction is ignored. If the infraction leads to a score advantage for the OS, the score is adjusted according to L12C2 for that side alone. Never thought you agreed with the erroneous concept, and didn't mean to imply that you did. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 11:35:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:35:51 +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 LAA10345 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:35:44 +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 112366-000118-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 01:35:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 01:42:32 +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 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >+++++ We are *all* to blame for the chaos in the practice of law in >world bridge. It is no good slating the ACBL or the EBL or anyone >else for their divergence. The straight truth is that the one thing >Edgar would never do was to stand up to a Zone (or for that matter >to his colleagues at the top of the WBF pyramid) and say 'you cannot >do that' AND dog it out until he won. And the rest of us let it >happen because Edgar was such a towering figure that it would have >taken the united strength of all to demand it of him - and we were >never quite that united. > Now we have to use all our persuasive skills, every art of >diplomacy and compromise, in the effort to bring the fleet back onto >a single course. The need has been asserted, what we do not know is >whether the captains are large enough to overcome pride and >preconception and so achieve, or whether they will dig trenches in >the ocean. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ Why is it desirable that we resolve the differences? I know that people have asserted that it is desirable, and it sounds correct, but I wonder if it is really such a good idea. There are not really that many differences where the Laws are concerned. Regulations are a different matter: presumably they will continue to differ, though where the line should be drawn between Laws and Regulations is a question. But I am not sure that I see why it is that bad that [for example] Europe and North America have a different interpretation of a Logical Alternative. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 17:44:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:44:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11617 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:44:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA03030 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 00:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b401bec915$aae23440$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: establishment Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 00:44:02 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > >+++++ We are *all* to blame for the chaos in the practice of law in > >world bridge. It is no good slating the ACBL or the EBL or anyone > >else for their divergence. The straight truth is that the one thing > >Edgar would never do was to stand up to a Zone (or for that matter > >to his colleagues at the top of the WBF pyramid) and say 'you > >cannot do that' AND dog it out until he won. And the rest of us let it > >happen because Edgar was such a towering figure that it would have > >taken the united strength of all to demand it of him - and we were > >never quite that united. > > Now we have to use all our persuasive skills, every art > > of diplomacy and compromise, in the effort to bring the fleet back > >onto a single course. The need has been asserted, what we do > > not know is whether the captains are large enough to overcome > > pride and preconception and so achieve, or whether they will dig > >trenches in the ocean. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ > > Why is it desirable that we resolve the differences? I know that > people have asserted that it is desirable, and it sounds correct, > but I wonder if it is really such a good idea. > > There are not really that many differences where the Laws are > concerned. Not many, but some are serious. There should be none. > Regulations are a different matter: presumably they will > continue to differ, though where the line should be drawn between > Laws and Regulations is a question. The line is drawn in two places: (1) L80F, which says an SO has the power to create regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with the Laws, and (2) the WBF By-Laws, which say that the WBFLC is responsible for interpreting the Laws. How a ZA chooses to implement a law or a WBFLC interpretation may differ quite widely, as long as the ZA does not try to change the Laws or claim that its LC has equal status with the WBFLC when interpreting them. Otherwise, the Laws should be rewritten by each ZA according to its liking, and the By-Laws of the WBF should be changed to permit other LCs to interpret the Laws without regard to WBFLC interpretations. ZA's should be granted latitude, but not license, in the writing of regulations that implement the Laws. The difficulty may lie in deciding whether an implementation of the Laws by ZA regulation conflicts with either the Laws or a WBFLC interpretation of the Laws, becoming thereby a new law or an unauthorized interpretation. > > But I am not sure that I see why it is that bad that [for example] > Europe and North America have a different interpretation of a > Logical Alternative. I would say that they have different ways of determining whether an alternative is logical, since everyone agrees what "logical alternative" means (an alternative that makes some sense). Still, in the absence of a WBF LC interpretation of the term LA, others are free to interpret it as they wish. No one is suggesting otherwise. We can argue about who has the best implementation of the term, but having different implementations is perfectly okay (until the WBFLC writes one, that is). It is bad that the ACBL is not changing regulations that clearly conflict with the WBFLC Lille interpretations. The ACBL has substantial representation on the WBFLC, so it should graciously accede to its decisions. It seems to me that all Grattan is asking for is that SOs comply with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and the By-Laws of the World Bridge Federation. That's not asking too much. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 17:46:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:46:44 +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 RAA11649 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:46:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA16165 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:46:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JDBFRHM1OQ0000FF@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:46:01 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GSVDA0>; Thu, 08 Jul 1999 09:46:21 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 09:45:48 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: with pride To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1C8@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 Grattan describing our efforts to reach clarity in the WBF laws world wrote: ....what we do not know is whether the captains are large enough to overcome pride and preconception .. Reading our contributions to BLML my impression is that too many consider themselves to be a captain, which makes it difficult to find a strategy for improvement. let us go to the adjustment in case of UI (hesitation 5C - 5H (stupid play 3 off) facts: till Lille the ACBL had the approach that damage for the innocent side had to be established to make it possible to give innocent and offending side an adjusted score. Damage meant a worse score as a consequence of an infraction. An approach based on an interpretation of the laws which was far from ridiculous. If this consequent damage did not exist, it still was possible that the offenders took advantage of their infraction. In those cases this advantage was taken away by giving the offenders an adequate procedural penalty. The ACBL did the best it could to restore equity, given this interpratation. The WBFLC considered this approach, though quite understandable, as less preferable. Trying to find a solution we gave a new definition for the word damage, including both consequent and subsequent worse scores than without the infraction. This made it possible to let the subsequent worse score for the innocent side stand as it was reached at the table and to adjust the score for the offenders in accordance with Law 12C2: the most unfavourable result etc. As far as I now the ACBLLC has adopted this approach recently. I agree with all who say that this decision should be communicated within the ACBL, please Gary. This is what I tried to say before and my advise is to accept this information and to go on from there. Still a couple of things to decide, but it shouldn't be unnoticed that two, may be even accepted, captains: David Stevenson and myself came to the same answers, and independently (I agree: not many others joined us). ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 17:56:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:56:01 +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 RAA11699 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:55:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem68.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.196] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 112921-0004Tr-00; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:55:46 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Play of a card - a misgiving. Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:53:33 +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 o=o-o "It is not well for a ruler to have too strong tendencies for other affairs." - Goethe. ++ooOOOoo++ ++ In the exchanges on establishment you referred, accurately, to its having been agreed that the early instruction could be withdrawn up to a point in time. I think you were saying until declarer plays from his own hand, but whatever. I cannot recall how we dealt with the meaning of 45C4(a) when we said this? Can you help? ++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 18:14:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA11754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:14:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA11749 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:14:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA09800 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 01:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ce01bec919$df3f8540$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu><00f101bec7e0$d67bec80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <6Z9VywAR31g3EwTg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 01:10:56 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >In sum, I believe that "the most unfavorable result that was at all > >probable" should not include different card play by the NOS unless the > >actual play was directly affected by the infraction. > > Only in the same contract. there is no reason to suppose that a > player will do the same things in different situations. Inferior play that has no relation to the "different situation" should not be changed. We are redressing damage, not patching up bad play. That's all I'm saying. If the situation is sufficiently different to affect the play, then of course the play has been directly affected by the infraction, and different card play can be considered when deciding on an assigned score. No problem with that. However, there is no reason to suppose that a good player who missed an easy squeeze in 3S might have found the squeeze in a 2S contract. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 18:32:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA11791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:32:10 +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 SAA11786 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:32:03 +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 JAA17699; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:32:12 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA14360; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:31:53 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 08 Jul 1999 08:31:52 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA06725; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:31:49 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:31:49 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199907080831.JAA06725@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > +++ For what it is worth this is the note I have put on my memory board: > " ? add to Law 45B: 'If declarer instructs dummy as to > the play of a card on a trick subsequent to the current > trick, that card is played when the previous trick has > been quitted and dummy has placed the card in the > played position.' " ~ Grattan ~ +++ > Can we add: "; unless declarer immediately retracts his instruction" ? I still think that 45B would be better if a card was played from dummy when it was placed in the played position. We still have L45D to deal with the case where dummy does not follow declarer's instruction; but we don't have to worry about what happens when the time limit in L45D expires. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 19:42:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:42:15 +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 TAA12123 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:42:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-80-247.uunet.be [194.7.80.247]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA10911 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:41:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37834B1C.C3D2ADD4@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:42:04 +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: Adjustment after UI References: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00f101bec7e0$d67bec80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > I thought there was a consensus (perhaps on RGB) a while back that a > revoke by the NOS stands for both sides when assigning an adjusted score. > If that is so, then irrational play should also stand. > revoke yes, irrational play, not necessarily. > In sum, I believe that "the most unfavorable result that was at all > probable" should not include different card play by the NOS unless the > actual play was directly affected by the infraction. > It is easy to argue that someone who botches up 5HX would play more at ease in 4H. Thus the actual play is in some way affected by the infraction. It is all in the measure of course. But it is not impossible to change 5HX-2 into 4H+1. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 8 20:26:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:26:47 +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 UAA12271 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:26:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl3.philips.com with ESMTP id MAA15635; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:26:20 +0200 (MEST) (envelope-from Con.Holzscherer@ehv.sc.philips.com) Received: from smtprelay-eur1.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl3.philips.com via mwrap (4.0a) id xma015631; Thu, 8 Jul 99 12:26:20 +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 MAA23094; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:26:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ehv.sc.philips.com (sydney.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.213]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id MAA25987; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:25:57 +0200 (METDST) Message-ID: <37847CB5.89DABCC4@ehv.sc.philips.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 12:25:57 +0200 From: Con Holzscherer Organization: Systems Laboratory Eindhoven (PS-SLE) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/820) X-Accept-Language: en-US, en, nl, de-DE, nl-BE, de-AT, af, fr, it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: "Marvin L. French" Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- References: <005d01bec8ca$cc6e9220$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > Steve Willner thought of a possible reason for it: To be precise, in my - earlier - posting I described the exact same thing (without using names however). 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 Thu Jul 8 22:35:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA12787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:35:21 +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 WAA12780 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:35:13 +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 IAA00532 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:47:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990708083450.007146ac@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 08:34:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI In-Reply-To: <37834B1C.C3D2ADD4@village.uunet.be> References: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00f101bec7e0$d67bec80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:42 PM 7/7/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >It is easy to argue that someone who botches up 5HX would >play more at ease in 4H. >Thus the actual play is in some way affected by the >infraction. Easy to argue, but opens up a can of worms. Ultimately, it would mean that the NOs in adjustment situations will always be deemed to have played perfectly -- it's a hell of a lot easier to find the right play in a post-mortem in front of an AC than it is at the table. Of course, if the AC believes that there is some "bridge reason" why the NO might have played differently in 4H, they should give them the benefit of the doubt and award whatever additional tricks they might have made. But I'm not sympathetic to an NO who claims he would have played better absent the infraction for purely psychological reasons ("I misplayed because having the director at the table [or being doubled, or whatever] made me nervous, and would have found the right play otherwise"). 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 Jul 9 01:13:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:13:11 +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 BAA13503 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:12:59 +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 LAA28256 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA21720 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:13:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:13:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907081513.LAA21720@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I think, Steve, that we might manage to find another rule to deal with > this pair. Let's just back up a minute here, shall we? I doubt any of us are in much disagreement about what to do with cheaters or at least what sorts of rules to apply. The original question, though, was why the ACBL LC might have adopted an odd rule for the score for average minus. I offered a possible rationale with the disclaimer that I wasn't defending the merits of the rule. Some people seem to have overlooked the disclaimer. I hope it is obvious that I have no special knowledge of the actual reason the rule was adopted. Nevertheless, the general point raised is worth discussing. There are a great many Laws (nearly all of the ones dealing with irregularities, in fact) that are written to prevent offenders gaining any advantage. The _assumption_ throughout is that infractions are inadvertent, but even so the _effect_ is that a villain will find no profit in violating the law (with L72B1 added to catch anything that is missed). I think that's a fine idea, and I see no reason regulations shouldn't have the same characteristic as long as the result doesn't distort the game for honest players. Now as to the specific regulation about average minus, no doubt reasonable people can disagree. I still am not defending it. However, I notice that nobody has given a good _reason_ why the ACBL regulation is a bad idea other than that it differs from the regulation in the rest of the world. And apart from the effect on the dishonest, isn't the _expected_ score against a pair having a 70% game about 30%? Why should a pair responsible for an irregularity get more than that? After an inadvertent infraction, is giving 30% or 35% instead of 40% for avg- really a distortion? In fact, I think one could make a case that _avg_ against a 70%-scoring pair should be 30% with avg- being something even less (but I won't be the one to make it!). This topic has good things to discuss. Marvin describes the ACBL rule as "gross," but why is that so? Why is the standard rule better? To what extent, if at all, should rules consider the possibility of deliberate infractions? Are there other rules that should be changed? All of these are reasonable topics. Attributing to people views that they have never expressed and don't hold is not reasonable. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 01:17:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:17:25 +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 BAA13526 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:17:12 +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 112Ful-0003Gz-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:16:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:39:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: establishment References: <00b401bec915$aae23440$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00b401bec915$aae23440$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >The line is drawn in two places: (1) L80F, which says an SO has the >power to create regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with >the Laws, and (2) the WBF By-Laws, which say that the WBFLC is >responsible for interpreting the Laws. True, but I was talking about what should be, rather than what is. So perhaps the wording of a Law could be changed to allow more or less regulation. Part of the drawing of the line exists in L40D as well, of course. >How a ZA chooses to implement a law or a WBFLC interpretation may >differ quite widely, as long as the ZA does not try to change the Laws >or claim that its LC has equal status with the WBFLC when interpreting >them. Otherwise, the Laws should be rewritten by each ZA according to >its liking, and the By-Laws of the WBF should be changed to permit >other LCs to interpret the Laws without regard to WBFLC >interpretations. > >ZA's should be granted latitude, but not license, in the writing of >regulations that implement the Laws. The difficulty may lie in >deciding whether an implementation of the Laws by ZA regulation >conflicts with either the Laws or a WBFLC interpretation of the Laws, >becoming thereby a new law or an unauthorized interpretation. >> But I am not sure that I see why it is that bad that [for example] >> Europe and North America have a different interpretation of a >> Logical Alternative. >I would say that they have different ways of determining whether an >alternative is logical, since everyone agrees what "logical >alternative" means (an alternative that makes some sense). Still, in >the absence of a WBF LC interpretation of the term LA, others are free >to interpret it as they wish. No one is suggesting otherwise. We can >argue about who has the best implementation of the term, but having >different implementations is perfectly okay (until the WBFLC writes >one, that is). > >It is bad that the ACBL is not changing regulations that clearly >conflict with the WBFLC Lille interpretations. The ACBL has >substantial representation on the WBFLC, so it should graciously >accede to its decisions. > >It seems to me that all Grattan is asking for is that SOs comply with >the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and the By-Laws of the World Bridge >Federation. That's not asking too much. I don't think this is the point. I have a feeling that there is a movement under way to rationalise interpretations - thus ZAs would not be permitted to differ in their interpretation of LAs. I may be wrong, of course, but that was my interpretation of what Grattan was referring to. In general, I agree we should follow WBFLC interpretations, but that does not mean we should not consider input to them. Surely we do not expect them to make decisions in a vacuum? I think the world has moved on from the position where we expect people to make decisions for us without our knowledge, permission or input. Whether this is good or bad is arguable, of course. So, I ask again, is it a good thing for the WBFLC to get rid of differing interpretations of the Laws in different parts of the world? Should the line as to what RAs [regulating authorities] may regulate be moved to give the WBFLC more power in decisions and the various RAs less? -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 01:19:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:46:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA13357 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:45:53 +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 KAA06291 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA12078; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907081445.KAA12078@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> As far as practical bridge is concerned I do not see a problem. If >> declarer has said "Run the clubs" then when a trick is finished and >> dummy reaches for the next club, declarer will say something if he does >> not wish it to be played. Fine, that is practical, and if nothing goes >> wrong, few people argue, but it does not make it a legal way of playing >> a card. >> >+++ For what it is worth this is the note I have put on my >memory board: > " ? add to Law 45B: 'If declarer instructs dummy as to > the play of a card on a trick subsequent to the current > trick, that card is played when the previous trick has > been quitted and dummy has placed the card in the > played position.' " ~ Grattan ~ +++ > For what it is worth, I don't like this idea at all. I think it would be alot easier just to state that it is improper to say things like "run the clubs". State that bridge is played trick by trick (not including claims, of course). State that failing to follow correct procedure could result in a PP, especially if it causes the opponents a problem. In other words, I don't think we need to add a new law (set of laws?), something added between "play trick by trick" and "claim". I don't want to have to one day adjudicate someone's "partial claim". I feel we should strive for fewer and clearer Laws and regulations, not for more and denser. To paraphrase an old saying, "An ounce of principle is worth a pound of adjudication". Tony (aka ac342) ps. on a lighter note, last night I had a situation where a defender had 7 penalty cards (yes, he started to put down "dummy") in 2 suits. I knew what to do because of BLML, and nobody got upset (the players thought it was hilarious). The really funny thing: all four players we're flight A! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 01:39:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:39:13 +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 BAA13611 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:39:01 +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 LAA29323 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:38:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA21763 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:39:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:39:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907081539.LAA21763@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > revoke yes, irrational play, not necessarily. I submit that any rule that treats these cases as different is too complicated. Revoking, miscounting trumps, and similar _irrational_ mistakes should have the same result, whatever it is. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 02:00:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 02:00:31 +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 CAA13825 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 02:00:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA22222 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010301bec95a$f4abec20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu><00f101bec7e0$d67bec80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990708083450.007146ac@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:50:52 -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 (as I hoped he would!): > Herman wrote: > > >It is easy to argue that someone who botches up 5HX would > >play more at ease in 4H. > >Thus the actual play is in some way affected by the > >infraction. > > Easy to argue, but opens up a can of worms. Ultimately, it would mean that > the NOs in adjustment situations will always be deemed to have played > perfectly -- it's a hell of a lot easier to find the right play in a > post-mortem in front of an AC than it is at the table. Exactly. When determining "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable," a TD or AC assigning a result that involves a change in the play of the cards must connect that change to the new "situation" brought about by the infraction. That includes not only revokes but all inferior plays and all unfortunate lines of play. > Of course, if the AC believes that there is some "bridge reason" why the NO > might have played differently in 4H, they should give them the benefit of > the doubt and award whatever additional tricks they might have made. But > I'm not sympathetic to an NO who claims he would have played better absent > the infraction for purely psychological reasons ("I misplayed because > having the director at the table [or being doubled, or whatever] made me > nervous, and would have found the right play otherwise"). > I believe this was an RGB consensus some time ago. Leave that can of worms unopened. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 02:30:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 02:30:38 +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 CAA14010 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 02:30:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA26590 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <011501bec95f$2bd1d300$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907081513.LAA21720@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:23:52 -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: > > This topic has good things to discuss. Marvin describes the ACBL rule > as "gross," but why is that so? Why is the standard rule better? Because it does not adjust a score for the OS based on the (unrelated) performance of the NOS during the rest of the session. When we find out (if we ever do) why the LC adopted the rule, I think the "gross" adjective will stand up. If not, I'll retract it with apologies. Remember that 99.99% of players adversely affected by this rule have not committed an infraction deliberately, if that possibility is indeed the justification for the rule. > To > what extent, if at all, should rules consider the possibility of > deliberate infractions? Are there other rules that should be changed? > All of these are reasonable topics I believe the Laws assume that players are honorable and don't deliberately cheat. Writing Laws or regulations with the aim of *preventing* deliberate cheating is an impossible task. That some Laws or regulations have that side effect does not mean it is, or ought to be, a primary concern. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 03:10:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:10:37 +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 DAA14258 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:10:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-159-78.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.78]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA29153 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:10:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3784DC1E.6610E0DF@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 10:13:02 -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: Avg+ and Avg- References: <199907081513.LAA21720@cfa183.harvard.edu> <011501bec95f$2bd1d300$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > This topic has good things to discuss. Marvin describes the ACBL rule > > as "gross," but why is that so? Why is the standard rule better? > > Because it does not adjust a score for the OS based on the (unrelated) > performance of the NOS during the rest of the session. When we find out > (if we ever do) why the LC adopted the rule, I think the "gross" > adjective will stand up. If not, I'll retract it with apologies. Well, OK, I'll bite. How is this unrelated? Suppose Meckwell drops by our local sectional and runs up (unsurprisingly) a 73% game. Some of our more easily confused and frightened players accidentally drop their hand on the table, and the director rules the board unplayable; A+, A-. While the remainder of the field has an expectation against Meckwell of 27%, this pair -- entirely inadvertantly, certainly -- is suddenly raised to 40%. The NOS performance is indicative of the relative quality of the NOS game. Bridge scores, especially in one session, are certainly not close to an exact science, but if you dodged a bullet by fouling a board in some manner at the big dogs' table, why should you benefit? I could be wrong here; the other rule might be better. But if I had to vote, I would vote for the complement rule. And I don't think that's a "gross" error. --JRM > > Remember that 99.99% of players adversely affected by this rule have not > committed an infraction deliberately, if that possibility is indeed the > justification for the rule. > > > To > > what extent, if at all, should rules consider the possibility of > > deliberate infractions? Are there other rules that should be changed? > > All of these are reasonable topics > > I believe the Laws assume that players are honorable and don't > deliberately cheat. Writing Laws or regulations with the aim of > *preventing* deliberate cheating is an impossible task. That some Laws > or regulations have that side effect does not mean it is, or ought to > be, a primary concern. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 03:48:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:48:34 +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 DAA14418 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:48:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-80-214.uunet.be [194.7.80.214]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA04951 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:48:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3784E054.3C5EE088@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 19:31:00 +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: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. References: <00b401bec915$aae23440$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >ZA's should be granted latitude, but not license, in the writing of > >regulations that implement the Laws. The difficulty may lie in > >deciding whether an implementation of the Laws by ZA regulation > >conflicts with either the Laws or a WBFLC interpretation of the Laws, > >becoming thereby a new law or an unauthorized interpretation. > > >> But I am not sure that I see why it is that bad that [for example] > >> Europe and North America have a different interpretation of a > >> Logical Alternative. > > >I would say that they have different ways of determining whether an > >alternative is logical, since everyone agrees what "logical > >alternative" means (an alternative that makes some sense). Still, in > >the absence of a WBF LC interpretation of the term LA, others are free > >to interpret it as they wish. No one is suggesting otherwise. We can > >argue about who has the best implementation of the term, but having > >different implementations is perfectly okay (until the WBFLC writes > >one, that is). > > > >It is bad that the ACBL is not changing regulations that clearly > >conflict with the WBFLC Lille interpretations. The ACBL has > >substantial representation on the WBFLC, so it should graciously > >accede to its decisions. > > > >It seems to me that all Grattan is asking for is that SOs comply with > >the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and the By-Laws of the World Bridge > >Federation. That's not asking too much. > > I don't think this is the point. I have a feeling that there is a > movement under way to rationalise interpretations - thus ZAs would not > be permitted to differ in their interpretation of LAs. I may be wrong, > of course, but that was my interpretation of what Grattan was referring > to. > > In general, I agree we should follow WBFLC interpretations, but that > does not mean we should not consider input to them. Surely we do not > expect them to make decisions in a vacuum? > > I think the world has moved on from the position where we expect > people to make decisions for us without our knowledge, permission or > input. Whether this is good or bad is arguable, of course. > > So, I ask again, is it a good thing for the WBFLC to get rid of > differing interpretations of the Laws in different parts of the world? > Should the line as to what RAs [regulating authorities] may regulate be > moved to give the WBFLC more power in decisions and the various RAs > less? > I don't believe it is correct for Zones to have any input in the Laws. (that includes zonal opt-outs in my opinion). Zones only exist to help the WBF manage more clearly, and to organise zonal championships. Not to interpret the Laws. The problem is that the ACBL is not only a zone, but also a NCBO. NCBO's are IMO better qualified to make specific regulations. Indeed, what is "strange" in Belgium, is normal in Poland, and vice versa. Things like Alert Procedures and System regulations are therefore in the hands of the NCBO's. Or rather of the SO's, who usually copy national regulations. Apart from that, world-wide bridge (on-line being only one form of that) means that we need world-wide interpretations. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 04:06:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:06:22 +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 EAA14480 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:06:15 +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, 8 Jul 1999 14:07:07 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990708083450.007146ac@pop.cais.com> References: <37834B1C.C3D2ADD4@village.uunet.be> <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00f101bec7e0$d67bec80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:02:53 -0400 To: Eric Landau From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eric writes: >I'm not sympathetic to an NO who claims he would have played better absent >the infraction for purely psychological reasons ("I misplayed because >having the director at the table [or being doubled, or whatever] made me >nervous, and would have found the right play otherwise"). Well, I suppose it depends what level player we're discussing. My partner, who has been playing duplicate for all of about 6 months (at the rate of 1 game a week, maybe) has complained to me a couple of times that having the TD around, even when he wasn't called to our table, while she's playing a hand, intimidates her, makes her nervous, and has, in her opinion, caused her on a couple of occassions to make mistakes she would not otherwise have made. You can be unsympathetic to her if you like :-) but I've watched her play, and I believe she's absolutely right. 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/AwUBN4Tojr2UW3au93vOEQJ9IgCgh3EmxZmVg04nCBMDIwwRQo0re2cAoJmv 6PozC2BrgXBaj2ETpNY6JbUw =H5Le -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 04:06:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:06:29 +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 EAA14486 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:06:22 +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, 8 Jul 1999 14:07:12 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199907081513.LAA21720@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:04:54 -0400 To: Steve Willner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:13 AM -0400 7/8/99, Steve Willner wrote: >the _effect_ is that a villain will find no profit in violating >the law (with L72B1 added to catch anything that is missed). Heh. I don't know why, but this brings to mind the US Military's Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which I always translated as "and anything else you do that we don't like is also a crime." :-) 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/AwUBN4Tok72UW3au93vOEQJiDgCgqeR4HquVGyiD9kzw3C3XB4aygekAoN1g /5Jqy7K07OBh4Aoc6c/YRZ9N =2dQg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 04:10:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:10:31 +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 EAA14516 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:10:24 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id 5FJZa14320 (14457); Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:06:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8edd3e6.24b642bf@aol.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:06:55 EDT Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/8/99 1:50:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > I don't believe it is correct for Zones to have any input in > the Laws. > (that includes zonal opt-outs in my opinion). > > Zones only exist to help the WBF manage more clearly, and to > organise zonal championships. Would you like to think that over a bit longer before you get reeled in? .......Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 04:38:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:38:13 +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 EAA14632 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:37:58 +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 112J3C-000EY7-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:37:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:27:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- References: <199907081513.LAA21720@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907081513.LAA21720@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> I think, Steve, that we might manage to find another rule to deal with >> this pair. >Let's just back up a minute here, shall we? > >I doubt any of us are in much disagreement about what to do with >cheaters or at least what sorts of rules to apply. > >The original question, though, was why the ACBL LC might have adopted >an odd rule for the score for average minus. I offered a possible >rationale with the disclaimer that I wasn't defending the merits of the >rule. Some people seem to have overlooked the disclaimer. I hope it >is obvious that I have no special knowledge of the actual reason the >rule was adopted. > >Nevertheless, the general point raised is worth discussing. There are >a great many Laws (nearly all of the ones dealing with irregularities, >in fact) that are written to prevent offenders gaining any advantage. >The _assumption_ throughout is that infractions are inadvertent, but >even so the _effect_ is that a villain will find no profit in violating >the law (with L72B1 added to catch anything that is missed). I think >that's a fine idea, and I see no reason regulations shouldn't have the >same characteristic as long as the result doesn't distort the game for >honest players. > >Now as to the specific regulation about average minus, no doubt >reasonable people can disagree. I still am not defending it. However, >I notice that nobody has given a good _reason_ why the ACBL regulation >is a bad idea other than that it differs from the regulation in the >rest of the world. And apart from the effect on the dishonest, isn't >the _expected_ score against a pair having a 70% game about 30%? Why >should a pair responsible for an irregularity get more than that? >After an inadvertent infraction, is giving 30% or 35% instead of 40% >for avg- really a distortion? In fact, I think one could make a case >that _avg_ against a 70%-scoring pair should be 30% with avg- being >something even less (but I won't be the one to make it!). Unless I have misunderstood, this ACBL regulation has been around for some time, pre-dating the current Law book. What do I have against it? It was illegal. The Law stated that average-minus was 40%, not less. Whatever the reason for making this regulation, it was not justifiable at the time. Now we have run into another problem: from 1997 L12C1 has changed, apparently making the ACBL's approach legal. However, the WBFLC has complicated matters by coming up with an interpretation at Lille that does not really stand up to logic [*], and now we have again the ongoing problem with how RAs are meant to act in such circumstances. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm 4: Consideration was given to the meaning of 'average minus' where used in Law 12C1. Having debated the options, the Committee held that 'average minus' means the player's session percentage or 40% whichever is the lower. If you follow the WBFLC's interpretation, then the ABCL's regulation is still illegal. However, I have sympathy for the ACBL now: this interpretation is really unnecessary: when a pair is having a less that 40% session, it is so unnecessary to penalise them further. Furthermore, if the WBFLC is correct, why is there no equivalent to L88 for 40% at Pairs? An oversight? Do you know, I like players. They are my friends. Unless they are bloody-minded, I like to make life easy for them and to keep them happy. Do they keep me happy? No, of course not, they move to the wrong table, play the wrong board, put back the wrong number of cards and then tell me that my rulings are wrong. I don't care: as a TD my job is to make them happy. I like giving NOs redress, despite several suggestions on BLML recently. I don't like issuing PPs as fines, and do so only if I have to, and I do everything to assuage the problems created - unless they are rude. When someone does something wrong, they cannot play a board, and they get average-minus. If they have any real chance of winning an event, that score is effectively 25% less than they might expect on the board. But they know that, and they accept it. Now we want to give them less than 40%. I don't care whether it is the WBFLC giving them 32% because they are having a 32% session, or the ACBL giving them 32% because their opponents are having a 68% session, both are mean-spirited approaches. The first pair is having a bad enough time anyway: the second pair has been penalised enough anyway. We will not get people to enjoy the game with this type of approach. I ask the WBFLC to amend L12C1 back to the 1987 wording, let average- minus be 40% always, tell the ACBL, and use L90 if a pair do something else on the board that is bad enough to deserve further action. [*] Why do I have doubts about the WBFLC's interpretation of L12C1? Because the printed word is clear, and it dopes not indicate in the Law book the limitations imposed by this interpretation. Also, if it was as this interpretation indicates, there would be an equivalent 40% Law to L88. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 05:17:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 05:17:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA14864 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 05:16:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id PAA25511 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:16:47 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199907081916.PAA25511@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:16:47 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <011501bec95f$2bd1d300$f5075e18@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Jul 8, 99 09:23:52 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 > From: "Marvin L. French" > Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:23:52 -0700 > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > This topic has good things to discuss. Marvin describes the ACBL rule > > as "gross," but why is that so? Why is the standard rule better? > > Because it does not adjust a score for the OS based on the (unrelated) > performance of the NOS during the rest of the session. When we find out > (if we ever do) why the LC adopted the rule, I think the "gross" > adjective will stand up. If not, I'll retract it with apologies. > > Remember that 99.99% of players adversely affected by this rule have not > committed an infraction deliberately, if that possibility is indeed the > justification for the rule. > I too agree that the ACBL current policy of basing the OS result on the NOS result is incorrect. Each side should have their case decided separately on the merits of the case than to have it based on the ruling for the other side. So in each case of UI or similar problems, I first rule on the OS case and afterwards decided on the NOS side case and each is distinct. If that is the case, why should the decision of results based on A+ or A- be based on the other side? Just because the field expects to get 27% against the 73% scoring Meckwell, does that mean that you have to get 27%? I think the director can adequately decide whether 40% is equitable or not and adjust accordingly. If the director feels that 40% is equitable then that is what you pay the director to decide, isn't it? > > To > > what extent, if at all, should rules consider the possibility of > > deliberate infractions? Are there other rules that should be changed? > > All of these are reasonable topics > > I believe the Laws assume that players are honorable and don't > deliberately cheat. Writing Laws or regulations with the aim of > *preventing* deliberate cheating is an impossible task. That some Laws > or regulations have that side effect does not mean it is, or ought to > be, a primary concern. > The laws governing infractions should not have to take deliberate cheating into account. It should be assumed that in instances of cheating that other laws (including PP, suspension, and/or expulsion) should cover those. Cheating should be outside the consideration of the laws governing the infractions. Otherwise, the bridge laws would end up being more complicated than the US legal code and we would have to have lawyers just to adjudicate appeals committees. I agree with Marv that the laws should assume players are honorable and if/when they are not, then other laws (besides the infraction laws) should be able to handle the sanctioning of those players outside of the infraction. -Ted. P.S. - BTW, I'm a new poster and have been counselled to include some info about myself. I am an ACBL certified director (probably a strike against me) among other things, live in the Washington DC metro area and have no cats or dogs (yet!). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 05:27:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:38:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA14631 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:37:53 +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 112J3D-000EYE-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:37:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 16:49:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00f101bec7e0$d67bec80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <37834B1C.C3D2ADD4@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19990708083450.007146ac@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990708083450.007146ac@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:42 PM 7/7/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >>It is easy to argue that someone who botches up 5HX would >>play more at ease in 4H. >>Thus the actual play is in some way affected by the >>infraction. >Easy to argue, but opens up a can of worms. Ultimately, it would mean that >the NOs in adjustment situations will always be deemed to have played >perfectly -- it's a hell of a lot easier to find the right play in a >post-mortem in front of an AC than it is at the table. > >Of course, if the AC believes that there is some "bridge reason" why the NO >might have played differently in 4H, they should give them the benefit of >the doubt and award whatever additional tricks they might have made. But >I'm not sympathetic to an NO who claims he would have played better absent >the infraction for purely psychological reasons ("I misplayed because >having the director at the table [or being doubled, or whatever] made me >nervous, and would have found the right play otherwise"). Well, I think you should be sympathetic. I think that there has been a very unfortunate shift over the years away from being sympathetic to non-offenders. You play a contract that you would not have played in if the oppos had not infracted: why should the TD/AC/WBFLC not be sympathetic to you? OK, there is one reason: the BLs, who actively try to win the game via the Laws as well as by playing cards. No doubt it is their influence that has caused this shift. But even though we must exhibit some care in our treatment of NOs because of BLs, our basic approach should surely be to remember that no infraction would have led to a different set of circumstances. Consider the hand that started this thread. Declarer played 5H* like one of my partners, and reduced his eleven tricks to nine. Wonderful! If we were adjusting, and we reached the same contract, for example if despite disallowing a call, we believe they would have reached 5H* by a different route, then to give declarer nine tricks is not unreasonable. But we are not. Our adjustments have generally been to 3H or 4H undoubled. Now, to give a definitive ruling, of course we need to see the hand, but in general, if the poster assures us that eleven tricks were easy, then it is reasonable to suppose that the problem in 5H* was because of the double or the trick target. If you play in 3H or 4H you do not have the same problem so why should you not make eleven tricks? No, Eric, your sympathies are misplaced. We will not get a better game of bridge by showing no sympathy for NOs: let us be fully sympathetic to them, and give them the benefit of the doubt in normal situations. It is a fact that people do not play contracts the same if they are not the same contract: we should accept that when ruling. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 05:51:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 05:51:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA15044 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 05:51:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id PAA00164 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:51:19 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199907081951.PAA00164@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:51:19 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199907081445.KAA12078@freenet3.carleton.ca> from "A. L. Edwards" at Jul 8, 99 10:45:35 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 (EDT) > From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) > > >+++ For what it is worth this is the note I have put on my > >memory board: > > " ? add to Law 45B: 'If declarer instructs dummy as to > > the play of a card on a trick subsequent to the current > > trick, that card is played when the previous trick has > > been quitted and dummy has placed the card in the > > played position.' " ~ Grattan ~ +++ > > > For what it is worth, I don't like this idea at all. I think > it would be alot easier just to state that it is improper to > say things like "run the clubs". State that bridge is played > trick by trick (not including claims, of course). State that > failing to follow correct procedure could result in a PP, > especially if it causes the opponents a problem. In other words, > I don't think we need to add a new law (set of laws?), something > added between "play trick by trick" and "claim". I don't want > to have to one day adjudicate someone's "partial claim". > I feel we should strive for fewer and clearer Laws and > regulations, not for more and denser. To paraphrase an old saying, > "An ounce of principle is worth a pound of adjudication". > Actually, in ACBL play, Grattan's ruling can actually be backed up by the ACBL laws. There is no need to add a law to cover the situation as it is covered by the following laws (IMHO): ACBL Law 45.B states: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. in playin from dummy's hand declarer may, if nec- essary, pick up the desired card himself." ACBL Law 45.C.4 states: "A. A card must be played if a player names or other- wise designates it as the card he proposes to play." Thus, by saying "run the clubs" you have in effect stated what the next 'n' cards will be from the dummy and they are designated played. No matter if you have extraneous information from the discards on those pitches, declarer may not change the play without an infraction occurring. 45.B does not state when the declarer names the card, but whether all at once or one by one. ACBL Law 47.F states: "Except as provided in A through E preceding, a card once played may not be withdrawn." Since A through E do not cover anything akin to a change of intent once the declarer designates to run a suit, then (s)he must run the suit and cannot change the play until the suit has been run. -Ted. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 05:55:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 05:55:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA15067 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 05:55:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id PAA00929 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:55:09 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199907081955.PAA00929@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:55:09 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Jul 8, 99 02:02:53 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 > Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:02:53 -0400 > From: Ed Reppert > > Eric writes: > > >I'm not sympathetic to an NO who claims he would have played better absent > >the infraction for purely psychological reasons ("I misplayed because > >having the director at the table [or being doubled, or whatever] made me > >nervous, and would have found the right play otherwise"). > > Well, I suppose it depends what level player we're discussing. My partner, > who has been playing duplicate for all of about 6 months (at the rate of 1 > game a week, maybe) has complained to me a couple of times that having the > TD around, even when he wasn't called to our table, while she's playing a > hand, intimidates her, makes her nervous, and has, in her opinion, caused > her on a couple of occassions to make mistakes she would not otherwise have > made. You can be unsympathetic to her if you like :-) but I've watched her > play, and I believe she's absolutely right. > No it doesn't. I've been teaching novices for over 10 years and this happens. However, because it happens, doesn't mean they deserve different redress than players who aren't nervous from the director. Let's face it, most players are adults and have to be responsible for their actions. If they make a mistake, they should take the penalty. If they don't play their best when the director is there adjudicating an infraction, then they shouldn't expect to get the optimal result possible. Eric's contention is that the redress should be influenced by the player's actions and not solely on the opponents infraction. -Ted. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 06:53:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:53:10 +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 GAA15366 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:53:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA06921; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:51:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-21.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.53) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006889; Thu Jul 8 15:51:23 1999 Message-ID: <006c01bec983$f3c49cc0$35b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Ted Ying" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 16:53:34 -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 Being nervous because the director is there is one thing and I fully agree with you Ted. And the level of egregious error in the hand originally involved does seem the break a link of causality. But we must be careful not to automatically assume this is the case. Where the line of play may reasonably be impacted by the level of the contract, and an inferior but not irrational line is adopted that offers a shot at a make at imps that could cost an additional undertrick or two for example, taking this anti-percentage line would appear to be consequent and not subsequent. You must play to have hope of success at the contract you are in rather than the one you rightly should have been in. That this was not the same as the best line for the proper contract should not lose right of redress. There could be contracts that are easy for anyone to bring home at 4-odd that may offer only two chances of success at 5. One is, say a complicated squeeze that must be visualised early...or a hard to find jettison...or you name it. Suzy novice may not see it. The only other play for the contract is something like a simple finesse or a play for a 3-3 break. Oops, it's off, down 3, while any of several easy lines make 4. The ability level combined with the level of contract had produced a swing that could not have occured absent the infraction. Should we not adjust here? -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Ted Ying I've been teaching novices for over 10 years and this >happens. However, because it happens, doesn't mean they deserve different >redress than players who aren't nervous from the director. Let's face it, >most players are adults and have to be responsible for their actions. If >they make a mistake, they should take the penalty. If they don't play their >best when the director is there adjudicating an infraction, then they shouldn't >expect to get the optimal result possible. Eric's contention is that the >redress should be influenced by the player's actions and not solely on the >opponents infraction. > > -Ted. > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 06:57:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:57:02 +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 GAA15398 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:56:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.90]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990708205715.KDYS10868.fep2@jd-private.internal> for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:57:15 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: with pride Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 22:56:39 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <378d0f5b.5730209@post12.tele.dk> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1C8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1C8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id GAA15399 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 09:45:48 +0200, "Kooijman, A." wrote: >Damage meant a worse score as a >consequence of an infraction. ... >If this consequent damage did not exist, >it still was possible that the offenders took advantage of their infraction. I have always found it impossible to understand how those two sentences can be consistent with each other. What kind of "advantage" could be offenders take that did not result, as a consequence of the infraction, in a worse score for their opponents? And if the advantage was a consequence of the infraction, then the worse score for the NOS must surely be a consequence of the infraction too. >The WBFLC considered this approach, though quite understandable, as less >preferable. Trying to find a solution we gave a new definition for the word >damage, including both consequent and subsequent worse scores than without >the infraction. That is consistent with the way I read the text of the laws. > This made it possible to let the subsequent worse score for >the innocent side stand as it was reached at the table and to adjust the >score for the offenders in accordance with Law 12C2: the most unfavourable >result etc. I still don't understand how is it consistent with the wording of the laws to not adjust for the NOS when there is damage - the words "subsequent" and "consequent" do not appear in the laws, so the distinction is IMO not legal according to the letter of the laws. But apart from that I have nothing against this principle. It seems to me that we should have laws that explicitly mention the possibility of not adjusting for the NOS when the damage is considered "subsequent". We now have a WBFLC statement that we should interpret the existing laws as if there were such a distinction, but it would be much better to have it written into the laws. Alternatively, we should drop the distinction between "subsequent" and "consequent" completely and adjust for both sides. That is the solution I would prefer, because it is simpler and ensures that the NOS is always compensated - and it is IMO what the current laws actually say. As I've said before, I see no problem in sometimes overcompensating a NOS - after all, we do that after most revokes, so it should not be a great problem if it sometimes also happened in an adjustment case. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 07:22:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:22:49 +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 HAA15538 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:22:40 +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 RAA16786 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:22:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA22240 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:22:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:22:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907082122.RAA22240@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Craig Senior" > Where > the line of play may reasonably be impacted by the level of the contract, > and an inferior but not irrational line is adopted that offers a shot at a > make at imps that could cost an additional undertrick or two for example, > taking this anti-percentage line would appear to be consequent and not > subsequent. I hope everyone agrees with the above. If there is any semblence of a bridge reason for a different line in a different contract, the NOS must be given the benefit of the doubt. The problem arises in two other cases (or maybe three), as the following examples illustrate: A. Declarer, a non-offender, misguesses a two-way finesse. There are no obvious indications which way to take it in either contract. Nothing irrational about declarer's play, but do we give the NOS the benefit of getting the finesse right if the adjustment is to the same denomination at a different level? Do we impose on the OS the burden of declarer getting it right? B. Declarer's play is irrational -- as David puts it, "like one of my partners." There is no bridge reason for declarer's play in either the at-the-table or the adjusted contract. Now what? (My original example in this thread was this case.) C. Declarer revokes or commits another infraction that costs one or more tricks. I claim this ought to be the same as B, but Herman disagrees. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 08:09:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:09:51 +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 IAA15833 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:09:41 +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 SAA18339 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:09:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA22290 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:09:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:09:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907082209.SAA22290@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > ... our basic approach should surely be to remember that no > infraction would have led to a different set of circumstances. Yes, but the question is how to apply that sympathy _after irrational play_. > Consider the hand that started this thread. Declarer played 5H* like > one of my partners, and reduced his eleven tricks to nine. Wonderful! > > If we were adjusting, and we reached the same contract, for example if > despite disallowing a call, we believe they would have reached 5H* by a > different route, then to give declarer nine tricks is not unreasonable. OK, we are making progress. (Would the adjustment differ for the OS? Do you deny them the benefit of declarer's irrational play?) > But we are not. Our adjustments have generally been to 3H or 4H > undoubled. If 4H plays, it will be doubled. (I am not sure 4H will play, but that's another thread. Assume it will be 4Hx for the current discussion.) > Now, to give a definitive ruling, of course we need to see > the hand, but in general, if the poster assures us that eleven tricks > were easy, then it is reasonable to suppose that the problem in 5H* was > because of the double or the trick target. No, there was no problem at all in any number of hearts. Declarer could have made eleven tricks by drawing just two rounds of trumps (instead of three) after seeing the 2-2 split. Or he could have avoided one or both of two other, equally irrational plays. (Avoiding both gets eleven tricks; avoiding just one gets ten.) I haven't even mentioned that he took an unnecessary ruff at an awkward time. That wasn't irrational, just an ordinary mistake. > If you play in 3H or 4H you > do not have the same problem so why should you not make eleven tricks? In my example, declarer had exactly the same problem in any heart contract. I suppose it is fair to consider that declarer might not have realized that. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 08:38:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:38:56 +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 IAA15978 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:38:44 +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 SAA19117 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA22316 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:38:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:38:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907082238.SAA22316@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Unless I have misunderstood, this ACBL regulation has been around for > some time, pre-dating the current Law book. I thought the point was specifically to interpret the 1997 language. Marvin? Any idea when the ACBL rule was adopted? > However, the WBFLC has > complicated matters by coming up with an interpretation at Lille that > does not really stand up to logic [*], and now we have again the ongoing > problem with how RAs are meant to act in such circumstances. ... > However, I have sympathy for the ACBL now: this > interpretation is really unnecessary: when a pair is having a less that > 40% session, it is so unnecessary to penalise them further. > Furthermore, if the WBFLC is correct, why is there no equivalent to L88 > for 40% at Pairs? An oversight? The written Law is incomplete; it says "at most 40%" but gives no explanation of when the score should be less than 40%. Nor does it explain when avg+ should be more than 60%, for that matter. > When someone does something wrong, they cannot play a > board, and they get average-minus. If they have any real chance of > winning an event, that score is effectively 25% less than they might > expect on the board. But they know that, and they accept it. > > Now we want to give them less than 40%. I don't care whether it is > the WBFLC giving them 32% because they are having a 32% session, or the > ACBL giving them 32% because their opponents are having a 68% session, > both are mean-spirited approaches. The first pair is having a bad > enough time anyway: the second pair has been penalised enough anyway. > We will not get people to enjoy the game with this type of approach. Hmmm.... if you had to estimate what score you would expect on an unplayed board, I think you might guess that it would be 50% plus your session percentage minus the other pair's session percentage. In other words, if you and the other pair have equal games on the rest of the boards, you expect to split the unplayed one fifty-fifty. If you are doing better than they are, you expect more; if worse, less. Perhaps one should use some other formula, say a ratio instead of a difference, but surely the scores of both pairs should be taken into account to estimate the the expected score. And equity would have the adjusted score based on the expected one, plus something for avg+, minus something for avg-. Neither the WBF nor the ACBL rule does that. The WBF gives each pair a score based on its own game, not considering the game of the other pair. The ACBL gives each pair a score based on the game of whichever pair gets the avg+, not considering the pair that got avg-. Neither rule makes much sense to me, although you can come up with a rationale for either. And what about the formula for avg+? Why should a pair who are doing well score only their own average if the worst pair in the room foul the boards against them? Their expectation might have been 80 or 90%, not the paltry 65% they are scoring against everyone else. > I ask the WBFLC to amend L12C1 back to the 1987 wording, let average- > minus be 40% always, tell the ACBL, and use L90 if a pair do something > else on the board that is bad enough to deserve further action. This has the merit of simplicity, at least. Either we should adopt a rule for both avg+ and avg- that is based somehow on the expected scores for both of the particular pairs involved -- and accept the resulting complexity, not to mention having to find a formula for team play -- or we should just give up and go back to 60/40 with a bit of extra protection for the NOS. What was so wrong with the 1987 Law that it needed to be changed? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 09:10:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:10:46 +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 JAA16095 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:10:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-216-35.s35.tnt3.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.216.35]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id TAA15180 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:10:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001801bec996$e0538580$23d87ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <199907081951.PAA00164@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:09:04 -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: Ted Ying To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 3:51 PM Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem > > Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 (EDT) > > From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) > > > > >+++ For what it is worth this is the note I have put on my > > >memory board: > > > " ? add to Law 45B: 'If declarer instructs dummy as to > > > the play of a card on a trick subsequent to the current > > > trick, that card is played when the previous trick has > > > been quitted and dummy has placed the card in the > > > played position.' " ~ Grattan ~ +++ > > > > > For what it is worth, I don't like this idea at all. I think > > it would be alot easier just to state that it is improper to > > say things like "run the clubs". State that bridge is played > > trick by trick (not including claims, of course). State that > > failing to follow correct procedure could result in a PP, > > especially if it causes the opponents a problem. In other words, > > I don't think we need to add a new law (set of laws?), something > > added between "play trick by trick" and "claim". I don't want > > to have to one day adjudicate someone's "partial claim". > > I feel we should strive for fewer and clearer Laws and > > regulations, not for more and denser. To paraphrase an old saying, > > "An ounce of principle is worth a pound of adjudication". > > > I don't like this either, for a different reason. L45C4a indicates a card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play. By allowing the designation "run the clubs", we are in effect allowing a player to designate a card to be played out of sequence. If we decide that this should be allowed, then there should be a law modification to the effect that the advance designation does not become effective until it is actually legal to play the card. What I don't like is making the play contigent on Dummy's placing of the card. That creates a huge window of opportunity for UI (Dummy hesitates in reaching for the card, etc.) that is not needed. While the vast majority of players will attempt to play in tempo (as they attempt to bid in tempo), in practice this may create a new set of UI rulings. If we do allow Declarer to designate a card in advance, we can eliminate the potential UI by considering it played as soon as it becomes legal to do so (when the previous trick has been quitted). This would prevent Dummy's mechanics from influencing Declarer's play. Why open the door for more UI situations when it is not necessary? > Actually, in ACBL play, Grattan's ruling can actually be backed > up by the ACBL laws. There is no need to add a law to cover the > situation as it is covered by the following laws (IMHO): > Hi Ted, Actually, the Laws are promulgated by the Laws Commission of the WBF. The ACBL follows these Laws (or at least is supposed to) unless authority to do other wise is specifically granted within a particular law to Zonal organizations. > ACBL Law 45.B states: > "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card > after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the > table. in playin from dummy's hand declarer may, if nec- > essary, pick up the desired card himself." > > ACBL Law 45.C.4 states: > "A. A card must be played if a player names or other- > wise designates it as the card he proposes to play." > > Thus, by saying "run the clubs" you have in effect stated what the > next 'n' cards will be from the dummy and they are designated played. > No matter if you have extraneous information from the discards on those > pitches, declarer may not change the play without an infraction > occurring. 45.B does not state when the declarer names the card, but > whether all at once or one by one. > > ACBL Law 47.F states: > "Except as provided in A through E preceding, a card once > played may not be withdrawn." > > Since A through E do not cover anything akin to a change of intent > once the declarer designates to run a suit, then (s)he must run the > suit and cannot change the play until the suit has been run. > > -Ted. > The flaw in this argument is that bridge is indeed played trick by trick (L44B). Since advance designation of a card to be played is not permitted in the laws, it constitutes an illegal play out of turn (rarely enforced, admittedly). L47B allows retraction of a card played illegally, so if we choose to consider the card designated out of turn as played, the player must be allowed to retract it before the turn in which it become a legal play. IMO we can't bind Declarer to run an entire suit on a single command, should events transpire that cause him to change his mind. The questions at hand are: 1) Should advance designation of a card to be played be permitted at all? 2) If advance designation is to be permitted, at what point is a card so designated considered played? Regards, Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 09:21:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:21:12 +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 JAA16134 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:21:00 +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 TAA19921 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:20:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA22365 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:21:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907082321.TAA22365@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 > Why is it desirable that we resolve the [international or inter- > zonal] differences? I know that > people have asserted that it is desirable, and it sounds correct, but I > wonder if it is really such a good idea. This is a fair question. In the past, people played mostly within their local area and perhaps occasionally at national tournaments. There were different rules in other countries, but nobody either knew or cared. The only exceptions were those lucky (skillful!) few who played in international tournaments. Occasionally they might have a surprise, but mostly everyone in an international tournament manages to follow the rules, so things like different policies on how to adjust scores don't show up very often. Now, however, bridge is becoming far more international. Not only is there more participation in international tournaments, more people are able to travel to other countries' national and even lesser tournaments. (Check out the teams in the Spingold or Vanderbilt, for example.) And this doesn't even consider computer networks, which are pretty anarchic now but some day may have events in which enforcement of the Laws is important. Finally, even without tournaments, there are many more tourists who simply want a pleasant bridge game abroad. Why shouldn't they have it? Of course they should expect differences in bidding styles, etc., but why in the fundamental rules of the game? There are also international forums like RGB and BLML. Even if people don't _care_ about different rules elsewhere, there is no doubt we _know_ about them. This has made most of us want to examine whether our own rules are really best. If a consensus can be reached on what rules are best, why not have those rules apply everywhere? > There are not really that many differences where the Laws are > concerned. Regulations are a different matter: presumably they will > continue to differ, though where the line should be drawn between Laws > and Regulations is a question. Yes, exactly. Or more generally, which rules are so fundamental that they should be universal, and which should be up to local authorities (SO's)? And which to intermediate authorities like zones or NCBO's? > But I am not sure that I see why it is that bad that [for example] > Europe and North America have a different interpretation of a Logical > Alternative. Getting the balance right will be very hard and inevitably controversial. I doubt anyone would be happy if, say, the scoring table were a matter of local option. And the revoke penalty is another rule with good reason to be universal. (The interaction of revokes, claims, and concessions has been a continuing topic here on BLML! Whatever the rules are, why can't they be the same everywhere?) But few would be happy about universal alert rules, I suspect. So where do we draw the line? David's example, the definition of LA, seems something that could reasonably go either way. My expectation is that ever-easier communications and travel will tend to push us towards more universal rules and fewer local ones, but it will be a long (unending?) process, not an instant one. I am pleased to see the WBF LC taking the first steps. I hope they will concentrate on the most vexing questions and stick to ones where there is no good reason for local differences. (Taking the Zonal option out of L61B is not a priority!) And if they can combine the rubber and duplicate laws in the process, that's even better. But I sure am glad to be here carping from the sidelines and not one of the people responsible for doing the work! In spite of that, I think we carpers and BLML have a useful role to play. We can raise questions and show where problems are, both in existing rules and in proposed ones. We can offer examples, both good and bad, of how the rules are (mis-)interpreted in different places. And we can help disseminate rules and interpretations as they come into being. We just mustn't try to make our role something it isn't. Well, this got out of hand. Sorry about the length. I hope somebody finds it useful or at least amusing. Good luck and my thanks to those who really are responsible for the work. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 10:42:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:42:38 +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 KAA16517 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:42:28 +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 112Ok2-000PVq-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:42:16 +0000 Message-ID: <9lMVPQAq7Th3Ew5c@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:14:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem References: <199907081445.KAA12078@freenet3.carleton.ca> <199907081951.PAA00164@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <199907081951.PAA00164@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: >> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 (EDT) >> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) >> >> >+++ For what it is worth this is the note I have put on my >> >memory board: >> > " ? add to Law 45B: 'If declarer instructs dummy as to >> > the play of a card on a trick subsequent to the current >> > trick, that card is played when the previous trick has >> > been quitted and dummy has placed the card in the >> > played position.' " ~ Grattan ~ +++ >> > >> For what it is worth, I don't like this idea at all. I think >> it would be alot easier just to state that it is improper to >> say things like "run the clubs". State that bridge is played >> trick by trick (not including claims, of course). State that >> failing to follow correct procedure could result in a PP, >> especially if it causes the opponents a problem. In other words, >> I don't think we need to add a new law (set of laws?), something >> added between "play trick by trick" and "claim". I don't want >> to have to one day adjudicate someone's "partial claim". >> I feel we should strive for fewer and clearer Laws and >> regulations, not for more and denser. To paraphrase an old saying, >> "An ounce of principle is worth a pound of adjudication". >Actually, in ACBL play, Grattan's ruling can actually be backed >up by the ACBL laws. Perhaps, Ted, you would not mind too much if I offered a little education. The Laws are a world-wide affair. There are no "ACBL Laws": there is an ACBL version of the Laws, but its contents were decided by the WBF [World Bridge Federation], and [for historical reasons] there are three copyright holders who actually publish the Laws, one of which is the ACBL. > There is no need to add a law to cover the >situation as it is covered by the following laws (IMHO): > >ACBL Law 45.B states: > "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card > after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the > table. in playin from dummy's hand declarer may, if nec- > essary, pick up the desired card himself." > >ACBL Law 45.C.4 states: > "A. A card must be played if a player names or other- > wise designates it as the card he proposes to play." > >Thus, by saying "run the clubs" you have in effect stated what the >next 'n' cards will be from the dummy and they are designated played. >No matter if you have extraneous information from the discards on those >pitches, declarer may not change the play without an infraction >occurring. 45.B does not state when the declarer names the card, but >whether all at once or one by one. > >ACBL Law 47.F states: > "Except as provided in A through E preceding, a card once > played may not be withdrawn." > >Since A through E do not cover anything akin to a change of intent >once the declarer designates to run a suit, then (s)he must run the >suit and cannot change the play until the suit has been run. What you have said here is a possible interpretation, but discussions here, and at English Bridge Union [*] Panel TD weekends, have concluded that the interpretation you quote here is not correct. The feeling is that since bridge is played one trick at a time, you cannot require someone who has said "Run the clubs" to continue to do so: in effect he has made an extraneous comment of his intent, rather than something he can be held to. Do not misunderstand: I do not suggest that your interpretation is foolish, or anything like that. However, it has been decided that a more reasonable interpretation is that declarer is not committed to continue to run the clubs. If you accept this interpretation, then you have not solved the current dilemma. [*] A small island of the coast of France, called Great Britain. It is difficult to ignore. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 10:42:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:42:46 +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 KAA16516 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 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 112Ok2-000PVp-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:42:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:02:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- References: <011501bec95f$2bd1d300$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <199907081916.PAA25511@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <199907081916.PAA25511@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > The laws governing infractions should not have to take deliberate > cheating into account. It should be assumed that in instances of > cheating that other laws (including PP, suspension, and/or expulsion) > should cover those. Cheating should be outside the consideration of > the laws governing the infractions. Otherwise, the bridge laws would > end up being more complicated than the US legal code and we would have > to have lawyers just to adjudicate appeals committees. Let me tell you a story, which I find strange. As many of you will know, I am always happy to provide opinions on a variety of circumstances, and a few months ago, I was asked to provide an opinion on a set of hands played by a specific player in a lesser league in a particular European country. After consulting with Grattan [despite our disagreements here in print, we do see eye-to-eye on really important matters] I produced a report, the essence of which that the player appeared to be cheating, and that the matter should be reported to his National Authority for investigation. Naturally I was prepared to be quoted. I have spoken to someone on the relevant Committee in that country, and I am told they have discussed the matter. They had [at the time I talked to that person] still to make a final determination. For that final determination, only the lawyers on the Committee were entitled to be present!!!! Now, it is not my business to decide how another NA conducts its business. However, I feel that I am allowed to express surprise. Why only the lawyers? Incidentally, I do not know the final decision, but I expect to find out soon. On this matter, if any of you have a serious matter to be dealt with, perhaps an apparent serious breach of ethics, or you want advice in a delicate situation, please feel free to email. My robust posting style does not reflect the care and sensitivity that I will take with such a case, and I have several people to call on for advice and further opinions. >P.S. - BTW, I'm a new poster and have been counselled to include some info > about myself. I am an ACBL certified director Aaaaaaarrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > (probably a strike >against > me) among other things, live in the Washington DC metro area and have no > cats or dogs (yet!). Ye gods! Seriously, Ted, I am very pleased to see you. I hope you will continue to post, and that you will find this a useful medium. As far as NAmerica is concerned, my own view is that we need more people from there to read this list. If you ever need help on a specific matter, feel free to consult me by writing to . -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 11:57:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 11:57:34 +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 LAA16901 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 11:57:25 +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 112Puf-0003rV-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:57:17 +0000 Message-ID: <5iJkedA+8Uh3EwpG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 02:24:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- References: <199907082238.SAA22316@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907082238.SAA22316@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >The written Law is incomplete; it says "at most 40%" but gives no >explanation of when the score should be less than 40%. Nor does >it explain when avg+ should be more than 60%, for that matter. Oh yes it does: look at L12C1: it refers to L88 for A+. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 13:34:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:34:59 +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 NAA17242 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:34:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA26740; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <016201bec9bb$f9457a60$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <199907081513.LAA21720@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:24:39 -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: > I ask the WBFLC to amend L12C1 back to the 1987 wording, let average- > minus be 40% always, tell the ACBL, I second the motion, despite the horde of players (we are told) who will be fouling boards to get that 40%. > and use L90 if a pair do something > else on the board that is bad enough to deserve further action. L91, please, if the "something else" is grounds for disciplinary action. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 14:20:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA17442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:20:25 +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 OAA17437 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:20:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA03358 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <016301bec9c2$546b2920$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907082238.SAA22316@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:20:05 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > Unless I have misunderstood, this ACBL regulation has been around for > > some time, pre-dating the current Law book. > > I thought the point was specifically to interpret the 1997 language. > Marvin? Any idea when the ACBL rule was adopted? If you mean the "complementary rule," requiring that avg- be what is left over from top after avg+ is awarded, it was adopted in April of 1998, following an LC instruction to that effect issued at the NABC that spring. If you mean the automatic 40% rule (the same no matter what the pair scores on other boards), which remains in force for a one-sided avg- adjustment, that is ancient. > > The written Law is incomplete; it says "at most 40%" but gives no > explanation of when the score should be less than 40%. Nor does > it explain when avg+ should be more than 60%, for that matter. L88 says 60% or session percentage, whichever is greater, for a no-fault artificial adjusted score. Doesn't that cover L12, which references L88? "at most 40%" should perhaps have been more specific. But maybe not. It can be argued that the language as written deliberately leaves open the method of implementing it, and that the WBFLC should have left it alone instead of (in effect) writing a new law. However, this is not the sort of law that should be implemented in different ways. International tournaments have enough problems without adding this one. > > What was so > wrong with the 1987 Law that it needed to be changed? Nothing. 60% or session percentage, whichever is better, for avg+, and 40% always, for avg-. Good enough. A pair that is scoring, say, 37%, on all other boards in a session is unlikely to jump into an overall place after more sessions just because they got 40% instead of 37% for an avg- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 21:59:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:59:33 +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 VAA19026 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:59:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-107-34.uunet.be [194.7.107.34]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA02202 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:59:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3785DE1C.3C5DC9A@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 13:33:48 +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: Adjustment after UI References: <199907082122.RAA22240@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Craig Senior" > > taking this anti-percentage line would appear to be consequent and not > > subsequent. > > I hope everyone agrees with the above. If there is any semblence of > a bridge reason for a different line in a different contract, the NOS > must be given the benefit of the doubt. > I also happen to think Craig's example is too clear to help us in the case at hand. > The problem arises in two other cases (or maybe three), as the following > examples illustrate: > > A. Declarer, a non-offender, misguesses a two-way finesse. There are > no obvious indications which way to take it in either contract. > Nothing irrational about declarer's play, but do we give the NOS the > benefit of getting the finesse right if the adjustment is to the same > denomination at a different level? Do we impose on the OS the burden > of declarer getting it right? > I agree that in this case the AS is usually based on the same number of tricks as originally made, but I don't necessarily believe it is right. Suppose the normal contract is 4S. Opponents use UI to bid 5C. NOS bids to 5S. they make 10 tricks after some 2-way finesse, and the AS is +420. But is they don't bid on, the AS will be +450. Is that fair? I'm not certain. Perhaps that is the reason why we have difficulty over case B : > B. Declarer's play is irrational -- as David puts it, "like one of my > partners." There is no bridge reason for declarer's play in either the > at-the-table or the adjusted contract. Now what? (My original example > in this thread was this case.) > Again, why no let L12C2 play to the fullest ? > C. Declarer revokes or commits another infraction that costs one or > more tricks. I claim this ought to be the same as B, but Herman > disagrees. I think we agree on case C, we disagree on B. The NO action in case C is clearly subsequent, and we don't give redress for that. The NO action in cases B and A is subsequent in one way, but consequent in some measure. Since the contract is not the one it should have been, the play is influenced, maybe in only a small matter. One can revoke in any contract, but one cannot finesse in a contract that one is not playing. As I said before, it is always a matter of measure. My standards are a lot less severe on NOS than that of others. That is why we have AC's composed of several people, haven't we ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 21:59:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:59:50 +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 VAA19036 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:59:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-107-34.uunet.be [194.7.107.34]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA02231; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:59:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3785E033.7D0F06E2@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 13:42:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Schoderb@aol.com, Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. References: <8edd3e6.24b642bf@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 7/8/99 1:50:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > I don't believe it is correct for Zones to have any input in > > the Laws. > > (that includes zonal opt-outs in my opinion). > > > > Zones only exist to help the WBF manage more clearly, and to > > organise zonal championships. > > Would you like to think that over a bit longer before you get reeled in? > .......Kojak No, I don't. It is my personal opinion. The Laws should be world-wide. I know that for practical reasons, this is alas unattainable, but that does not change my personal opinion. Don't tell me you would not like to see the Laws being world-wide ? I think my other comments are more important than this first sentence: let's not forget that the ACBL is not just a zone, but also a NCBO (at least as long as the Canadians accept this) Some of the arguments that we have with the ACBL should be viewed in this light. After all, the EBU has a lot of regulations, and nobody minds. I don't mind the ACBL taking all the authority the Laws provide to SO's, but I do believe zonal options are not in the interest of the World of Bridge. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 9 23:19:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 22:20:20 +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 WAA19167 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 22:20:09 +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 IAA05294 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:32:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990709081945.0070d424@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 08:19:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990708083450.007146ac@pop.cais.com> <37834B1C.C3D2ADD4@village.uunet.be> <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00f101bec7e0$d67bec80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:02 PM 7/8/99 -0400, Ed wrote: >Eric writes: > >>I'm not sympathetic to an NO who claims he would have played better absent >>the infraction for purely psychological reasons ("I misplayed because >>having the director at the table [or being doubled, or whatever] made me >>nervous, and would have found the right play otherwise"). > >Well, I suppose it depends what level player we're discussing. My partner, >who has been playing duplicate for all of about 6 months (at the rate of 1 >game a week, maybe) has complained to me a couple of times that having the >TD around, even when he wasn't called to our table, while she's playing a >hand, intimidates her, makes her nervous, and has, in her opinion, caused >her on a couple of occassions to make mistakes she would not otherwise have >made. You can be unsympathetic to her if you like :-) but I've watched her >play, and I believe she's absolutely right. I'm not unsympathetic to her plight, but would be unsympathetic to a claim that in an adjustment situation this should entitle her to some extra tricks she might have taken had she not been intimidated. Learning to keep one's concentration with the director hovering, or under other such adverse circumstances, is as much a part of the process of development for a bridge player as learning how to run a squeeze or a throw-in. Absent a demonstrable bridge reason for the NO to have played differently had there been no infraction, we can only either assume that she would play as she did, or assume that she would play perfectly. I don't think it's reasonable to require our TDs and ACs to find some kind of (inherently subjective) dividing line through the grey area between these alternatives on a case by case basis. 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 Jul 9 23:28:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 23:28:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19508 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 23:28:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA17229; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:26:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.55) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma016898; Fri Jul 9 08:25:32 1999 Message-ID: <002e01beca0e$d543dd20$37b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Herman De Wael" , , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:27:43 -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 Please remember that the ACBL also includes Mexico and Bermuda, not just the U.S. and Canada, though the latter are the two largest nations in the zone in terms of membership. -- Craig Senior From: Herman De Wael < let's not forget that the ACBL is not just a zone, >but also a NCBO (at least as long as the Canadians accept >this) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 02:15:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 02:15:38 +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 CAA20322 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 02:15:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.22]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA20269 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:15:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:15:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907091615.MAA27633@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How do you rule on this claim? - - AKQT - - - - 9 9876 4 - 87 - 8 J2 T South is declarer, with hearts trump and the lead in his hand. He claims the rest of the tricks (with no line of play), but has forgotten about the outstanding H9. Is it normal for South to play the CT, then the H8, losing an extra trick to East's C8? On any other line, whether South leads the H8 first or plays diamonds first, he loses only one trick. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 02:31:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 02:31:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA20375 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 02:31:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id MAA08292 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:31:03 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199907091631.MAA08292@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:31:03 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <9lMVPQAq7Th3Ew5c@blakjak.demon.co.uk> from "David Stevenson" at Jul 9, 99 01:14:34 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 > Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:14:34 +0100 > From: David Stevenson > > Perhaps, Ted, you would not mind too much if I offered a little > education. The Laws are a world-wide affair. There are no "ACBL Laws": > there is an ACBL version of the Laws, but its contents were decided by > the WBF [World Bridge Federation], and [for historical reasons] there > are three copyright holders who actually publish the Laws, one of which > is the ACBL. > I stand (or in this case, sit) corrected on the status of the ACBL laws. I wasn't trying to be offensive, but being unaware of the state of the laws was trying to be as complete as I could. > What you have said here is a possible interpretation, but discussions > here, and at English Bridge Union [*] Panel TD weekends, have concluded > that the interpretation you quote here is not correct. The feeling is > that since bridge is played one trick at a time, you cannot require > someone who has said "Run the clubs" to continue to do so: in effect he > has made an extraneous comment of his intent, rather than something he > can be held to. > I'll accept the interpretation as given here as it seems to be more accepted than mine. I think you either need to prohibit players from making such statements such as "run the clubs" or bind them to the claim when made. Why? Because otherwise you have situations like that listed below which I have had to rule on: Declarer starts to run the clubs and then mid-way through the run decides from the pitch to change his/her line of play. The defenders however, as good experienced players, took the comment at face value and planned their pitches and discards carefully with the intent of giving appropriate signal information. Suddenly in the midst of the actions, declarer stops. Now, they could have played their discards in a different order had they not been lead to believe that they would have 4 extra discards instead of 2. Doesn't this fall under the proprieties where players should not do anything to deliberately mislead the opponents including body language, change of tempo, or side comments (sorry, I don't have my law book here right now)? So, has declarer mislead the opponents if (s)he did not follow through on the declared intent? When this happens, both sides feel aggrieved. The declarer feels that (s)he had every right (as you say is consensus opinion) to change her mind. But what about the opponents? Especially when you have experienced players who are not extremely familiar with the nuances of the law, how do you explain to them that "run the clubs" should be ignored and they heed it at their own risk? That the declarer can say that and not adhere to it. To many players, this feels like a "change of mind" which they are used to being governed (as in a case of change of call or change of play by declarer). > Do not misunderstand: I do not suggest that your interpretation is > foolish, or anything like that. However, it has been decided that a > more reasonable interpretation is that declarer is not committed to > continue to run the clubs. > > If you accept this interpretation, then you have not solved the > current dilemma. > Not to worry. I'm used to being wrong, so I have no ego (in this sense) to bruise. I'm more worried about getting these situations right and learning as a director than a sense that I am right. > [*] A small island of the coast of France, called Great Britain. It is > difficult to ignore. > So I've noticed. ;-) I'm not sure, but I think the west side of the pond has been trying to do so for over 200 years, haven't they? :-) -Ted. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 04:43:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA21131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 04:43:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.worldonline.dk (fe000.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA21126 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 04:43:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 13523 invoked from network); 9 Jul 1999 18:43:21 -0000 Received: from 18.ppp1-33.image.dk (212.54.71.146) by mail020.image.dk with SMTP; 9 Jul 1999 18:43:21 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 18:43:21 GMT Message-ID: <378d41b1.2293820@mail.image.dk> References: <199907091615.MAA27633@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907091615.MAA27633@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> 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, 9 Jul 1999 12:15:16 -0400 (EDT) skrev David Grabiner: >How do you rule on this claim? > - > - > AKQT > - >- - >- 9 >9876 4 >- 87 > - > 8 > J2 > T >South is declarer, with hearts trump and the lead in his hand. He >claims the rest of the tricks (with no line of play), but has forgotten >about the outstanding H9. >Is it normal for South to play the CT, It may be careless, and it may be inferior, but it certainly is not irrational. Therefore he must lose two tricks. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 05:14:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 05:14:59 +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 FAA21238 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 05:14:52 +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 PAA12964 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:14:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:14:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907091914.PAA08448@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <378d41b1.2293820@mail.image.dk> (blh@nospam.dk) Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Lund Hansen writes: > Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:15:16 -0400 (EDT) skrev David Grabiner: >> How do you rule on this claim? >> - >> - >> AKQT >> - >> - - >> - 9 >> 9876 4 >> - 87 >> - >> 8 >> J2 >> T >> South is declarer, with hearts trump and the lead in his hand. He >> claims the rest of the tricks (with no line of play), but has forgotten >> about the outstanding H9. >> Is it normal for South to play the CT, > It may be careless, and it may be inferior, but it certainly is > not irrational. Therefore he must lose two tricks. This response clipped part of the problem. It is certainly normal for South to play the CT, but if he plays CT, and then diamonds, he still loses only one trick. He must cash some but not all of his side-suit winners before leading trump. Is it normal for a player who has all the tricks to cash the trump at the second trick rather than the first or last trick? The ACBL gave a similar example in the Bulletin. A player holding J32 of trumps who says, "You get the queen" when the outstanding trump is the 9 will lose it, because it would be normal for him to play low. A player holding JT2 who makes the same claim would be unlikely to lead the 2, and thus gets all three tricks. -- 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 Jul 10 06:17:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 06:17:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from inet16.us.oracle.com (inet16.us.oracle.com [209.246.15.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA21437 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 06:17:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailsun2.us.oracle.com (mailsun2.us.oracle.com [144.25.88.74]) by inet16.us.oracle.com (8.9.2/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA29815 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dlsun565.us.oracle.com by mailsun2.us.oracle.com with ESMTP (SMI-8.6/37.8) id NAA03556; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:15:45 -0700 Received: (from jboyce@localhost) by dlsun565.us.oracle.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA02600; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:17:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Boyce Message-Id: <199907092017.NAA02600@dlsun565.us.oracle.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: jboyce@sun-jboyce.us.oracle.com Subject: multiple revoke; establishment Reply-to: jboyce%sun-jboyce@oracle.us.oracle.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Consider the following strictly hypothetical case. South is declarer. East and then South revoke on the same trick, North apparently winning the trick. Declarer designates dummy's lead to the next trick. East notices his own revoke. Summon the director. How do you untangle this? Which law takes precedence? Do you apply 62A to East's unestablished revoke? A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established. Do you apply 63C to South's revoke? Once a revoke is established, the revoke may no longer be corrected (except trick 12), and the trick on which the revoke occured stands as played. -jim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 06:48:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 06:48:18 +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 GAA21553 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 06:48:12 +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 QAA22985 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:48:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907092048.QAA11201@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199907092017.NAA02600@dlsun565.us.oracle.com> (message from Jim Boyce on Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:17:07 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: multiple revoke; establishment Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jim Boyce writes: > Hi, > Consider the following strictly hypothetical case. > South is declarer. > East and then South revoke on the same trick, North apparently winning > the trick. > Declarer designates dummy's lead to the next trick. > East notices his own revoke. > Summon the director. > How do you untangle this? Which law takes precedence? > Do you apply 62A to East's unestablished revoke? > A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the > irregularity before it becomes established. > Do you apply 63C to South's revoke? > Once a revoke is established, the revoke may no longer be corrected > (except trick 12), and the trick on which the revoke occured stands > as played. I apply L62A to East's revoke. The law allowing correction of revokes makes no sense if it isn't allowed to supersede laws governing retraction of cards. Therefore, East may correct his revoke. The Laws aren't clear on what to do next if South retracts his card and chooses to follow suit instead. I would rule that a retracted card is as though it had never been played except for UI (you may retract a stupid play even if the revoke is irrelevant), and nullify South's revoke. -- 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 Jul 10 07:25:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 07:25:08 +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 HAA21696 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 07:25:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA27781 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002101beca51$75ad3580$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <199907082122.RAA22240@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3785DE1C.3C5DC9A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:24:41 -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 Herman De Wael wrote > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > A. Declarer, a non-offender, misguesses a two-way finesse. There are > > no obvious indications which way to take it in either contract. > > Nothing irrational about declarer's play, but do we give the NOS the > > benefit of getting the finesse right if the adjustment is to the same > > denomination at a different level? Do we impose on the OS the burden > > of declarer getting it right? > > > > I agree that in this case the AS is usually based on the > same number of tricks as originally made, but I don't > necessarily believe it is right. > > Suppose the normal contract is 4S. Opponents use UI to bid > 5C. NOS bids to 5S. they make 10 tricks after some 2-way > finesse, and the AS is +420. But if they don't bid on, the > AS will be +450. Is that fair? Yes. We know how the hand was actually played in the 5S contract, but we don't know how it would have been played if the contract is 5C. If there is no bridge reason for the play to differ in 4S or 5S, the play should certainly stand. If you think about the alternative, it's easy to see there is no choice in the matter. For instance, a NO could finesse for a queen the "wrong" way, knowing that if it doesn't work the finesse will be taken the other way in the adjustment. Of course if there is a bridge reason for playing 5S differently from 4S, the play may well be revised when adjusting. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 07:35:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 07:35:58 +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 HAA21747 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 07:35:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-225-180.s434.tnt6.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.225.180]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA25026 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 17:35:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005b01beca52$ccb38a40$b4e1a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199907091615.MAA27633@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 17:34:11 -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: David Grabiner To: Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 12:15 PM Subject: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? > > How do you rule on this claim? > > - > - > AKQT > - > - - > - 9 > 9876 4 > - 87 > - > 8 > J2 > T > > South is declarer, with hearts trump and the lead in his hand. He > claims the rest of the tricks (with no line of play), but has forgotten > about the outstanding H9. > > Is it normal for South to play the CT, then the H8, losing an extra > trick to East's C8? On any other line, whether South leads the H8 > first or plays diamonds first, he loses only one trick. > If S believes that all of the cards are high, then it would in theory be careless but not irrational for S to play the CT, followed by the H8, which would lead to the loss of two tricks. However, is this really a normal line of play? Outside of a novice game, has anyone actually seen a play like this at the table? Normal play, on the assumption that trumps are out, and all remaining cards are winners, is to pound out Aces and Kings, not eights and tens, holding the last trump until the hand is over. The counter argument is that since all of the S cards are winners, then it would be equally rational to play them in any order. Thus, since the claim is bad, we must resolve the order of play in the manner least favorable for claimer. Can we really stretch the meaning of "normal" to include a line of play that is both possible and rational, but would never happen at the table? I hope not. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 08:11:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 08:11:12 +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 IAA21818 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 08:11:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA02421; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:10:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002a01beca57$e4a16320$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <8edd3e6.24b642bf@aol.com> <3785E033.7D0F06E2@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:10:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > I don't mind the ACBL taking all the authority the Laws > provide to SO's, but I do believe zonal options are not in > the interest of the World of Bridge. > When you see what zonal differences have done to international basketball, with different court markings and different rules elsewhere than in this hemisphere (or is it US only?), Herman makes good sense. Imagine games like tennis, baseball, soccer, etc., etc., having zonal options in the laws of the games. Baseball teams have local rules associated with the layout of each park, but the rules are identical between the foul lines and inside the fence. There *is* a big difference in rules between two major groups of teams, but you know what they do? They put them in two different leagues, with their own set of rules, and in interleague play the host team's rules apply. Is that what we want for bridge? Now for some bias. As an American, it gripes me a little to see games that we invented (basketball, contract bridge), and in which we are major players, modified by those with a "we know better" attitude. It is no wonder that the ACBL and ACBL LC drag their feet in conforming with WBF By-Laws and with the WBFLC. Not that I condone it. If we can't live with the WBF rules, we should state that fact clearly, leave the WBF, and write our own Laws. Otherwise, cooperate and conform. After all, we do have strong representation in the WBF. But avoid wishy-washy compromises. There are occasions when compromises, however tempting to politicos desirous of pleasing their constituencies, are inappropriate. Doves vs hawks when a war is on, for instance, when compromises lead to defeat or false victory. Either do it or get off the pot. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 08:28:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 08:28:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.worldonline.dk (fe000.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA21848 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 08:28:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14143 invoked from network); 9 Jul 1999 22:28:43 -0000 Received: from 53.ppp1-8.image.dk (212.54.69.245) by mail020.image.dk with SMTP; 9 Jul 1999 22:28:43 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 22:28:42 GMT Message-ID: <37aa7755.4801467@mail.image.dk> References: <199907091914.PAA08448@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907091914.PAA08448@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> 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, 9 Jul 1999 15:14:43 -0400 (EDT) skrev David Grabiner: >> It may be careless, and it may be inferior, but it certainly is >> not irrational. Therefore he must lose two tricks. >This response clipped part of the problem. I see now. I think I will stick to two losers however. It is not irrational to think that the hand has two winners that must be cleared before the table takes the rest, and still not irrational to take CT and H8 before entering the table. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 08:37:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 08:37:40 +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 IAA21878 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 08:37:29 +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 SAA00727 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 18:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA23011 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 18:37:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 18:37:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907092237.SAA23011@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > - > - > AKQT > - > - - > - 9 > 9876 4 > - 87 > - > 8 > J2 > T > > South is declarer, with hearts trump and the lead in his hand. > Is it normal for South to play the CT, then the H8, Interesting case. My first reaction was the same as Bertel's: it is normal to play supposed winners in any order. But is it? I have two arguments against. Logical: if one were shown only declarer's and dummy's last four cards and told to win all the tricks (or as many tricks as possible), how would one play? What can go wrong? A high trump might be out, so the side winners might be played. Or a low trump might be out, so cash the trump. Or the C-T might not be high, so play anything else first. But it cannot be right to play C-T then H-8. Psychological: as Hirsch points out, nobody plays like that. Either one cashes the trump to gather in any "lurkers," or one plays side winners. Nobody cashes a side winner and then switches to a trump. And if playing side winners, nobody cashes a ten when AKQJ are visible. After reading L70A and 70C again, I think these are enough to rule one trick to defenders, three to declarer, but I wouldn't argue if an AC ruled otherwise. I would rule the same if defender's trump were a low one, BTW. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 09:32:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 09:32:16 +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 JAA22011 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 09:32:04 +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 TAA01355 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:31:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA23060 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:32:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:32:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907092332.TAA23060@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > > A. Declarer, a non-offender, misguesses a two-way finesse. > I agree that in this case the AS is usually based on the > same number of tricks as originally made, but I don't > necessarily believe it is right. This is something on which we could use world-wide guidance. > > B. Declarer's play is irrational > Again, why no let L12C2 play to the fullest ? If you aren't going to improve the NOS play in A, you certainly shouldn't do it in B. If you are going to improve it, there's a case for doing so here as well. > > C. Declarer revokes > I think we agree on case C, we disagree on B. I don't think I've stated an opinion on any of the cases except that I believe B and C should be the same. And above I've said that A should be treated at least as favorably as B and C but not necessarily more favorably. If Herman is right that we don't adjust the number of tricks in A, then I think it would be wrong to adjust the number in B or C. The NOS shouldn't get a better score for playing worse. I remain, however, unsure about A. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 10:28:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:28:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22180 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:28:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem95.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.95] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 112l08-0006Mw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 01:28:20 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 23:35:56 +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 o=o-o "It is not well for a ruler to have too strong tendencies for other affairs." - Goethe. ++ooOOOoo++ > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. > Date: 08 July 1999 18:31 > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Herman wrote: > > > > > >It seems to me that all Grattan is asking for is that SOs comply with > > >the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and the By-Laws of the World Bridge > > >Federation. That's not asking too much. > > +++++ I do not recall that I expressed a defined position. If I did it would be that we should first of all decide what we want and afterwards rewrite the laws to the way we think the game should be played and administered. Here and now I am not taking sides on which of any two positions is the better; the position I do not want is that we have laws and then, wherever it may be, do whatever we think regardless of what the law says. There are lots of dangers to this. Referral to courts of law is one (if someone feels sufficiently damaged by a false ruling), disrepute in a sport aiming for world recognition another. We do have to get our act together somehow. Regulations can vary, and we should establish where regulation takes over from law. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 17:08:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA24281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 17:08:35 +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 RAA24276 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 17:08:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA19290 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 00:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010e01becaa2$ef36a0c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Book on Movements Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 00:07:54 -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 Finally had time to run a simple little simulation: 7 tables mitchell with arrow switch, two boards a round. The odd-board contracts are played by N/S, the even boards by E/W. Two strong pairs and one weak pair sit E/W, two weak pairs and one strong pair sit N/S. The strong pairs always score 150, the weak pairs 90, and the others 120, when they are the declaring side. Scores with arrows switched on rounds 6 and 7, per Olaf Hanner, and round 7 only, per John Probst's 1/8 rule. ACBL matchpoints, 42 average: Rounds Round 6 and 7 7 only 62 60.5 60 60 53 58 47 44 45 43.5 44.5 43 43 42 41.5 42 41.5 42 40 42 37 41 26 25 24 23 23.5 22 Switching just one round results in greater balance, obviously, even though the comparisons look terrible when you examine them. Evidently one must aim at more than equalizing comparisons among pairs, to account for what John Probst calls the "head-to-head" effect. The 3 strong pairs and 3 weak pairs finished as expected, and the others hovered around the expected average score of 42. Ideally the strong, weak, and other pairs should have identical scores in their group, but perfection isn't possible. I had the strong pairs starting against the weak pairs, and I suppose some other starting position would affect the results to a small degree. Don't have time to experiment, unfortunately. Also would like to switch the odd boards on round 6 and the even boards on round 7, instead of both on round 7, but I could not figure out how to do that with ACBLScor, which seems to prefer (insist) that pairs play all boards in a set without changing direction. I think it would improve the balance even more, but doing it in a real game is probably impractical. This 1/8 rule is a welcome simple solution to an old problem. Every book one picks up has different rules for arrow-switching, all quite complicated. For instance, Lawrence Rosler said switch on rounds 3, 5, 6, and 7 in a complete 9 table Mitchell, while Olof Hanner says rounds 6, 8, and 9. Now we can switch one round, any round, that's it. Maybe we can even get the ACBL to adopt arrow-switching again, if it's that simple. Which reminds me that in the old days of ACBL arrow-switching, instead of going by the book most TDs would switch the arrow for the last half of a game, a 1/2 rule! When told this was wrong, they responded by not switching the arrow at all, so that today we see straight Mitchell games with overall ranking--even in major championships. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 20:12:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:12:51 +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 UAA24572 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:12:41 +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 112u7U-000GDL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:12:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 01:11:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? References: <199907092237.SAA23011@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907092237.SAA23011@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Grabiner >> - >> - >> AKQT >> - >> - - >> - 9 >> 9876 4 >> - 87 >> - >> 8 >> J2 >> T >> >> South is declarer, with hearts trump and the lead in his hand. >> Is it normal for South to play the CT, then the H8, > >Interesting case. My first reaction was the same as Bertel's: it is >normal to play supposed winners in any order. But is it? I have two >arguments against. > >Logical: if one were shown only declarer's and dummy's last four cards >and told to win all the tricks (or as many tricks as possible), how >would one play? What can go wrong? A high trump might be out, so the >side winners might be played. Or a low trump might be out, so cash the >trump. Or the C-T might not be high, so play anything else first. But >it cannot be right to play C-T then H-8. Aaaah, I thought, at last a thread that I shall not comment on. And then sneaky old Steve ...... No, I don't care whether you allow two or three tricks, for the reason you give later and others have given. But I do not accept the above argument. People who are careful enough to consider the possibility that they may have made a mistake in the position do not make false claims, and you should not rule on the basis of this type of careful play. -- 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 Jul 10 20:12:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:12:54 +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 UAA24576 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:12:45 +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 112u7Z-000Nrz-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:12:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 01:06:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem References: <9lMVPQAq7Th3Ew5c@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <199907091631.MAA08292@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <199907091631.MAA08292@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: >I'll accept the interpretation as given here as it seems to be more >accepted than mine. I think you either need to prohibit players from making >such statements such as "run the clubs" or bind them to the claim when made. >Why? Because otherwise you have situations like that listed below which I >have had to rule on: > > Declarer starts to run the clubs and then mid-way through the > run decides from the pitch to change his/her line of play. The > defenders however, as good experienced players, took the comment > at face value and planned their pitches and discards carefully > with the intent of giving appropriate signal information. Suddenly > in the midst of the actions, declarer stops. Now, they could have > played their discards in a different order had they not been lead > to believe that they would have 4 extra discards instead of 2. > Doesn't this fall under the proprieties where players should not > do anything to deliberately mislead the opponents including body > language, change of tempo, or side comments (sorry, I don't have > my law book here right now)? So, has declarer mislead the opponents > if (s)he did not follow through on the declared intent? > >When this happens, both sides feel aggrieved. The declarer feels that >(s)he had every right (as you say is consensus opinion) to change her mind. >But what about the opponents? Especially when you have experienced players >who are not extremely familiar with the nuances of the law, how do you explain >to them that "run the clubs" should be ignored and they heed it at their own >risk? That the declarer can say that and not adhere to it. To many players, >this feels like a "change of mind" which they are used to being governed (as >in a case of change of call or change of play by declarer). In my view, if you decide that the defenders have a case then you adjust under L72B1. This is an obnoxious thing to happen in the circumstances you describe and it needs to be dealt with. Of course, it would be better if declarers did not say "Run the clubs", but do you think we can sensibly ban them? Think of all the club players around the world! The other view, of course, would be to hold declarer to a statement that he must run the clubs. The reason why this is not fair is because declarers start to run the clubs and one of two things happen: either they discover that they are squeezing themselves and are running out of discards, or they discover that the suit did not actually break and they cannot run the clubs because one of them will not win! In either case it seems wrong to force the declarer to continue. If the clubs do not break then the defence certainly should not expect him to keep running 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 Sat Jul 10 20:25:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:25:05 +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 UAA24620 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:24:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-95-124.uunet.be [194.7.95.124]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA07649 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:24:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37871A68.60B0FAB5@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:03:20 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <199907092332.TAA23060@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > If Herman is right that we don't adjust the number of tricks in A, then > I think it would be wrong to adjust the number in B or C. The NOS > shouldn't get a better score for playing worse. > > I remain, however, unsure about A. I don't believe we should not adjust in A. I think we should be thinking about adjusting in all three cases ! As I said in another post : We should not worry about being to lenient on NOs, we should strive to be sever against Os ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 10 20:25:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:25:06 +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 UAA24619 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:24:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-95-124.uunet.be [194.7.95.124]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA07645 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:24:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378719F6.4B7AC527@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:01:26 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <199907082122.RAA22240@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3785DE1C.3C5DC9A@village.uunet.be> <002101beca51$75ad3580$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > Yes. We know how the hand was actually played in the 5S contract, but we > don't know how it would have been played if the contract is 5C. > > If there is no bridge reason for the play to differ in 4S or 5S, the > play should certainly stand. If you think about the alternative, it's > easy to see there is no choice in the matter. For instance, a NO could > finesse for a queen the "wrong" way, knowing that if it doesn't work the > finesse will be taken the other way in the adjustment. Of course if > there is a bridge reason for playing 5S differently from 4S, the play > may well be revised when adjusting. > I was thinking of some other arguments. Suppose there is clear UI, yet opponents bid on. You know that if you bid one level higher, you may be stuck with the number of tricks you get. Whereas if you pass, you will always get the correct finesse. Good reason not to bid on. OTOH you must always assume that they bid correctly, so you must bid on if your hand feels like it. Now we have conflicting advice, both given from a Lawmakers point of view. Rather I would scrap the first one and always award +450, so that the second argument can be "assume they have their bid, bid normally yourself, and WE WILL PROTECT you if they don't have their bid". I don't want to be lenient towards NOs, I want to be severe against Os! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 02:46:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 02:46:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA26011 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 02:46:35 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id 5ZVPa28265 (4238); Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:43:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:43:47 EDT Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/10/99 6:26:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > We should not worry about being to lenient on NOs, we should > strive to be sever against Os ! Maybe it would be good for you to again look at the Scope of the Laws. This severity you speak of to redress damage done by departure from correct procedure smacks to me of lack of knowledge on your part of what the Laws are for. Beat up the offenders, make them suffer, give them a big black mark in your book! Besides the word is spelled "severe" in English. (To "sever" means to cut, tear, break into parts --- so maybe you did use the word you were thinking of!) If you are mistakenly of the mind that this is the proper way to handle people who purposely offend the Laws, then you are part of a small but vocal clique who aren't willing to stand up and take disciplinary action, but would rather the Laws did it for them. Severity against purposeful offenses belongs to discipline, and the Rules and Regulations of the SO that the Law authorizes. It is not redress for damage by inadvertency or even ignorance of the player. This is still a game played by nice people, against nice people, in a nice manner............let's keep it that way.............Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 04:23:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA26079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 03:16:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA26074 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 03:16:47 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id sSDDa23618 (3932); Sat, 10 Jul 1999 13:15:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9f55d4d3.24b8d994@aol.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 13:15:00 EDT Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. To: mfrench1@san.rr.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: Jimkirkham@aol.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 7/9/99 6:12:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > Now for some bias. As an American, it gripes me a little to see games > that we invented (basketball, contract bridge), and in which we are > major players, modified by those with a "we know better" attitude. It is > no wonder that the ACBL and ACBL LC drag their feet in conforming with > WBF By-Laws and with the WBFLC. Read your posting with pleasure until I got to this paragraph. Probably the best example of bias I've seen in a long time. Besides, my Law book, published by the ACBL, is entitled Laws of DUPLICATE Contract Bridge. Are you so sure we also invented THAT along with flying, the Internet, computers, and TV? t gripes ME more than a little to have a personal opinion (either yours or mine - neither of us speak for America) labeled in such a way as to perpetuate bias. The words "As an American" are buzz words, and have gotten a buzz from me. Your thoughts might be more seriously considered of value without such a preface. You are right that the WBF Executive Council has 5 ACBL members out of the 15 for the whole world, and 11 of 19 members on the WBFLC including the Vice Chairman. They should be able to protect the ACBL's interests, should they significantly differ from the millions of other bridge players on this globe, be they so incluned. cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 04:58:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA26357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:58:58 +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 EAA26351 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:58:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA15061 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 11:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002a01becb06$33bcb500$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <9f55d4d3.24b8d994@aol.com> Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 11:58:30 -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 > > > Now for some bias. As an American, it gripes me a little to see games > > that we invented (basketball, contract bridge), and in which we are > > major players, modified by those with a "we know better" attitude. It is > > no wonder that the ACBL and ACBL LC drag their feet in conforming with > > WBF By-Laws and with the WBFLC. > > Read your posting with pleasure until I got to this paragraph. Probably the > best example of bias I've seen in a long time. Besides, my Law book, > published by the ACBL, is entitled Laws of DUPLICATE Contract Bridge. Are > you so sure we also invented THAT along with flying, the Internet, computers, > and TV? > Probably I should not have exposed my biased feelings. I did so only to offer a possible explanation for the "foot-dragging" of the ACBL and ACBL LC, not to justify it. I don't know anyone in these parts who isn't annoyed when watching our great basketball players having to deal with strange rules and court markings. We shouldn't be annoyed, sure, but it's human nature. And we should accede to the decisions of the WBF with good grace. I am quite willing to dispense with "No clubs, partner?" in accordance with a uniform set of Laws, and would welcome whole-point matchpoints (or Ascherman!), but could not accept L12C3 unless it is clearly subordinated to L12C2. Duplicate goes back to the days of whist, when American Mitchell developed the idea in 1891. The British were the first to put out a set of Laws for auction bridge (1908) but contract bridge was invented by American Vanderbilt (or one of the girls on his yacht), popularized by American Culbertson, and American Kaplan was the chief developer of the modernized Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge (originated by the Knickerbocker Whist Club of New York in 1927, beating the British this time). However, it is an international game now, and it is appropriate that an international body should govern it. No argument from me on that point. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 05:07:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA26376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 05:07:22 +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 FAA26371 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 05:07:12 +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 PAA24612 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:07:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA23568 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:07:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:07:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907101907.PAA23568@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > "assume they have their bid, bid normally yourself, and WE > WILL PROTECT you if they don't have their bid". I like this. It seems to be a strong reason to adjust in case A (normal misguess). The NOS player might have said "If he has his bid, they are making 5C, so I need to bid 5H as a save." Now the OS player does not have his bid, but meanwhile the NOS player has not only given up his penalty in 5Cx, he has had a chance to misguess the play. On the other hand, L12C2 specifies "had the irregularity not occurred" for the NOS score. But in that case, the contract would have been 4H, played (by assumption) the same way. The only equity the NOS have lost is being in 5H instead of 4H. In spite of the above logic, I confess I would prefer to adjust the play to benefit the NOS. I'm just not convinced it's legal. Even if you accept Herman's position for A, I am not so sure about B and C. Shouldn't the NOS still have to "play bridge," even after an infraction? Do we really want to protect them from irrational play, double shots, and revokes? Is it possible to interpret the rules to allow protection in A but not also in B and C? Or is that not what others prefer? > I don't want to be lenient towards NOs, I want to be severe > against Os! This isn't relevant to the NOS score. You can adjust the OS score as if declarer had got the finesse right regardless of what you do with the NOS score. If it's a plausible bridge result, you can even give them -800 in the illegal 5Cx. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 07:05:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 07:05:47 +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 HAA26610 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 07:05:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from bidule2 (portmp269.worldcom.ch [195.119.117.29]) by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA04818 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 23:03:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990710210607.006b5ce0@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 23:06:07 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: Malta Appeals Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, Thanks to Herman, all 38 appeals from Malta are at: http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals.html Yvan. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 08:40:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA26796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 08:40:28 +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 IAA26790 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 08:40:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem116.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.116] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 1135n1-0005wJ-00; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 23:40:11 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: establishment Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 23:35:22 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "It is not well for a ruler to have too strong tendencies for other affairs." - Goethe. ++ooOOOoo++ > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: establishment > Date: 09 July 1999 00:21 > > > And if they can combine the rubber and duplicate laws > in the process, that's even better. > ++++ I do not think this is an option. Rubber bridge is gaming, duplicate bridge is competitive; there could be no place for gaming in a definition of 'sport' and we need to keep the two apart if Olympic recognition is to be achieved. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 08:40:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA26801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 08:40:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.204]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26794 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 08:40:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem116.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.116] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 1135my-0005wJ-00; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 23:40:08 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , , Cc: Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:46:01 +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 o=o-o "It is not well for a ruler to have too strong tendencies for other affairs." - Goethe. ++ooOOOoo++ > From: Schoderb@aol.com > To: mfrench1@san.rr.com; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Cc: Jimkirkham@aol.com > Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. > Date: 10 July 1999 18:15 > > In a message dated 7/9/99 6:12:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > Now for some bias. As an American, it gripes me a little to see games > > that we invented (basketball, contract bridge), and in which we are > > major players, > -------------------------------- \x/ ---------------------------- > > Schoder: > You are right that the WBF Executive Council has 5 ACBL members out of the 15 > for the whole world, and 11 of 19 members on the WBFLC including the Vice > Chairman. They should be able to protect the ACBL's interests, should they > significantly differ from the millions of other bridge players on this globe, > be they so incluned. > ++++ Well, I am grateful that the balance is struck. If one were counting that way one would add that at the WBFLC meetings in Lille the majority of members present were from the ACBL throughout. So the sources there could hardly be considered unAmerican. But this much said I like to think that most or all members of that body do not see themselves as European, American, etc. but as members of the world bridge community working for the game. It is true we have to take account of the differing approaches of the various Zones and tread a path amongst them, but that does not mean that we draw a mid-Atlantic line down the middle of the table (where would Santanu Ghosh or John Wignall sit?) - and speaking of digging trenches in the Ocean it seems Marvin is working at it in Spades. So my respects to my colleagues on the Committee and may we not be distracted from the job we are there to do by people who think small. And, Kojak, all hail to you my friend. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ p.s. does Marvin make the case that the English should be the only ones to change the rules of soccer? Ah, chauvinistic thought. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 09:23:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 09:23:57 +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 JAA26887 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 09:23:50 +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 TAA29097 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:23:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:23:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907102323.TAA03773@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Malta cases 9/10 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks to Herman for putting the casebook on line for discussion. The standard appears to be pretty good. I don't agree with all the committees, but many of them are rulings in which I could be convinced otherwise had I been there. The references to rules are useful, both as a guide to players reading the casebook, and as a confirmation that the director or committee did (or didn't) apply the right rule. Case 9/10 is the only case in which I found a serious problem, and here the problem is with the Director's ruling; the Committee's decision is reasonable. What the Director did do seems clearly wrong, but what should he do on his determination of the facts? Here's the relevant section: W N E S P 4C P 4H P P X P 4S The Facts: East summoned the Director at the end of the hand, complaining he had not received an alert on Four Clubs. Four Clubs was Namyats. It had been correctly alerted and explained by South to West. North stated that he had alerted, but East had not seen. East/West play that a direct double over Four Clubs is take-out over Hearts, whereas the delayed Double would be for penalties. East took the Double to be take-out, which is why he bid Four Spades. The Director: Went all the way to the vugraph theatre (this was the open Room of the Rama match) to ask if North had alerted. Some spectators could affirm that North had made a "soft" alert. He had taken the card out of the bidding box, held it in the air and replaced it. The director also established in the same manner that East had only looked at opponent's Convention Card at the end of play. The Director checked the Convention Card of North/South. The meaning of Four Clubs was mentioned among "General Approach and Style", but not among "Special bids that may require Defence", and not among the opening bids in the inside of the Card. The Director judged both pairs to be at fault and applied Law 12C1 (no normal result possible) and cancelled the board. Ruling: Board Cancelled. (Both sides appealred. The committee adjusted to 4Hx, -800/+800, ruling that the N-S infractions were "too severe not to give E-W the benefit of the doubt." While I believe that East should have checked for an expected alert and thus would have ruled -800/-100, the committee's ruling is reasonable, particualarly if it is based on the assumption that East would not have found the information on the convention card.) My comments: E-W did not commit an infraction; they made a bridge mistake (East's failure to protect himself by looking at the convention card). There was only one infraction, and the Director is supposed to rule whether or not it damaged E-W. If he isn't sure, he should rule that there was damage and let the offenders appeal. Cancelling the board cannot be right, since there was only one infraction; it is the team equivalent of giving average to both sides. In any case, a result could be obtained; the table result came from something resembling bridge, and if the table result was not normal, there is only one alternative result. Was the director trying to get around L12C3 (which would have allowed him to award 50% of -800 and 50% of +100)? If this is the case, should the director have ruled -800 and then sent the case to committee himself? -- 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 Jul 11 13:46:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 13:46:41 +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 NAA27477 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 13:46:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA04385 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <015f01becb4f$ef60b560$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:46:18 -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 Grattan quoted me out of context: > Now for some bias. As an American, it gripes me a little to see games > that we invented (basketball, contract bridge), and in which we are > major players, > -------------------------------- \x/ ---------------------------- > > Neatly snipping my sentiments *against* zonal options for the Laws (agreeing with Herman), and urging that we suppress such feelings. >- and speaking > of digging trenches in the Ocean it seems Marvin is working > at it in Spades. The words I used were "cooperate and conform," which is building a bridge, not digging a trench. > So my respects to my colleagues on the Committee and > may we not be distracted from the job we are there to do by > people who think small. Surely you have a delete key? > p.s. does Marvin make the case that the English should be > the only ones to change the rules of soccer? Ah, chauvinistic > thought. Don't remember making any case of this nature. The FIFA should govern soccer, the WBF should govern bridge. Brian Meadows tells me: ##### As a lifelong (British) soccer fan now living in the USA, I have to point out that the Americans did indeed vary some of the laws of soccer as set out by FIFA. American conformance with the laws that were (AFAIK) accepted in the rest of the world happened when the USA decided that it wanted to bid to host the World Cup. They rightly (IMO) decided there wasn't a hope in hell of FIFA giving them the World Cup if they persisted in playing to different rules. ####### Good for the FIFA, they apparently know how to run an international sport. And American women know how to play it! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 15:42:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA27730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 15:42:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27725 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 15:42:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA14753 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01a901becb60$23902220$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Returned Mail Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:42:18 -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 Every time I send an e-mail to BLML, I get a return e-mail from Germany saying that my e-mail to Christian Farwig christian_farwig@yahoo.de could not be delivered, due to an "error in parsing." and labeled "Extended absence forward" followed by the subject I put on the e-mail. Of course Christian is not in the To line that I send. Anyone else having this trouble? Or know the explanation? I put a filter on the source of these e-mails, postmaster@emehm1101.ac.com , solving the problem, but I'm curious as to what this is all about. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 16:27:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA27843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 16:27:44 +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 QAA27837 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 16:27:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA22064 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 23:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01be01becb66$6ed4dfe0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Partnership Agreements Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 23:27:20 -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 Most BLMLers will remember the Miami 1996 summer NABC Appeals case number 21, which involved Karen McCallum's correction of her partner's mistaken explanation of a bid (to Benito Garazzo), even though the explanation happened to match McCallum's hand. The TD ruled MI, but the AC ruled that she had done the right thing, and the casebook commentators agreed. The opponents must be given the correct information about partnership agreements, without regard to one's actual holding. (I won't give the entire deal, as it includes issues that I'm not concerned with right now.) As I remember, Herman De Wael disagreed with this policy, thinking it unethical to correct partner's statement when holding the sort of hand described by the mistaken explanation, at least without some remark to protect them from getting the wrong impression. I think he was in the minority on this. Just came across the following ACBL LC policy in re L75D2, published in July 1997, and probably issued because of Miami No. 21: ###### When a player's explanation has correctly described his partner's hand but not the pair's agreement, and even though the partner is required to correct the explanation before the defenders make the opening lead, ACBL policy is that the player should make a disclaimer statement before giving the corrected explanation. This may also be true when there has been there has been a failure to alert during the auction. If no disclaimer is given, the director may treat the original offense as the one doing the damage and adjust the board to protect the non-offenders. ##### I have a hard time understanding all that, with my small mind, but apparently the ACBL LC agrees with Herman. I take it that a "disclaimer statement" is something like "Don't count on me for having the hand I'm supposed to have, but the explanation was wrong and our agreement is actually........" If the mistaken explanation matches partner's hand, how could it do damage? The LC seems to forget (as did McCallum, the TD, the AC, and the casebook panelists) that the TD must be called before an explanation is corrected. That requirement in L75D2 is seldom obeyed, but it can be very important that the TD hear the corrective statement. So, three questions: 1. Do BLML participants agree with this LC policy? 2. If so, what would constitute a suitable "disclaimer statement"? 3. What Law should be cited as justification for a board adjustment when there is no disclaimer and damage results? Marv (Marvin L. French, ISPE, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 20:32:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:32:48 +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 UAA28240 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:32:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-144-226.uunet.be [194.7.144.226]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA06678; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:32:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37886D4A.9C8AB60B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:09:14 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Schoderb@aol.com, Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI 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 7/10/99 6:26:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > We should not worry about being to lenient on NOs, we should > > strive to be sever against Os ! > > Maybe it would be good for you to again look at the Scope of the Laws. This > severity you speak of to redress damage done by departure from correct > procedure smacks to me of lack of knowledge on your part of what the Laws are > for. Beat up the offenders, make them suffer, give them a big black mark in > your book! Now look here, I was not really bringing the tar and feathers out, was I ? Just advocating awarding 11 tricks as per L12C2 ! I just wanted to stress that while everyone was talking about leniency against non-offenders, it could also be ascribed as severity against offenders. Offenders have used UI to bid 5Cl. I believe that at that time they are subject to rectification to 4Sp+1 under L12C2. If NOs then bid 5Sp, this does not break the link and neither does the taking of a 2-way finesse. Why let the score then return to 420 after that ? I think 420 and 450 are both normal scores. Why should we rule in favour of Os ? > If you are mistakenly of the mind that this is the > proper way to handle people who purposely offend the Laws, then you are part > of a small but vocal clique who aren't willing to stand up and take > disciplinary action, but would rather the Laws did it for them. Severity > against purposeful offenses belongs to discipline, and the Rules and > Regulations of the SO that the Law authorizes. It is not redress for damage > by inadvertency or even ignorance of the player. > This is still a game played by nice people, against nice people, in a nice > manner............let's keep it that way.............Kojak I am absolutely in agreement with you there. I am not of the opinion that I am too severe (and sorry for that typo before) against Os. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 20:32:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:32:42 +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 UAA28233 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:32:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-144-226.uunet.be [194.7.144.226]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA06662 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:32:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37886A3C.EADFB6D9@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 11:56:12 +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: Obligation to have agreements Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, I am currently corresponding with David on the final touches of the Appeals from Malta, and they should appear on the swiss site soon. We have an interesting discussion about something the AC decided (appeal 25) In short, the bidding had gone : 2Cl pass 2Di pass 2Sp pass 3Di 2Cl was 11-16 with 6Cl 2Di was asking relay 2Sp showed 4 spades 2NT would have been the next relay (very well described in system notes) 3Di was explained differently on either side. What happened next is of little importance to us here, but in addition to their ruling, the AC decided to give to this pair a PP of half a VP. The AC did not find it acceptable that a partnership had no agreements over a simple third round bid in an uncontested auction (in a European Championship). Next came my job of putting this to paper and I felt I needed a Law reference to underpin the PP. I chose L74B1. David disagreed. I know David is rather sensible of quoting personal messages, so I won't quote him. I'm certain he'll paste his comments in reply to this message. Meanwhile, what do you think ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 22:51:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:51:14 +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 WAA28518 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:51:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem91.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.219] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 113J4E-0005pS-00; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 13:50:51 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: Returned Mail Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 11:55:50 +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=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "It is not well for a ruler to have too strong tendencies for other affairs." - Goethe. ++ooOOOoo++ ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Returned Mail > Date: 11 July 1999 06:42 > > Every time I send an e-mail to BLML, I get a return e-mail from Germany > saying that my e-mail to Christian Farwig christian_farwig@yahoo.de > could not be delivered, due to an "error in parsing." and labeled > "Extended absence forward" followed by the subject I put on the e-mail. > > Of course Christian is not in the To line that I send. Anyone else > having this trouble? Or know the explanation? I put a filter on the > source of these e-mails, postmaster@emehm1101.ac.com , solving the > problem, but I'm curious as to what this is all about. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > ++++ The gap between Christian and Farwig which is a problem at Octavia. Owner should examine. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 22:51:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:51:18 +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 WAA28522 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:51:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem91.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.219] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 113J4J-0005pS-00; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 13:50:55 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Ted Ying" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:58:12 +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 o=o-o "It is not well for a ruler to have too strong tendencies for other affairs." - Goethe. ++ooOOOoo++ ---------- > From: Ted Ying > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem > Date: 09 July 1999 17:31 > > > So I've noticed. ;-) I'm not sure, but I think the west side of the pond > has been trying to do so for over 200 years, haven't they? :-) > > -Ted. ++++ Oh, come on Ted, mostly we are mutually grateful to share a common decency and to have a firm friend in the world - one that stays with us even allowing that a friend will perceive the truth differently at times, and say so. ++++ ~G~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 22:51:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:51:18 +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 WAA28521 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:51:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem91.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.219] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 113J4I-0005pS-00; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 13:50:54 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:48:42 +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 o=o-o "It is not well for a ruler to have too strong tendencies for other affairs." - Goethe. ++ooOOOoo++ > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem > Date: 09 July 1999 01:14 > > Ted Ying wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 (EDT) > >> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) > >> ......................... \x/ \x/ .................... > > [*] A small island of the coast of France, called Great Britain. It is > difficult to ignore. > ++++ Read " 'English' : appertaining to the people of part of a small island etc. (Ask any Welsh TD) ~ Grattan - one quarter Welsh. ~++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 11 22:51:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:51:16 +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 WAA28519 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:51:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem91.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.219] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 113J4G-0005pS-00; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 13:50:52 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Ted Ying" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:39:06 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "It is not well for a ruler to have too strong tendencies for other affairs." - Goethe. ++ooOOOoo++ > From: Ted Ying > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem > Date: 08 July 1999 20:51 > > > Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 (EDT) > > From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) > > > > >+++ For what it is worth this is the note I have put on my > > >memory board: > > > " ? add to Law 45B: 'If declarer instructs dummy as to > > > the play of a card on a trick subsequent to the current > > > trick, that card is played when the previous trick has > > > been quitted and dummy has placed the card in the > > > played position.' " ~ Grattan ~ +++ > > > > > For what it is worth, I don't like this idea at all. I think > > it would be alot easier just to state that it is improper to > > say things like "run the clubs". +++++ Do you really believe that would be practical? +++++ > Actually, in ACBL play, Grattan's ruling can actually be backed > up by the ACBL laws. There is no need to add a law to cover the > situation as it is covered by the following laws (IMHO): > > ACBL Law 45.B states: > "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card > after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the > table. in playin from dummy's hand declarer may, if nec- > essary, pick up the desired card himself." > > ACBL Law 45.C.4 states: > "A. A card must be played if a player names or other- > wise designates it as the card he proposes to play." ++++ This is identical with 45C4 of The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge promulgated by the World Bridge Federation. It does not, however, say that the card is played at that point; I find it difficult to conceive that the player at trick seven can simultaneously 'play' cards to tricks 7,8,9, etc. I think the moment of playing the card has to be joined into the sequence of the tricks and occurs in each instance after the previous trick has been disposed of. I agree the laws are dim on the question of when and am merely inclined to put a suggestion that will lead to clarification - in whatever way my colleagues are inclined. ++++ > > ACBL Law 47.F states: > "Except as provided in A through E preceding, a card once > played may not be withdrawn." > ++++ If indeed the card is played.++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 00:11:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 00:11:50 +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 AAA28758 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 00:11:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-204-130.s511.tnt4.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.204.130]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id KAA06539 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 10:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003c01becba7$1418d020$82cc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <01be01becb66$6ed4dfe0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 10:10:05 -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: Sent: Sunday, July 11, 1999 2:27 AM Subject: Partnership Agreements [snip] > Just came across the following ACBL LC policy in re L75D2, published in > July 1997, and probably issued because of Miami No. 21: > > ###### > When a player's explanation has correctly described his partner's hand > but not the pair's agreement, and even though the partner is required to > correct the explanation before the defenders make the opening lead, ACBL > policy is that the player should make a disclaimer statement before > giving the corrected explanation. This may also be true when there has > been there has been a failure to alert during the auction. If no > disclaimer is given, the director may treat the original offense as the > one doing the damage and adjust the board to protect the non-offenders. > ##### > > I have a hard time understanding all that, with my small mind, but > apparently the ACBL LC agrees with Herman. I take it that a "disclaimer > statement" is something like "Don't count on me for having the hand I'm > supposed to have, but the explanation was wrong and our agreement is > actually........" > > If the mistaken explanation matches partner's hand, how could it do > damage? > If an opponent would have taken a different action during the auction with the correct explanation, there may well be damage even though the explanation matches the hand in question. The auction would have to be examined, and if the NOS would have bid differently then there may well be a score adjustment. > The LC seems to forget (as did McCallum, the TD, the AC, and the > casebook panelists) that the TD must be called before an explanation is > corrected. That requirement in L75D2 is seldom obeyed, but it can be > very important that the TD hear the corrective statement. > > So, three questions: > > 1. Do BLML participants agree with this LC policy? I completely disagree with that policy, at least under the Laws as presently written. However, when the actual mis-explanation matches the hand, the TD should take extreme care to make sure that the corrected explanation is in fact the partnership agreement (TD should do this anyway, but it never hurts to reinforce it). > > 2. If so, what would constitute a suitable "disclaimer statement"? Nothing. The Laws have been written so that the opponents are required to have full knowledge of partnership agreements, not the hand. If full and correct knowledge of those agreements damages the opponents, IMO they have no recourse under the present laws. L75B makes it very clear that opponents do not have recourse if a player violates partnership agreements (except where there may be an implicit agreement), and also makes no distinction as to whether that violation was accidental or purposeful. This law also states that "...No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement...". It's hard to be clearer than that. > > 3. What Law should be cited as justification for a board adjustment when > there is no disclaimer and damage results? > Answered under 2. > Marv (Marvin L. French, ISPE, mlfrench@writeme.com) > I've run into this problem, and similar ones, on the floor. The disturbing part is that this type of thing seems to be peculiar to the higher levels of the game. There is a group of top-level players (who can influence ACBL policy) who use terms such as "sportsmanship" or even "active ethics" to condone violations of Law. While these terms are noble, IMO their goal should be adherence to the letter and spirit of the Laws of the game, not deviation from them. A while back I was faced with a situation where the opening leader (a player approaching the 10,000 masterpoint range) placed his card face down, and proceded to explain an inference about his partner's bidding (with no prompting) before facing his lead. When I was summoned to the table, I asked why he had not alerted the call and explained during the auction. The answer I got was that is was "not alertable". So, I asked why he had produced an explanation at the start of play, if the call was not alertable. I got back that he was aware of an inference from his partner's bidding that the Declarer might not be aware of. I tried pointing out that this is the exact situation that the alert system is for, and that his unsolicited explanation was completely inappropriate, as well as UI to his partner ("My partner knew what the bid meant. I just wanted to be sure Declarer knew. It's the ethical thing to do. All the top players know this.") Luckily, the explanation was trivial and did not affect play. I have always regretted not giving a PP back then. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 00:40:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 00:40:10 +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 AAA28813 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 00:40:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA11747; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 16:39:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 16:39:22 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Grattan cc: "Marvin L. French" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Returned Mail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 11 Jul 1999, Grattan wrote: > Grattan > o=o-o > "It is not well for a ruler to have too strong > tendencies for other affairs." - Goethe. > ++ooOOOoo++ > ---------- > > From: Marvin L. French > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Returned Mail > > Date: 11 July 1999 06:42 > > > > Every time I send an e-mail to BLML, I get a return e-mail from Germany > > saying that my e-mail to Christian Farwig christian_farwig@yahoo.de > > could not be delivered, due to an "error in parsing." and labeled > > "Extended absence forward" followed by the subject I put on the e-mail. > > > > Of course Christian is not in the To line that I send. Anyone else > > having this trouble? Or know the explanation? I put a filter on the > > source of these e-mails, postmaster@emehm1101.ac.com , solving the > > problem, but I'm curious as to what this is all about. > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > > ++++ The gap between Christian and Farwig which is a problem > at Octavia. Owner should examine. ++++ Please read the RFC's on this topic before making comments like this. 1. christian_farwig@x.y is a valid address. Not the underscore, that is not a space. 2. If it wasn't a valid address, then majordomo wouldn't have accepted it in the first place. majordomo is the program behind this mailing list. 3. Under normal circumstances, bounces should not be sent to the person who send the message to the list but to the maintainer of the list. But I'm sure that Marcus has a good reason to do this differently for BLML. 4. The real source of the problem is at Christian's side, it looks as if the local mailer has been misconfigured and/or there is an incorrect forward set. 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 Jul 12 01:27:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:27:32 +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 BAA28947 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:27:23 +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 113LVc-0005kl-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 15:27:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 16:26:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements In-Reply-To: <37886A3C.EADFB6D9@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <37886A3C.EADFB6D9@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip >3Di was explained differently on either side. > >What happened next is of little importance to us here, but >in addition to their ruling, the AC decided to give to this >pair a PP of half a VP. I always find it amazing that ACs and TDs do this. Punishing forgetfulness is like giving electric shock treatment to dunces who have learning difficulties. Adjust the score if you can find a way to do so, but fining in VPs is ridiculous IMO. > >The AC did not find it acceptable that a partnership had no >agreements over a simple third round bid in an uncontested >auction (in a European Championship). > >Next came my job of putting this to paper and I felt I >needed a Law reference to underpin the PP. > >I chose L74B1. > I much prefer 72B1. " ... could have known ... " -- 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 Jul 12 01:52:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA29064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:52:27 +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 BAA29059 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:52:19 +1000 (EST) Received: by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id TAA01796; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:52:10 +0400 (MSK DST) Received: from h89.50.elnet.msk.ru(195.58.50.89) by gateway via smap (V2.0) id xma001510; Sun, 11 Jul 99 19:51:38 +0400 Message-ID: <3788BD9D.4AD83846@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:52:01 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <37886D4A.9C8AB60B@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Long time I was silent (working with my friends S.Kapustin from Kiev and V.Zimnitsky from Saint-Petyerburg on translation the Laws) - might be it was the only right thing I did... But I'd like to add something to this thread. Herman De Wael wrote: > We should not worry about being to lenient on NOs, we should > strive to be sever against Os ! > Koyak reacted: > Maybe it would be good for you to again look at the Scope of the Laws. This > severity you speak of to redress damage done by departure from correct > procedure smacks to me of lack of knowledge on your part of what the Laws are > for. Beat up the offenders, make them suffer, give them a big black mark in > your book! Herman replyed: > I was not really bringing the tar and feathers out, was I ? > Just advocating awarding 11 tricks as per L12C2 ! > I just wanted to stress that while everyone was talking > about leniency against non-offenders, it could also be > ascribed as severity against offenders. > > Offenders have used UI to bid 5Cl. I believe that at that > time they are subject to rectification to 4Sp+1 under L12C2. > If NOs then bid 5Sp, this does not break the link and > neither does the taking of a 2-way finesse. Why let the > score then return to 420 after that ? > > I think 420 and 450 are both normal scores. Why should we > rule in favour of Os ? > I do want to remind that NOS made quite irrational play when she lost the 5 Spades doubled contract - it was especially underlined by the creator of the thread. And while I have some sympathy to Herman's position - the Laws says that it was doubts that are to be resolved on NOS favour. And doubts are not equal to sympathy. TD (and later AC) should redress damage and make equity. I thought that it was concensus: NOS in that very board earned what she received at the table - minus 500. They broke direct connection between violation and result. At that point I agree with Marvin's arguments. Otherwise we will permit (at least NOS) to play boards twice: at the table and then - in front of AC. No damage - no redress. So - table equity is 500 for OS, -500 for NOS. But E.Kaplan wrote that even when there was no room for redress damage there might be room for penalty (in old-fashioned percentage terms - when less then 25% other players might chose OS's acting). As I understand his position - it was first step to protect field (to make "field" equity). The Lille's decision (3-rd point) made the procedure more clear and usefull - "subsequent advantage" is advantage against the field (in our case - against another East-West pairs). I support it in full because it is one more step to make bridge more similar to other kind of sport. And you know my general position on that point:) So - there is the problem of "field" equity where we have disagreement. We ought to estimate this equity for OS (East-West pair) - after we reached the "table" equity. And at that point I doubt that sympathy to NOS may influence on our decision because NOS's result has already established: we have to decide OS's result. This OS played this board against this very opponent that could not manage more than 9 tricks due to their irrational play - and IMO that the OS has their right for luck (it is card game, isn't it?). They were ready to receive full zero in case 5 Spades doubled would be won... (I guess that it was reason for Marvin's remark on the importance of double in this case). So - I would like (in this very case) to adjust the bidding only and award the "field" equity for East-West pair (on base of L12C2 and in accordance with Lille 3 point) as minus 140 (3Spades, just made). Best wishes and sorry for long post Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 02:11:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 02:11:14 +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 CAA29267 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 02:11:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem108.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.108] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 113MBs-00013z-00; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:10:58 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Grabiner" , Subject: Re: Malta cases 9/10 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:10:03 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o " Wherever law ends, tyranny begins" - John Locke. .............................................................. > From: David Grabiner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Malta cases 9/10 > Date: 11 July 1999 00:23 > > > Thanks to Herman for putting the casebook on line for discussion. +++ The EBL made a decision that the appeals should be published. Herman is nothing if not assiduous and, whilst it was only to be expected of Herman, does deserve a bonus point for prompt effort. Maybe there are just one or two language blips that might be tidied up, but this is hardly anything to worry about. +++ > > The standard appears to be pretty good.< [+++against what base line do you assess the standard? +++] >I don't agree with all the > committees, but many of them are rulings in which I could be convinced > otherwise had I been there. The references to rules are useful, both as > a guide to players reading the casebook, and as a confirmation that the > director or committee did (or didn't) apply the right rule. ++++ Schoder has periodically requested WBF ACs to do the same. Sometimes it has happened. Does it happen in the ACBL or in the other zones (are you there, Antipodes?) ++++ > > Case 9/10 is the only case in which I found a serious problem, and here > the problem is with the Director's ruling; the Committee's decision is > reasonable. What the Director did do seems clearly wrong, but what > should he do on his determination of the facts? ++++ This is a European director with EBL guidelines to work to. The task is to make the bridge judgements and give the ruling considered correct in bridge terms. Any real margin of doubt is to go in favour of the NOS (if there is one) but there is to be no slavishness in ruling for the NOS if the TD thinks a proper application of law to the facts and the bridge considerations would put the decision the other way. (S)he will have consulted other directors, plural ( in accordance with arrangements established by the CTD, Claude Dadoun). In this case I was puzzled by the option for 12C1 since a result had been obtained at the table; I heard of no explanation but it seems at least possible the Director and his/her counsellors found it too difficult to assess a 12C2 award - and possibly they knew it would go to appeal anyway so would not work at it for too long in a busy schedule with several of their team stricken by some Maltese bug. (One spent a night in hospital - or was it two? - and I hope she is fully fit again now). But of course it is fair enough to research the cases in open discussion, making allowances for European idiosyncracies. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 03:36:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 03:36:55 +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 DAA29420 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 03:36:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem77.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.77] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 113NWn-0003gA-00; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:36:37 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:09:14 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o " Wherever law ends, tyranny begins" - John Locke. .............................................................. > From: John (MadDog) Probst > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements > Date: 11 July 1999 16:26 > > In article <37886A3C.EADFB6D9@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > snip > > > > >I chose L74B1. > > > I much prefer 72B1. " ... could have known ... " > -- ++++ If an explanation was asked one or other of the side (and maybe both) is in breach of 75C. If no explanation was asked then the question is what the regulations on disclosure require. In principle where there are different explanations on either side of the screen, and these are mutually exclusive, one player or the other has failed to make available his partnership understanding to the respective opponent. See 75A. I think the AC may reasonably conclude that in mainstream situations a pair playing international bridge can be expected to know what it is doing. Certainly if either member of the partnership gives an explanation that does not depend upon generally understood bridge lore it would appear reasonable to expect parallel disclosure either side of the screen. There is a principle that opponents are not to be misled into basing their actions (in the auction or later in the play) on differing info from their respective screenmates. It is difficult to envisage what 74B1 could have to do with this question and 72B1 leads to an adjusted score, not in itself to a PP. A recent Endicott Draft* has in it a law adjustment which provides (a) that where the same meaning is attributed to a call on each side of the screen but the hand is very different, the action is treated as a psychic; and (b) where explanations differ a PP may be awarded for failure to make correct disclosure and in addition if there is damage to an innocent side there is score adjustment. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ {*not generally published} is given ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 04:08:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA29495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 04:08:29 +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 EAA29490 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 04:08:22 +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 OAA10591 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 14:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990711140644.00718b8c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 14:06:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? In-Reply-To: <199907091615.MAA27633@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:15 PM 7/9/99 -0400, David wrote: >How do you rule on this claim? > > - > - > AKQT > - >- - >- 9 >9876 4 >- 87 > - > 8 > J2 > T > >South is declarer, with hearts trump and the lead in his hand. He >claims the rest of the tricks (with no line of play), but has forgotten >about the outstanding H9. > >Is it normal for South to play the CT, then the H8, losing an extra >trick to East's C8? On any other line, whether South leads the H8 >first or plays diamonds first, he loses only one trick. In situations like this I normally rule that it would be abnormal for a declarer claiming the rest in top tricks to play out all his trumps first, before his side cards, so I would rule one trick to E-W. This feels right to me, because, realistically, we would expect any declarer to play the same way whether he had forgotten the outstanding H9 or the outstanding H7, and the line of play we would impose in the latter case (playing trumps last) would be clear. I admit, though, that I could argue the other side -- declarer thinks all his cards are high, so it would be "normal" to play them in random order, so we should give the benefit of the doubt to the NOs, so we must impose that they be played in the order most beneficial to the NOs. But it seems to me that that leads to imposing all sorts of plays that we would want to consider abnormal, i.e. that when declarer says only "I have the rest" *any* possible order of play becomes normal. I don't like that -- but I also admit to a bias in favor of interpreting the claim laws in such a way as to encourage rather than discourage claims. 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 Jul 12 04:48:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA29605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 04:48:21 +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 EAA29600 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 04:48:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA16458 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 11:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <020501becbcd$e6be06a0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 11:48:00 -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 > Herman De Wael writes > snip > > >3Di was explained differently on either side. > > > >What happened next is of little importance to us here, but > >in addition to their ruling, the AC decided to give to this > >pair a PP of half a VP. > > I always find it amazing that ACs and TDs do this. Punishing > forgetfulness is like giving electric shock treatment to dunces who have > learning difficulties. > > Adjust the score if you can find a way to do so, but fining in VPs is > ridiculous IMO. > > > >The AC did not find it acceptable that a partnership had no > >agreements over a simple third round bid in an uncontested > >auction (in a European Championship). > > > >Next came my job of putting this to paper and I felt I > >needed a Law reference to underpin the PP. > > > >I chose L74B1. > > > I much prefer 72B1. " ... could have known ... " > -- But 72B1 applies only "if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity," and in that case calls for an adjusted score, not a PP. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 05:05:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 05:05:26 +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 FAA29672 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 05:05:19 +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 PAA13773 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 15:18:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990711150527.0071c2b8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 15:05:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements In-Reply-To: <37886A3C.EADFB6D9@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:56 AM 7/11/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >We have an interesting discussion about something the AC >decided (appeal 25) > >In short, the bidding had gone : > >2Cl pass 2Di pass >2Sp pass 3Di > >2Cl was 11-16 with 6Cl >2Di was asking relay >2Sp showed 4 spades >2NT would have been the next relay (very well described in >system notes) >3Di was explained differently on either side. > >What happened next is of little importance to us here, but >in addition to their ruling, the AC decided to give to this >pair a PP of half a VP. > >The AC did not find it acceptable that a partnership had no >agreements over a simple third round bid in an uncontested >auction (in a European Championship). The AC, however they may have phrased it, ruled that the partnership had committed "convention disruption" and penalized them for it. IMO there is nothing whatsoever in the laws that requires pairs to have "agreements over [] simple third round bid[s] in [] uncontested auction[s]", so this was a wrong decision. Those who believe that convention disruption should be outlawed should, AFAIC, lobby for a change in the laws, not foist their opinions on ACs under the pretense of upholding a doctrine that has never been officially, or even widely, accepted. Was Mr. Wolff on the committee this time, or did someone else assume his role? >Next came my job of putting this to paper and I felt I >needed a Law reference to underpin the PP. > >I chose L74B1. That's quite a stretch. I feel quite confident that "the game" referred to in L74B1 is that game that's going on at the table in front of the player, not in his lifelong association with the game of contract bridge. Else every one of the millions of players who have been playing in duplicate competitions for decades without yet learning how to count a hand are in flagrant violation of L74B1. I just don't think that's what L74 is about. >David disagreed. > >I know David is rather sensible of quoting personal >messages, so I won't quote him. I'm certain he'll paste his >comments in reply to this message. I hope so. 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 Jul 12 05:22:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA29637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 04:50:48 +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 EAA29631 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 04:50:39 +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 NAA15095 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 13:50:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0JTM600F Sun, 11 Jul 99 14:06:37 Message-ID: <9907111406.0JTM600@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 99 14:06:37 Subject: Obligation to have agreem To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Hi all, B>I am currently corresponding with David on the final touches B>of the Appeals from Malta, and they should appear on the B>swiss site soon. B>We have an interesting discussion about something the AC B>decided (appeal 25) B>In short, the bidding had gone : B>2Cl pass 2Di pass B>2Sp pass 3Di B>2Cl was 11-16 with 6Cl B>2Di was asking relay B>2Sp showed 4 spades B>2NT would have been the next relay (very well described in B>system notes) B>3Di was explained differently on either side. B>What happened next is of little importance to us here, but B>in addition to their ruling, the AC decided to give to this B>pair a PP of half a VP. B>The AC did not find it acceptable that a partnership had no B>agreements over a simple third round bid in an uncontested B>auction (in a European Championship). The evidence suggests that both players thought there was an agreement to 3D from which follows that there was at least one incorrect explanation. The committee did not resolve the question as to what the agreement was. I would sooner believe there was no agreement than believe that 3D would be non forcing, given that opener is marked with at most 3 red cards and the partnership could have rested in 3C when opener's rebid was unsatisfactory. In order to find that 3D was incorrectly explained by south imo requires that it be ruled that there was no agreement at all- and hence there were 2 incorrect explanations not one. I judge that the explanations did nothing to encourage the opponents to take action other than to pass [N & S should have substantial values on this auction even if 3D is not forcing] and as such did little to warrant a scoring penalty and to issue a scoring penalty would be nit picking. However, it appears that the AC wished to assess a VP penalty for failure to have an agreement. I have been unable to find in the laws the requirement to have an agreement about a call and I think it nonsense to assess a PP for something that is not an offense. If it is the EBL's policy to stamp out all ME, then the way to do so is by scoring penalties, including this case. So issue a PP for an incorrect explanation if you must. Btw, I have a difficult time understanding the report that the committee found that S ME'd the double to W. Also, I did not get the impression from the case that someone was paying insufficient attention to the game- unless it was west . As for my curiosity, is it really the standard that as long as players explain their calls the same it is not an infraction?: "The Director: Ruled that there had been misinformation and that West would not open the bidding if he had received the other explanation." [presumably the one east got] Roger Pewick B>Next came my job of putting this to paper and I felt I B>needed a Law reference to underpin the PP. B>I chose L74B1. B>David disagreed. B>I know David is rather sensible of quoting personal B>messages, so I won't quote him. I'm certain he'll paste his B>comments in reply to this message. B>Meanwhile, what do you think ? B>-- B>Herman DE WAEL B>Antwerpen Belgium B>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 05:37:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 05:37:56 +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 FAA29737 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 05:37:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA21322 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <022701becbd4$d4908960$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: establishment Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:37:36 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: Steve Willner wrote: > > And if they can combine the rubber and duplicate laws > > in the process, that's even better. > > > ++++ I do not think this is an option. Rubber bridge is > gaming, duplicate bridge is competitive; there could be no > place for gaming in a definition of 'sport' and we need to > keep the two apart if Olympic recognition is to be achieved. The millions of people who play rubber bridge for fun, not for a stake, might not agree that they are "gaming," if that means playing for money. I have watched some long-standing lunch-time no-stake rubber bridge games that were very competitive. Maybe they should adopt different rules, lest it be thought they are gaming. So, let's see, a game that is played for money and also for sport should have different rules for each mode of play, so that the (higher class?) participants in the "sport" will not be confused with the (lower class?) gaming enthusiasts, when the Olympic Committee considers including the sport in the Olympics? I can't see that "Olympic recognition" should be an important consideration when writing the Laws. Enjoyment of the game should be the paramount consideration. The laws of rubber bridge and duplicate should differ only where necessary due to the mechanical differences in the two modes of play, and to the presence or absence of a TD/Arbiter. L90, for instance, which addresses procedural infractions that are peculiar to duplicate, has no application to rubber bridge. Ely Culbertson, 1946: "THE LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE are in most respects identical with the rubber bridge laws as regards procedure and the remedies for irregularities in bidding and play. But the organization, conduct and scoring of tournaments requires legislation on a great many matters that never arise in rubber bridge." The Laws of the two games have diverged considerably since then, and players would like to see them come back together again. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 07:14:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:14:51 +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 HAA29905 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:14:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id WAA22956 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:14:06 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 11 Jul 99 22:14 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: establishment To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Grattan wrote: > > And if they can combine the rubber and duplicate laws > > in the process, that's even better. > > > ++++ I do not think this is an option. Rubber bridge is > gaming, duplicate bridge is competitive; there could be no > place for gaming in a definition of 'sport' and we need to > keep the two apart if Olympic recognition is to be achieved. > ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Absolutely! Despite having so much in common rubber bridge is a game of skill where luck evens out in the long run and the participants sometimes attach a monetary value to score differentials, whereas duplicate is a game of skill where luck evens out in the long run and the participants sometimes attach a monetary value to score differentials (oops). I have yet to discover a 'sport' (from chess and golf to tennis and athletics) where none of those taking part at amateur level bet on their own performance. The idea that rubber and duplicate be *artificially* kept apart in order to facilitate recognition sits uncomfortably with me. Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 07:14:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:14:50 +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 HAA29904 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:14:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id WAA22946 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:14:05 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 11 Jul 99 22:14 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Adjustment 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 In-Reply-To: <002101beca51$75ad3580$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Marv Wrote: > If there is no bridge reason for the play to differ in 4S or 5S, the > play should certainly stand. Consider the following hand (constructed) where South is declarer on a diamond lead and East (who bid a UI 5C) holds SQx. AJ9xx xx AQxx xx Kxxx AQx KJxx AQ Playing in 4S a poor player will win, draw two rounds of trumps and lose the 2 rounded finesses without showing any apparent thought or discomfort. Playing in 5S* by West the same player will worry about West holding SQTx and lose 3 finesses. A slightly better player might, in a "pressure-free" 4S, actually see the possibility of a throw-in after SK, S toward AJ while in 5S* he "places" West with QTx and doesn't think hard enough about the rest of the hand. Of course there is no "bridge reason"* (as I understand the term) for taking that spade finesse - risking a doubled game for the sake of a possible overtrick qualifies is irrational in my book. I would suggest that adjusting from 5S*-1 to 4S+1 is always going to be correct on this hand. * There is in 6S of course and I would also adjust 6S-2 to 6S= if the finesse was taken. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 07:20:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:20:07 +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 HAA29944 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:20:00 +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 RAA21797 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:32:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990711172010.006a3498@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:20:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:13 PM 7/11/99 EDT, Schoderb wrote: >In a message dated 7/11/99 2:09:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com >writes: >> abnormal > >Interesting....I couldn't find this word anywhere in the Law. Where should I >look? Perhaps in L69ff, which use and then elaborate on the definition of "normal" (at some length), then in the dictionary, where "abnormal" is defined as "not normal". With all due respect to Mr. Schoder, I am unaware of any shared sentiment within BLML to limit the language of our discourse to only those words which appear in the Law, holy though it may be. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 08:05:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA00215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:05:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00210 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:05:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from pollux.cc.umanitoba.ca (wolkb@pollux.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.6]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA19450 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:04:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from wolkb@localhost) by pollux.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) id RAA04370 ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:04:53 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:04:52 -0500 (CDT) From: Barry Wolk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Book on Movements Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > Also would like to switch the odd boards on round 6 and the even boards > on round 7, instead of both on round 7, but I could not figure out how > to do that with ACBLScor, which seems to prefer (insist) that pairs play > all boards in a set without changing direction. That's correct if you are doing a movement edit that spans several rounds or several tables. However, if you are changing just a single cell in the movement, you get an option for what is called a "partial round adjustment", which does exactly what you want. So you will have to make this "single cell edit" several times. I've been a steady lurker for quite a while now, but this was one point that no one else has answered. -- Barry Wolk Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 08:19:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA00170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:54:52 +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 HAA00147 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:54:40 +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 113RYK-000B4C-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:54:28 +0000 Message-ID: <9RCViXAc6Hi3EwCb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:23:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >p.s. does Marvin make the case that the English should be >the only ones to change the rules of soccer? Ah, chauvinistic >thought. Interesting the rules in Major League Soccer when the match finishes as a draw. Should they annoy me? No, I think the shootout is quite a good idea. -- 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 Jul 12 08:36:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA00333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:36:37 +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 IAA00328 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:36:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehdi.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.178]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA21358 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990711183419.011efc60@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:34:19 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements In-Reply-To: <37886A3C.EADFB6D9@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:56 AM 7/11/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >Hi all, > >I am currently corresponding with David on the final touches >of the Appeals from Malta, and they should appear on the >swiss site soon. > >We have an interesting discussion about something the AC >decided (appeal 25) > >In short, the bidding had gone : > >2Cl pass 2Di pass >2Sp pass 3Di > >2Cl was 11-16 with 6Cl >2Di was asking relay >2Sp showed 4 spades >2NT would have been the next relay (very well described in >system notes) >3Di was explained differently on either side. > >What happened next is of little importance to us here, but >in addition to their ruling, the AC decided to give to this >pair a PP of half a VP. > >The AC did not find it acceptable that a partnership had no >agreements over a simple third round bid in an uncontested >auction (in a European Championship). > >Next came my job of putting this to paper and I felt I >needed a Law reference to underpin the PP. > >I chose L74B1. > >David disagreed. > I think that AC's would do better to ground their rulings in the Laws (and supporting regulation). You have my sympathy for the onerous task of trying to find a legal fig leaf for this ruling (which, I am assuming, has no more support in the applicable Zonal regulation than it does in the Laws), but none whatsoever for relying on an entirely irrelavant legalism for your defense of the AC's ruling. L74B1 provides no cover. It pertains solely to the conduct of the players at the table, as both its wording and its context make quite clear. It has nothing whatsoever to do with partnership agreements. If you are unable/unwilling for personal or political reasons to simply state that the ruling lacked any specific legal foundation, then you would do better to be silent on its legal parentage. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 09:23:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA00171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:54:52 +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 HAA00149 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:54:41 +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 113RYI-000B44-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:54:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:32:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Returned Mail References: <01a901becb60$23902220$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01a901becb60$23902220$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Every time I send an e-mail to BLML, I get a return e-mail from Germany >saying that my e-mail to Christian Farwig christian_farwig@yahoo.de >could not be delivered, due to an "error in parsing." and labeled >"Extended absence forward" followed by the subject I put on the e-mail. > >Of course Christian is not in the To line that I send. Anyone else >having this trouble? Or know the explanation? I put a filter on the >source of these e-mails, postmaster@emehm1101.ac.com , solving the >problem, but I'm curious as to what this is all about. I get quite a few emails as error messages from Christian. -- 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 Jul 12 09:27:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA00174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:54:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00155 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:54:43 +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 113RYI-0000or-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:54:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:30:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. References: <00b401bec915$aae23440$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <3784E054.3C5EE088@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3784E054.3C5EE088@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I don't believe it is correct for Zones to have any input in >the Laws. >(that includes zonal opt-outs in my opinion). I have been thinking about this. Normally, I find the English of the many people who write here in a language other than their own to be excellent [and sometimes better than certain English-speakers] so I always assume people say what they mean, but in this case I wonder.... Suppose the European Bridge League decide that it is important that players who get Ghestem wrong are penalised, and ask the WBFLC to include a suitable example under L90B in 2007. That is input from a Zonal organisation, and I cannot conceive of anything wrong with it. Are you sure, Herman, that you mean Zones should not have any input? -- 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 Jul 12 09:29:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:29:54 +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 JAA00463 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:29:47 +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 113T2L-000Kki-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 23:29:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 00:05:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta cases 9/10 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >++++ Schoder has periodically requested WBF ACs to do the same. >Sometimes it has happened. Does it happen in the ACBL or in the >other zones (are you there, Antipodes?) ++++ The ACBL publishes case-books with appeals from their NABCs. These include comments from various 'experts'. The last two case-books [Orlando and Vancouver] will include comments from me, and I shall be interested in the feedback as to whether my comments are useful. With this experience a wrote some short comments on all the Malta appeals and presented them to Herman and to Jens Auken. I do not know what use they will make of them. While doing so I was struck by the fact that, while I did not agree with every decision, I consider there was not one single case where the Appeals Committee had gone really wrong. I regret that I am unable to say the same of the NABC appeals. In my view, the expertise of the members of the EBL Appeals Committee in Malta was made very clear by these cases. >> Case 9/10 is the only case in which I found a serious problem, and here >> the problem is with the Director's ruling; the Committee's decision is >> reasonable. What the Director did do seems clearly wrong, but what >> should he do on his determination of the facts? I was somewhat surprised by this ruling myself. -- 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 Jul 12 09:30:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:30:07 +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 JAA00475 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:29:59 +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 113T2R-000GeA-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 23:29:42 +0000 Message-ID: <0EVHXSBAiSi3EwSw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 00:28:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements References: <37886A3C.EADFB6D9@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37886A3C.EADFB6D9@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I am currently corresponding with David on the final touches >of the Appeals from Malta, and they should appear on the >swiss site soon. > >We have an interesting discussion about something the AC >decided (appeal 25) > >In short, the bidding had gone : > >2Cl pass 2Di pass >2Sp pass 3Di > >2Cl was 11-16 with 6Cl >2Di was asking relay >2Sp showed 4 spades >2NT would have been the next relay (very well described in >system notes) >3Di was explained differently on either side. > >What happened next is of little importance to us here, but >in addition to their ruling, the AC decided to give to this >pair a PP of half a VP. > >The AC did not find it acceptable that a partnership had no >agreements over a simple third round bid in an uncontested >auction (in a European Championship). > >Next came my job of putting this to paper and I felt I >needed a Law reference to underpin the PP. > >I chose L74B1. > >David disagreed. > >I know David is rather sensible of quoting personal >messages, so I won't quote him. I'm certain he'll paste his >comments in reply to this message. Yes, well, everything I wrote to you this time is fair game. Let's see if I can find it. When roofpreading [sic] I wrote: Appeal25: ... Furthermore, this is not a L74B1 case, which surely refers to a player not listening to what is going on, not to being unprepared to answer questions. L75A is a good enough reference on its own for the Law. There was probably a suitable CoC that could have been quoted. Herman answered: >I don't agree with you there. There are no conditions of >contest (and certainly no Laws) that dictate to which degree >a pair should have precise agreements over the meaning of >every call. Yet we gave a procedural penalty precisely for >this "offense"; so we need a Law reference. L74B1 seems the >only one that fits. > >I hope you can agree with the PP - the pair had a beautiful >relay system, yet they did not know what a bid meant just >one level higher than the next asking relay ! Even a simple >rule - "when we break the relay sequence, every bid is >natural and non-forcing" - they did not have. That was >unacceptable if you come to a European Championships with a >complex system. If it is unacceptable, then we need to says so. This sounds to me like an error in the CoC rather than anything else. There is no Law requiring you to have agreements. I am not averse to the PP but I believe it to have been given either on a generally accepted Custom+Practice ["players in international events are expected to know their system"] or possibly as a breach of L40E or L40D. You would not expect a club player to know his agreements. For it to be different in Malta suggests a CoC not a change in the interpretation of the Law. ----------- I then considered this some more. I wrote the following in my comments on the Appeal [which I have just discovered Herman has not seen owing to an Internet glitch]: Appeal No 25. This is an important principle, namely that at international level it is expected that pairs will have their agreements in place, especially in the early rounds of the auction. Perhaps this could be included in the Conditions of Contest. While at a lower level it is normal for pairs to have little idea of what they are doing, the presumption is that they will know at this level, and that their opponents have a right to be able to rely on this. However, with no Condition of Contest, there is the question of whether a procedural penalty should be applied when it is not being applied at other tables where there are similar misexplanations. See Appeals 19 and 28, for example. Should, perhaps, the Appeals Committee issue a procedural penalty when a case comes to them but they do not adjust, so long as it is early enough in the auction so that it is reasonable to expect a pair to know their agreements? What about Directors? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 10:19:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA00275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:23:27 +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 IAA00270 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:23:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehdi.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.178]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA24706 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:23:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990711182036.011e0bd8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:20:36 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements In-Reply-To: <01be01becb66$6ed4dfe0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:27 PM 7/10/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >So, three questions: > >1. Do BLML participants agree with this LC policy? > I do not. In fact, I consider it just plain silly. If we wish to amend the Laws to say that our obligation is to disclose our hand, rather than our agreement, then we should do so. Absent such a change, this policy is in conflict with the guiding principles of the Laws which require disclosure of _agreements only_. Indeed, your questions 2 and 3 (which are moot from my standpoint, given that I don't support this policy) begin to get to the heart of the problem. "Disclaimer" is not defined in this case, but if it means something like "Partner gave an incorrect explanation of our agreement, which may or may not correctly reflect my holding," then this raises a number of important questions. Clearly Marvin's #3 is one such, but here are some others: Should I provide this disclaimer a) whenever I correct partner's explanation? b) only when partner's explanation is incorrect as to agreements but correct as to my holding? c) just when I feel like it? Option a) turns the disclaimer into a mere pro forma ritual, much like alerting Jacoby transfers. Option b) makes the entire exercise of the correction pointless, since it effectively confirms that partner's explanation accurately reflects my holding. Option c) makes adjudication of issues arising out of this practice nearly impossible. If I am allowed to make this disclaimer whenever I correct partner's explanation, then can the opponents claim MI when the _disclaimer_ is misleading, i.e., when my holding is consistent with our agreements? None of these questions (or Marvin's original 2 and 3) are addressed by this ACBL "policy". It is their consistent unwillingness to address the logical and predictable problems arising from new regulations that make me so skeptical of the ACBL's fitness to regulate in general. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 10:19:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA00172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:54:56 +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 HAA00152 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:54:43 +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 113RYG-000CvP-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:54:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:36:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements References: <01be01becb66$6ed4dfe0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01be01becb66$6ed4dfe0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >###### >When a player's explanation has correctly described his partner's hand >but not the pair's agreement, and even though the partner is required to >correct the explanation before the defenders make the opening lead, ACBL >policy is that the player should make a disclaimer statement before >giving the corrected explanation. This may also be true when there has >been there has been a failure to alert during the auction. If no >disclaimer is given, the director may treat the original offense as the >one doing the damage and adjust the board to protect the non-offenders. >##### > >I have a hard time understanding all that, with my small mind, but >apparently the ACBL LC agrees with Herman. I take it that a "disclaimer >statement" is something like "Don't count on me for having the hand I'm >supposed to have, but the explanation was wrong and our agreement is >actually........" > >If the mistaken explanation matches partner's hand, how could it do >damage? > >The LC seems to forget (as did McCallum, the TD, the AC, and the >casebook panelists) that the TD must be called before an explanation is >corrected. That requirement in L75D2 is seldom obeyed, but it can be >very important that the TD hear the corrective statement. > >So, three questions: > >1. Do BLML participants agree with this LC policy? Not me. >2. If so, what would constitute a suitable "disclaimer statement"? "I am about to ignore the Laws of Bridge." >3. What Law should be cited as justification for a board adjustment when >there is no disclaimer and damage results? Law 99: "We are above the Law". OK, Kojak, no need to go for the jugular, it wasn't a serious post! -- 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 Jul 12 10:24:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:24:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00622 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:24:29 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id dQSKa19374 (14371); Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:22:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6f9df995.24ba8f5e@aol.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:22:54 EDT Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? To: elandau@cais.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: KRAllison@aol.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 7/11/99 5:21:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com writes: > With all due respect to Mr. Schoder, I am unaware of any shared sentiment > within BLML to limit the language of our discourse to only those words > which appear in the Law, holy though it may be. Dear Sir: ....(after all you called me Mr. Schoder, it's only fair that I also be formal)..... I was trying to point out to you personally that the words in the Laws were carefully chosen. Normal includes those you might consider abnormal .... that is careless or inferior but not irrational..... When applying the Law, as you indicated you have done, you are limited to the words contained therein, not what you would like them to be. I'm certainly not trying to limit discourse, and I don't consider the Laws to be holy, but I am trying to ask that we carefully examine the extant Law before we go off on tangents that are personal opinions. If there is any value I can provide to BLML, it is because I've been on this street a long time, involved not only in the promulgation but the application of the Laws at all levels of our game. Perhaps I have something I can contribute. If BLML simply is a forum for voicing personal opinions, no matter how illy formed, arrogant, or misguided, then I question it's value to any of us. You might also notice that my response to you was not on BLML but private. Of course, since you decided to make this private posting public, I have no choice but to accede to your procedure. I don't care to point fingers at anyone, I just care that we derive value from substantive discussions, and stop the biased horse..it about ACBL, EBL, the Zones, the Laws, (yea even the ACBL!!! Laws(?)etc.... that I read. Also, when I think that I can engender some introspection, I GO PRIVATE. And, contrary to some others, I am NOT in love with my own voice. The words were carefully chosen by the Drafting Committee, and abnormal was discarded for many reasons, some of which were because it includes exactly the kind of situations which you cite as reasons to rule the way you chose to. It's not in the Law, and IMHO doesn't belong there, so it is irrelevant. Cheers, ( I like that, wherever it came from) Kojak PS. If you guys want me to stay off - just tell me, I don't want to spoil anyone's party. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 11:21:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA00289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:24:31 +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 IAA00284 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:24:23 +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 SAA25384 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990711182431.006a3498@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:24:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:14 PM 7/11/99 BST, twm wrote: >In-Reply-To: <002101beca51$75ad3580$f5075e18@san.rr.com> >Marv Wrote: > >> If there is no bridge reason for the play to differ in 4S or 5S, the >> play should certainly stand. > >Consider the following hand (constructed) where South is declarer on a >diamond lead and East (who bid a UI 5C) holds SQx. > > > AJ9xx > xx > AQxx > xx > > Kxxx > AQx > KJxx > AQ > >Playing in 4S a poor player will win, draw two rounds of trumps and lose >the 2 rounded finesses without showing any apparent thought or discomfort. >Playing in 5S* by West the same player will worry about West holding SQTx >and lose 3 finesses. > >A slightly better player might, in a "pressure-free" 4S, actually see the >possibility of a throw-in after SK, S toward AJ while in 5S* he "places" >West with QTx and doesn't think hard enough about the rest of the hand. > >Of course there is no "bridge reason"* (as I understand the term) for >taking that spade finesse - risking a doubled game for the sake of a >possible overtrick qualifies is irrational in my book. I would suggest >that adjusting from 5S*-1 to 4S+1 is always going to be correct on this >hand. > >* There is in 6S of course and I would also adjust 6S-2 to 6S= if the >finesse was taken. If declarer placed West with SQ10x for his double, I'd say quite the opposite -- of course that's a bridge reason. It doesn't have to be a provably valid, theoretically best, or double-dummy correct reason, only a reason based on considerations pertaining to bridge. I agree with Tim that we should adjust to 4S+1, the most favorable likely/at all probable result absent the infraction, but on the grounds that without the double (either) declarer would have no reason to misguess the trumps, not on the grounds that without the double (either) declarer would not have been under pressure and so might have found the throw-in. 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 Jul 12 11:46:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:47:45 +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 JAA00537 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:47:37 +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 JAA27359; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:47:27 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990712094728.009e0180@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:47:29 +1000 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: Returned Mail Cc: "Marvin L. French" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry to hit the list with this, but I'd like to know if anybody else has a problem with it, and to see what postings behave like. >1. christian_farwig@x.y is a valid address. Not the underscore, that is > not a space. Quite right. >2. If it wasn't a valid address, then majordomo wouldn't have accepted > it in the first place. majordomo is the program behind this > mailing list. Also right. >3. Under normal circumstances, bounces should not be sent to the person > who send the message to the list but to the maintainer of the list. > But I'm sure that Marcus has a good reason to do this differently > for BLML. I don't - email errors do come to the owner (me). I get over a dozen of these a day just from BLML, or more if somebody's site is really broken (and/or David/Herman are into a really serious discussion ;-) ). I send a handful of messages to postmasters most weeks trying to get them to fix things. I also apply an eyeball filter to broken addresses - if I see it for more than a few days (excluding weekends), and considering what the error is and possibly subject to who it is, I will unsubscribe them manually. Resubscribing is trivial, and if people haven't chased it up at their end I presume they can't be too worried. The worried ones usually email me directly :-) >4. The real source of the problem is at Christian's side, it looks as > if the local mailer has been misconfigured and/or there is an > incorrect forward set. I think so too. Interestingly - I have not seen any of these errors that Marvin refers to. Christian's email used to bounce horifically at his Andersen Consulting address, especially after the weekend (do AC turn off their mail servers on the weekend ???). I presume he has now subscribed to yahoo to get a more reliable (or non-work) email feed. The fact it is bouncing to Marvin and not to me (as owner) is very odd. I'll see what this message does. Hmm - he is still only subscribed under AC.com so he must forward to yahoo. Curiouser and curioser. Does it bounce for anybody else here ? (Positive responses only required, thanks :-) ) Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 12:56:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:56:55 +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 MAA00971 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:56:48 +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 113WGk-000E5u-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 02:56:38 +0000 Message-ID: <4TQ0CjBViVi3EwiY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 03:53:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Returned Mail References: <3.0.32.19990712094728.009e0180@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990712094728.009e0180@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: >Does it bounce for anybody else here ? (Positive responses only required, >thanks :-) ) Over the last three weeks I would say that I have received about thirty bounces from Christian. -- 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 Jul 12 12:56:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:56:57 +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 MAA00972 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:56:49 +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 113WGh-000OOB-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 02:56:36 +0000 Message-ID: <1TF3SeBBgVi3Ewjp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 03:50:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? References: <6f9df995.24ba8f5e@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <6f9df995.24ba8f5e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >When applying the Law, as you indicated you have done, you are limited to the >words contained therein, not what you would like them to be. I'm certainly >not trying to limit discourse, and I don't consider the Laws to be holy, but >I am trying to ask that we carefully examine the extant Law before we go off >on tangents that are personal opinions. If there is any value I can provide >to BLML, it is because I've been on this street a long time, involved not >only in the promulgation but the application of the Laws at all levels of our >game. Perhaps I have something I can contribute. If BLML simply is a forum >for voicing personal opinions, no matter how illy formed, arrogant, or >misguided, then I question it's value to any of us. Part of the trouble over the years has been the lack of promulgation of the reasons for Laws, and interpretations thereof. Apart from any reasons of character, it is possible that one main reason for personal opinions here is lack of anything else. So if you can give us guidance as to why we should read the Laws in a particular way, then that is very useful. Interpretations are helpful: interpretations plus the reason for them plus the logic behind them is considerably more useful. We have been told that such-and-such a thing is so. Sometimes we have been told so when it appears that the Laws say the opposite. If we can get guidance in such things, so much the better. When Kaplan spoke, you listened: Grattan listened: Ton listened. Did Eric listen? Marvin? Jesper? Rusty? Nancy? No. Why not? Because no-one spoke to them. One fault of the law-making process has been that it has not in the past been communicated down the line. We have received a Law book, and nothing else. Ok, some of us have been luckier than others in having a pipeline. I have been very lucky to have had Grattan as a friend for some time, and I well remember him telling me off for using L12C1 when I should have used L12C2 - and that was many years ago! If Gordon had done the same, who would have pointed out to him that he was wrong? Of course, there is an EBL Director's Guide, and Duplicate Decisions by the ACBL, and the Director's Bulletin in Australia, but there is still a lack of communication. Some time ago, I applied to join the EBL Laws Commission. Ton asked me what role I would expect to play if I were to be accepted. I answered that I would expect to be involved in dissemination of information: it seems to me that the EBL LC should be active in this role, which is needed. It is not enough that decisions are made: they need to be available to Directors, whether Club, Local, State, Country or International. When BLML started, some people were shocked at how little they knew, and everyone has learnt from it. For this forum to be a success, it needs sensible discussion, and input of information from those with knowledge. Sometimes there have been efforts to stifle the discussion: that is not the answer. But lack of incoming information would be a very bad idea too. That is why I am pleased we have Grattan and Ton and Karen representing the WBFLC: that we have the Chief Directors of five countries: that we have Rick, a very senior ACBL TD, and Al and Jon from the appeal side, and Kent and Chyah from the management side of the ACBL. You, Kojak, bring something more to this forum: a very wide knowledge and experience, close contact with Edgar, and a vision of problems at the highest level. It was a great day for BLML when you subscribed. Your contribution is very important to us, and highly thought of. We are not Yes-men here: we expect to discuss, and you will find us disagreeing with you, and we hope that you will argue your points rather than state them as inalienable facts, and we hope that you will accept this approach: but make no mistake, we appreciate you, as we do the other knowledgeable contributors. >You might also notice that my response to you was not on BLML but private. Of >course, since you decided to make this private posting public, I have no >choice but to accede to your procedure. I don't care to point fingers at >anyone, I just care that we derive value from substantive discussions, and >stop the biased horse..it about ACBL, EBL, the Zones, the Laws, (yea even the >ACBL!!! Laws(?)etc.... that I read. Also, when I think that I can engender >some introspection, I GO PRIVATE. And, contrary to some others, I am NOT in >love with my own voice. The words were carefully chosen by the Drafting >Committee, and abnormal was discarded for many reasons, some of which were >because it includes exactly the kind of situations which you cite as reasons >to rule the way you chose to. It's not in the Law, and IMHO doesn't belong >there, so it is irrelevant. In general, we would prefer that you post here rather than go private if possible because this is our forum, unique in its way, and when something is said it helps all of us to hear it, even if it is over a lesser item. >PS. If you guys want me to stay off - just tell me, I don't want to spoil >anyone's party. Please come in, put your hat on the rack, your coat on the hanger, and sit here in front of the fire while we get you a drink. Cheers! -- 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 Jul 12 13:04:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:04:54 +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 NAA01006 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:04:36 +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, 11 Jul 1999 23:05:13 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <0EVHXSBAiSi3EwSw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <37886A3C.EADFB6D9@village.uunet.be> <37886A3C.EADFB6D9@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 23:00:52 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 7:28 PM -0400 7/11/99, David Stevenson wrote: >You would not expect a club player to know his agreements. That ain't what one of the local club TD's told my partner a while back! :-) As for having agreements to whatever level, well, all I gotta say is, if someone is gonna expect me to have specific agreements to X level (rounds) of bidding, then he better darn well make sure there's room on the convention card to put them all down. :-) 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/AwUBN4lbML2UW3au93vOEQJuYgCeO+ohe8i2UZr199bhhjGBJfuabrMAoK9f /00plQBs40CH7lDC7xXa1TnI =JI4E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 13:29:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:29:09 +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 NAA01120 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:29:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-224-86.s86.tnt6.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.224.86]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id XAA00222 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 23:28:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000a01becc16$75c76060$56e0a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3.0.32.19990712094728.009e0180@acsys.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: Returned Mail Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 23:27:23 -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: Markus Buchhorn To: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) Cc: Marvin L. French ; Sent: Sunday, July 11, 1999 7:47 PM Subject: Re: Returned Mail > [snip] > Does it bounce for anybody else here ? (Positive responses only required, > thanks :-) ) > > Cheers, > Markus > Yes, I get a bounce message from Christian every time I post to the list. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 15:41:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:41:51 +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 PAA01440 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:41:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA28772 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <033901becc29$30bd7280$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <6f9df995.24ba8f5e@aol.com> <1TF3SeBBgVi3Ewjp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:41:28 -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: (snip of good stuff, with which I concur) > When BLML started, some people were shocked at how little they knew, > and everyone has learnt from it. For this forum to be a success, it > needs sensible discussion, and input of information from those with > knowledge. Sometimes there have been efforts to stifle the discussion: > that is not the answer. But lack of incoming information would be a > very bad idea too. That is why I am pleased we have Grattan and Ton and > Karen representing the WBFLC: that we have the Chief Directors of five > countries: that we have Rick, a very senior ACBL TD, and Al and Jon from > the appeal side, and Kent and Chyah from the management side of the > ACBL. We very much need ACBL BoD members, especially those on the Tournament Committee, also Competition and Convention Committee members (Bobby Goldman was active on rgb, but not BLML), and ACBL LC members, anyone who is willing to discuss the actions taken (or not taken, or being considered) by those various bodies. Does anyone know Chip Martel well enough to invite him in? He would be a big help, considering his position as co-chair of the LC ( the other co-chair isn't interested, I asked). He was on the drafting committee for the 1997 Laws, by the way.. I think I am right in saying that not only Laws-related topics, but also other concerns of TDs (e.g., movements, scoring) are suitable subjects for discussion on BLML. And cats, of course. > > Please come in, put your hat on the rack, your coat on the hanger, and > sit here in front of the fire while we get you a drink. Cheers! > I'll drink to that! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 17:18:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:18:47 +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 RAA01588 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:18:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem33.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.33] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 113aM0-00034w-00; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:18:21 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Hirsch Davis" , Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:11:36 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o " Wherever law ends, tyranny begins" - John Locke. .................................. > From: Hirsch Davis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements > Date: 11 July 1999 15:10 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marvin L. French > To: > Sent: Sunday, July 11, 1999 2:27 AM > Subject: Partnership Agreements > > > > [snip] > > Just came across the following ACBL LC policy in re L75D2, published in > > July 1997, and probably issued because of Miami No. 21: > > > > ###### > > When a player's explanation has correctly described his partner's hand > > but not the pair's agreement, and even though the partner is required to > > correct the explanation before the defenders make the opening lead, ACBL > > policy is that the player should make a disclaimer statement before > > giving the corrected explanation. This may also be true when there has > > been there has been a failure to alert during the auction. If no > > disclaimer is given, the director may treat the original offense as the > > one doing the damage and adjust the board to protect the non-offenders. > > ##### > > > > I have a hard time understanding all that, with my small mind, but > > apparently the ACBL LC agrees with Herman. I take it that a "disclaimer > > statement" is something like "Don't count on me for having the hand I'm > > supposed to have, but the explanation was wrong and our agreement is > > actually........" > > > > If the mistaken explanation matches partner's hand, how could it do > > damage? > > > > If an opponent would have taken a different action during the auction with > the correct explanation, there may well be damage even though the > explanation matches the hand in question. The auction would have to be > examined, and if the NOS would have bid differently then there may well be a > score adjustment. > ______________ \x/ _______________ ++++ Or, of course, in the play. A more poignant case than the one cited was the Zone 4 lady who correctly described the content of her own hand, which was not in accord with the partnership agreement. A very experienced opponent claimed the difference affected her opening lead. All about the number of Aces in declarer's hand, which seemed unlikely to affect the number of controls dispersed between the two opposing hands but the AC was persuaded to make a modest adjustment, no doubt for good reasons. I tend to wonder, incidentally, whether the TD who is called to the table by a player wishing to correct partner's explanation before the end of the hand, should perhaps include in his instructions to the players a standard admonishment that the explanation relates to the partnership agreement and is not a guarantee of the content of the hand. I should like to know what the most experienced TDs think is the desirable path through this undergrowth. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 17:21:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:21:20 +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 RAA01606 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:21:12 +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 113aOd-0000GY-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:21:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:17:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) In-Reply-To: <02c801becc13$4ab0d3a0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <02c801becc13$4ab0d3a0$f5075e18@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >Barry wrote: > >> Marv wrote: >> >> > Also would like to switch the odd boards on round 6 and the even >boards >> > on round 7, instead of both on round 7, but I could not figure out how >> > to do that with ACBLScor, which seems to prefer (insist) that pairs >play >> > all boards in a set without changing direction. >> >> That's correct if you are doing a movement edit that spans several >> rounds or several tables. However, if you are changing just a single >> cell in the movement, you get an option for what is called a >> "partial round adjustment", which does exactly what you want. So you >> will have to make this "single cell edit" several times. I ran a 6 table share-and-relay game tonight. I arrow switched tables 2-6 on the last round [don't argue this one or you're dead:)) ], told the computer to arrow switch the last round and fixed the arrow-switch for boards 21-24 on-line. Any competent software (even ACBLScore) can do this. [actually I think ACBLScore is the best scoring software EVER written] {mine, of course, is a close second. It does this too. :))))))))) } >> >> I've been a steady lurker for quite a while now, but this was one point >> that no one else has answered. > >Thanks, Barry, there had to be a way. > >The balance got worse, not better! Ach! (John, does this surprise you >too?) > >You seem to know a lot about ACBLScor. Here's a glitch of some sort: When >I specified a complete 6 and a complete 8 table Howell, it gave me >movements that were not perfect, i.e., not an equal number of comparisons >with each pair. That makes me distrust all the one-winner movements, as >complete even-table Howells should be perfect. Know anything about this? > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > marv, I write this response after over 2 bottles of exceedingly good french wine. Even tables can't be balanced perfectly You play 1 pair, and ... by definition there are 0.5N pairs to compare with, and 0.5N - 1 pairs who are indirect helpers. Odd tables on the other hand ... if you can arrange that all pairs are stting opposite half the time and otherwise in the same line (eg 7 table 26 board Howell) give equal comparisons. WHEN you have an all-play-all believe the Swedes. They are right. Why? because you can ignore the effect of head=to-head as you've played ALL the other players, and their metric is correct. But they are WRONG when you don't have an all play all. ------------------------------------ALERT---------------------------- Now to another question: This is *hard* because it's not clear why I'm asking it :))) The auction proceeds 2N - 3C - 3D - 3H - 3S - 3N - 4D I don't care what your methods are: as long as you can explain what 4D MEANS Takers vote Aye, Non-takers Vote Nay Those who have forgotten their agreement (at the point you looked at this) are *required* to vote *Nay* Proddy gets 2 votes (since I know what I would rule playing with him!) Those voting *Nay* get a 1VP fine because *I said so* or perhaps because the AC is stupid chs 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 Jul 12 18:03:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:03:22 +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 SAA01697 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:03:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem88.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.88] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 113b3K-0004fm-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:03:06 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:51:58 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o " Wherever law ends, tyranny begins" - John Locke. > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements > Date: 11 July 1999 23:34 > > At 11:56 AM 7/11/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >I am currently corresponding with David on the final touches > >of the Appeals from Malta, and they should appear on the > >swiss site soon. > > > >We have an interesting discussion about something the AC > >decided (appeal 25). > > ------------------- \x/ ------------------- M.S.D. wrote: > I think that AC's would do better to ground their rulings in the Laws (and > supporting regulation). You have my sympathy for the onerous task of trying > to find a legal fig leaf for this ruling (which, I am assuming, has no more > support in the applicable Zonal regulation than it does in the Laws), but > none whatsoever for relying on an entirely irrelavant legalism for your > defense of the AC's ruling. L74B1 provides no cover. It pertains solely to > the conduct of the players at the table, as both its wording and its > context make quite clear. It has nothing whatsoever to do with partnership > agreements. If you are unable/unwilling for personal or political reasons > to simply state that the ruling lacked any specific legal foundation, then > you would do better to be silent on its legal parentage. > ++++ The usual difficulty in this kind of situation is that the committee does not accept there was no agreement and finds it difficult to spell out its scepticism. The poor scribe is left to state a reason not fully enunciated by the committee. In some regimes the appeal would have been reported without comment as to reasons - for example, in the EBL under at least one past appeals chairman. And I recall how much internal opposition I encountered when, years ago, I began stating reasons for appeals decisions on WBF forms. My impression is that the committee probably felt there was an agreement and it had not been appropriately disclosed. It is a pity this was not cleared up between scribe and committee chairman. Committee dilemmas can be overcome - see "absence of corroborative evidence" in one of the later appeals. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 18:58:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:58:11 +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 SAA01832 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:58:04 +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 JAA09798; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:58:13 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA06402; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:57:53 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:57:52 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA09558; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:57:50 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:57:50 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199907120857.JAA09558@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, mfrench1@san.rr.com Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Fri Jul 9 23:31:10 1999 > From: "Marvin L. French" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. > Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:10:44 -0700 > Now for some bias. As an American, it gripes me a little to see games > that we invented (basketball, contract bridge), and in which we are > major players, modified by those with a "we know better" attitude. As an Englishman, it gripes me that Americans continue to win at games they invented even if the rest-of-the-world changes the laws. We seem to have invented sports in the last several hundred years, solely for the purpose of other countries beating us at them. Even if we invented motor car racing (which I doubt), it was still two Scots who won the grand prix? 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 Jul 12 19:10:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:10:02 +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 TAA01851 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:09:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id LAA25854; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:09:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JDH3T9K3YA000U3Z@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:08:36 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GSW7NN>; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:08:58 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:08:08 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Obligation to have agreements To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1CB@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 Onderwerp: Obligation to have agreements Hi all, I am currently corresponding with David on the final touches of the Appeals from Malta, and they should appear on the swiss site soon. We have an interesting discussion about something the AC decided (appeal 25) In short, the bidding had gone : 2Cl pass 2Di pass 2Sp pass 3Di 2Cl was 11-16 with 6Cl 2Di was asking relay 2Sp showed 4 spades 2NT would have been the next relay (very well described in system notes) 3Di was explained differently on either side. What happened next is of little importance to us here, but in addition to their ruling, the AC decided to give to this pair a PP of half a VP. The AC did not find it acceptable that a partnership had no agreements over a simple third round bid in an uncontested auction (in a European Championship). Well, another subject to be put on our agenda in Lausanne in September. It touches notions as 'convention disruption'(an ACBL invention) and discussions we have in the Netherlands where our national appeal committee decided some time ago that in case of mistaken bids using some popular conventions as Ghestem (an overcall with 2 known 5plus-suiters; but nobody knows, nor the bidders nor the explainers) and a bad score for the other side as a result of that, an adjusted should be given (60/40 is their favorite) . Not based on the laws, but who cares. If we change the wording of the AC decision slightly, and it seems possible to me that they wanted to say that, things become understandable. If both sides, after the 3D bid had said that there was no agreement about that bid, it sounds not right to me to give a PP. But if two different explanations are given, an AC may draw the conclusion that this pair, discussing the system, didn't pay enough attention, which might be worth a PP. Without consequent damage for the non offenders their score should not be changed. Bobby Wolff will like this decision taken by the AC. An early and unexpected partial agreement between both sides of the Atlantic? ton From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 19:28:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:28:56 +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 TAA01888 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:28:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id LAA24900 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:28:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JDH4I6O0GS000UK4@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:27:54 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GSW70F>; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:28:18 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:27:26 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: Malta-69b To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1CC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I like to draw your attention for an appeal in malta, which in my opinion was one of the most interesting there. There is a wrong claim with wrong acquiescence (sorry, no dictionary). Discovered at a moment when having to apply 69b: 'not lost with any normal play'. The AC, completely aware of the meaning of the laws, interpreted the laws in a friendly way for the agreeing side and therewith put the burden of the responsibility on the claiming side. The report was in the last bulletin (Saturday 26), I don't know the number. Please take notice. ton From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 20:35:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 20:35:45 +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 UAA02039 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 20:35:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id GAA25564 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 06:35:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 06:35:28 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > ------------------------------------ALERT---------------------------- > > Now to another question: > > This is *hard* because it's not clear why I'm asking it :))) > > The auction proceeds 2N - 3C - 3D - 3H - 3S - 3N - 4D > > I don't care what your methods are: as long as you can explain what 4D > MEANS > > Takers vote Aye, Non-takers Vote Nay > > Those who have forgotten their agreement (at the point you looked at > this) are *required* to vote *Nay* > Do not have an agreement, since 3NT was to play and the 2NT opener is severely limited (23-24 points, exactly 3 spades, fewer than 4 hearts). Responder has asked about major suit length (3C), spade length (3H), and has not been interested in further developments when told about three card spade support. He presumably has 4 spades and heart length is unknown. Nay, but this one goes along with Kit Woolsey's (might have been someone else) 1NT-2C; 5H (he suddenly found his 4 diamonds were really a second 4 card heart suit). -- Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 20:42:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 20:42:16 +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 UAA02069 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 20:42:09 +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 113dWp-00099S-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:41:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:59:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > I tend to wonder, incidentally, whether the TD who is >called to the table by a player wishing to correct partner's >explanation before the end of the hand, should perhaps include >in his instructions to the players a standard admonishment >that the explanation relates to the partnership agreement and >is not a guarantee of the content of the hand. I should like >to know what the most experienced TDs think is the desirable >path through this undergrowth. In a similar situation, I recently was in a position where one of my opponents casually answered my partner's question as to a double as "Takeout, of course". The sequence was something like 1C [Strong] 1D [2suits same rank] Dbl [8+] 1H [prefer hearts if pd has majors] Dbl [Not alerted] 2C [minors] Dbl [Not alerted] 2D [prefer diamonds to clubs] 2H [Oh good, we are not going for 1400 after all] Pass 2S Pass 2NT Pass Pass Pass The second and third doubles were not alerted which makes them penalty doubles in the EBU. We could not get sensible answers to what was going on, so I called the Director. After the initial nasties were over, the Director basically told each opponent to tell us what their calls meant, and we discovered that the second double was intended as extra values not penalties, the third double was intend as penalties but not understood as such, and we eventually held 2NT to contract - they had 27 HCP. Now this was all very fine, but it seemed to me after the Director had forced them to stop fooling around that he went one step further and made them tell us what was in their hand even though I was not convinced they had any agreements. Surely this step was wrong? There is a recommended policy of taking a player away from the table when he has forgotten his system so his partner can explain it to the opponents. I am very careful to explain to the player remaining at the table that he is explaining agreements, not just telling opponents the contents of his hand. -- 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 Jul 12 22:02:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:02:13 +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 WAA02358 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:02:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from pces05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.207] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 113emR-0004I7-00; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:01:55 +0100 Message-ID: <000601becc5d$d0441460$cfa593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , Subject: Re: Malta-69b Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:57:30 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' Date: 12 July 1999 10:58 Subject: Malta-69b >I like to draw your attention for an appeal in malta, which in my opinion >was one of the most interesting there. There is a wrong claim with wrong >acquiescence (sorry, no dictionary). Discovered at a moment when having to >apply 69b: 'not lost with any normal play'. The AC, completely aware of the >meaning of the laws, interpreted the laws in a friendly way for the agreeing >side and therewith put the burden of the responsibility on the claiming >side. The report was in the last bulletin (Saturday 26), I don't know the >number. Please take notice. > > >ton > ++++ No. 27++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 22:19:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:40:06 +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 VAA02296 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:39:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-79-98.uunet.be [194.7.79.98]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17469 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:39:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3789D1F3.4F3428@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:30:59 +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: Malta-69b References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1CC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > I like to draw your attention for an appeal in malta, which in my opinion ... > side. The report was in the last bulletin (Saturday 26), I don't know the > number. Please take notice. > Appeal 27 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 12 22:53:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:53:51 +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 WAA02507 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:53:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from p45s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.70] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 113faQ-0005BD-00; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:53:34 +0100 Message-ID: <004201becc65$07bf66e0$cfa593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , Subject: Re: Malta-69b Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:28:07 +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: 12 July 1999 10:58 Subject: Malta-69b >I like to draw your attention for an appeal in malta, which in my opinion >was one of the most interesting there. There is a wrong claim with wrong >acquiescence (sorry, no dictionary). Discovered at a moment when having to >apply 69b: 'not lost with any normal play'. The AC, completely aware of the >meaning of the laws, interpreted the laws in a friendly way for the agreeing >side and therewith put the burden of the responsibility on the claiming >side. The report was in the last bulletin (Saturday 26), I don't know the >number. Please take notice. > ++ I am hesitant about ton's choice of words here. 'Friendly way' presumably does not suggest any leaning towards, but merely a favourable outcome? And 'burden of responsibility on the claiming side' is a mode of thinking that does not occur to me when, as far as I recall, the only question was whether any other lead but a Heart is rational in a player of this class. In fact I would think players of much less ability would need a total blackout to find a reason to lead anything else, and I doubt the decision implies any burden of responsibility (unless I am guilty of not understanding what ton is saying.) I do think all the players were too quick because they were under time pressure. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 00:20:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:08:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02568 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:08:02 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id fFHHa15847 (4243); Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:06:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <18568bb5.24bb4253@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:06:27 EDT Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements To: hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk, hdavis@erols.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/12/99 3:20:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk writes: > I should like > to know what the most experienced TDs think is the desirable > path through this undergrowth. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ I, for one, think that a statement should be made at EVERY time a player wishes to correct partner's supposed MI. It should probably be worded like........ You are entitled to know the correct agreed upon meaning of my call, which may or may not reveal to you the actual hand that I hold...... or better yet, a preface by the TD of similar nature, which is what I do when I'm called to the table. But, I'd better leave the exact wording to the wordsmiths. Incidentally, when it does happen, I frequently get blank looks and disagreement from the players with the second part of that statement. It is not unusual to hear "I don't care what his(her) convention means, I wanna know what they got!!! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 01:20:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:22:33 +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 WAA02444 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:22:24 +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 113f5z-000LPy-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:22:09 +0000 Message-ID: <16Dn4bAbxci3EwR$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:07:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <1.5.4.32.19990710210607.006b5ce0@worldcom.ch> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990710210607.006b5ce0@worldcom.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yvan Calame wrote: >Thanks to Herman, >all 38 appeals from Malta are at: > >http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals.html Two questions of detail, on which Herman and I did not see completely in accord - but I shall try not to indicate who prefers which. [1] If the heading says France v Norway, does this mean [a] France sat North/South [b] France appealed [2] If the Law numbers quoted included 63D, does this mean [a] The Committee used 63D [b] The Committee considered 63D, whether they used it or not [c] The Director used 63D [d] The Director considered 63D, whether he used it or not cc Rich Colker -- 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 Jul 13 01:49:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:49:56 +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 BAA03095 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:49:46 +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 LAA14040 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA24977 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:49:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907121549.LAA24977@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In-Reply-To: <002101beca51$75ad3580$f5075e18@san.rr.com> > Marv Wrote: > > If there is no bridge reason for the play to differ in 4S or 5S, the > > play should certainly stand. > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > Playing in 4S a poor player will win, draw two rounds of trumps and lose > the 2 rounded finesses without showing any apparent thought or discomfort. > Playing in 5S* by West the same player will worry about West holding SQTx > and lose 3 finesses. > > A slightly better player might, in a "pressure-free" 4S, actually see the > possibility of a throw-in after SK, S toward AJ while in 5S* he "places" > West with QTx and doesn't think hard enough about the rest of the hand. > > Of course there is no "bridge reason"* (as I understand the term) for > taking that spade finesse - risking a doubled game for the sake of a > possible overtrick qualifies is irrational in my book. "The finesse might win, probably should win if the opponent has his 5C bid," qualifies as a bridge reason in my book. _Maybe_ if declarer is a top player (having a bad day), I _might_ be stricter about "irrational," but probably not. > I would suggest > that adjusting from 5S*-1 to 4S+1 is always going to be correct on this > hand. I agree. The play might well have been different in 4S, so we give the NOS the benefit of the doubt. In contrast, what if declarer plays diamonds without drawing any trumps at all? Now an opponent gains an unnecessary ruff with a low trump. I'd call that irrational, and it has nothing obvious to do with the level of the contract. I am still not sure what the correct result is in this situation, but I am sure it is a different situation than the example. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 02:05:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:39:57 +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 VAA02284 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:39:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-79-98.uunet.be [194.7.79.98]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17449 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:39:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3789CC4E.2588ABA1@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:06:54 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Split Scores Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am using the 5Sp (down 2 after terrible misplay) as an example, but apart from that this has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. Let's suppose that the ruling is : NS keep their bad score (-500) EW score is changed to 4Sp+1 (+650) Let us suppose that before the change, the frequency table was : +850 1 (someone else played 5SpX) +650 11 +200 2 -100 4 -500 1 (our original case) -800 1 (I don't know what happened there !) the MP's for NS and EW were: +850 1 38 0 +650 11 26 12 +200 2 13 25 -100 4 7 31 -500 1 2 36 -800 1 0 38 Now we change the -500 to a split score (-500 to NS ; +650 to EW) Traditionally the scores are now calculated separately for NS and EW: for NS (unchanged) +850 1 38 +650 11 26 +200 2 13 -100 4 7 -500 1 2 -800 1 0 for EW: +850 1 0 +650 12 13 one extra score +200 2 26 -100 4 32 -500 0 -- does not exist any more -800 1 38 What has really happened ? At the table in question, the real result after dealing with the infraction, would have been +650. That would have given the following scores : +850 1 38 0 +650 12 25 13 +200 2 11 27 -100 4 5 33 -500 0 -800 1 0 38 But NS botched the play, and score -500 as a result. We now see that some NS pairs gain two points for that (some only one), but the EW pairs don't gain anything ! This is where my suggestion comes in : give the split scores each half a weight in the frequencies, and calculate once and for all : +850 1 38 0 +650 11.5 25.5 12.5 +200 2 12 26 -100 4 6 32 -500 0.5 1.5 36.5 -800 1 0 38 two advantages : EW and NS keep complementary scores; and all NS and EW gain equally from the change at the one table. (middle scores gain one point each, +650's gain half a point each) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 02:20:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:39:52 +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 VAA02276 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:39:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-79-98.uunet.be [194.7.79.98]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17434 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:39:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3789C6DB.6FFB637D@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:43:39 +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: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. References: <00b401bec915$aae23440$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <3784E054.3C5EE088@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >I don't believe it is correct for Zones to have any input in > >the Laws. > >(that includes zonal opt-outs in my opinion). > > I have been thinking about this. Normally, I find the English of the > many people who write here in a language other than their own to be > excellent [and sometimes better than certain English-speakers] so I > always assume people say what they mean, but in this case I wonder.... > I gather you don't know if I am using "input" in the manner everyone understands it. I don't know the answer to that one. > Suppose the European Bridge League decide that it is important that > players who get Ghestem wrong are penalised, and ask the WBFLC to > include a suitable example under L90B in 2007. That is input from a > Zonal organisation, and I cannot conceive of anything wrong with it. > Are you sure, Herman, that you mean Zones should not have any input? > Of course the zones should have input. But I would not like to see this example leading to something like : The Australian zone objecting to this, and the matter resolved in such a manner that it becomes forbidden in the EBL, and in zones 3,5 and 7, but prohibited in zones 2,4,6,8. Understood ? > -- > 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 ~ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 02:46:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:40:03 +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 VAA02291 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:39:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-79-98.uunet.be [194.7.79.98]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17458 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:39:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3789D042.54423155@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:23:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements References: <3.0.1.32.19990711150527.0071c2b8@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 11:56 AM 7/11/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > > > > >The AC did not find it acceptable that a partnership had no > >agreements over a simple third round bid in an uncontested > >auction (in a European Championship). > > The AC, however they may have phrased it, ruled that the partnership had > committed "convention disruption" and penalized them for it. IMO there is > nothing whatsoever in the laws that requires pairs to have "agreements over > [] simple third round bid[s] in [] uncontested auction[s]", so this was a > wrong decision. Those who believe that convention disruption should be > outlawed should, AFAIC, lobby for a change in the laws, not foist their > opinions on ACs under the pretense of upholding a doctrine that has never > been officially, or even widely, accepted. Was Mr. Wolff on the committee > this time, or did someone else assume his role? > You don't agree that a higher level of "attention to the game" should be asked from people who are going to play 500+ hands together at the highest level they will ever attain in their lives ? I have never understood the term 'convention disruption' but this was certainly not it. > >Next came my job of putting this to paper and I felt I > >needed a Law reference to underpin the PP. > > > >I chose L74B1. > > That's quite a stretch. I feel quite confident that "the game" referred to > in L74B1 is that game that's going on at the table in front of the player, > not in his lifelong association with the game of contract bridge. Why ? Else > every one of the millions of players who have been playing in duplicate > competitions for decades without yet learning how to count a hand are in > flagrant violation of L74B1. I just don't think that's what L74 is about. > Remember that the word used in the Laws is "insufficient". It is up to the TD or AC to determine what is sufficient. > >David disagreed. > > > >I know David is rather sensible of quoting personal > >messages, so I won't quote him. I'm certain he'll paste his > >comments in reply to this message. > > I hope so. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 02:50:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:50:37 +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 CAA03452 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:50:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from pf3s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.244] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 113jHI-00085W-00; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:50:05 +0100 Message-ID: <001001becc86$115acd40$f48993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:42:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 12 July 1999 16:42 Subject: Re: Malta Appeals >Yvan Calame wrote: >>Thanks to Herman, >>all 38 appeals from Malta are at: >> >>http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals.html > > > Two questions of detail, on which Herman and I did not see completely >in accord - but I shall try not to indicate who prefers which. > > >[1] > > If the heading says France v Norway, does this mean > >[a] France sat North/South >[b] France appealed > > >[2] > > If the Law numbers quoted included 63D, does this mean > >[a] The Committee used 63D >[b] The Committee considered 63D, whether they used it or not >[c] The Director used 63D >[d] The Director considered 63D, whether he used it or not +++ My experience is that the Director puts on the appeal form the number of any law he considers potentially relevant to the TD's ruling; he is likely to mention it (but not certain to) in his verbal statement to the Committee if he is relying upon it particularly. The Committee is only likely to pass comment upon a numbered law if it feels there is something in particular to be said, which would include any question in its mind about what the Director has said. We are currently still at a stage where Directors are being 'encouraged' to relate their rulings explicitly to the relevant laws, so practice is uneven. Whoever reports the AC proceeding is sometimes left to research what law the Director applied, so that Europe's most prolific Scribe may have additional experience on the subject, Herman? ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 03:30:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:39:54 +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 VAA02278 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:39:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-79-98.uunet.be [194.7.79.98]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17443 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:39:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3789C807.96FDCF03@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:48:39 +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: Adjustment after UI References: <37886D4A.9C8AB60B@village.uunet.be> <3788BD9D.4AD83846@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: > > Hi all:) > > Long time I was silent (working with my friends S.Kapustin from Kiev and > V.Zimnitsky from Saint-Petyerburg on translation the Laws) - might be it was the > only right thing I did... Good on you ! > But I'd like to add something to this thread. > > Herman De Wael wrote: > [snip] > > > > I do want to remind that NOS made quite irrational play when she lost the 5 Spades > doubled contract - it was especially underlined by the creator of the thread. And > while I have some sympathy to Herman's position - the Laws says that it was doubts > that are to be resolved on NOS favour. And doubts are not equal to sympathy. TD > (and later AC) should redress damage and make equity. > I thought that it was concensus: NOS in that very board earned what she received at > the table - minus 500. They broke direct connection between violation and result. > At that point I agree with Marvin's arguments. Otherwise we will permit (at least > NOS) to play boards twice: at the table and then - in front of AC. No damage - no > redress. > So - table equity is 500 for OS, -500 for NOS. But E.Kaplan wrote that even when > there was no room for redress damage there might be room for penalty (in > old-fashioned percentage terms - when less then 25% other players might chose OS's > acting). As I understand his position - it was first step to protect field (to make > "field" equity). > The Lille's decision (3-rd point) made the procedure more clear and usefull - > "subsequent advantage" is advantage against the field (in our case - against > another East-West pairs). I support it in full because it is one more step to make > bridge more similar to other kind of sport. And you know my general position on > that point:) > So - there is the problem of "field" equity where we have disagreement. We ought to > estimate this equity for OS (East-West pair) - after we reached the "table" equity. > And at that point I doubt that sympathy to NOS may influence on our decision > because NOS's result has already established: we have to decide OS's result. This > OS played this board against this very opponent that could not manage more than 9 > tricks due to their irrational play - and IMO that the OS has their right for luck > (it is card game, isn't it?). They were ready to receive full zero in case 5 Spades > doubled would be won... (I guess that it was reason for Marvin's remark on the > importance of double in this case). > So - I would like (in this very case) to adjust the bidding only and award the > "field" equity for East-West pair (on base of L12C2 and in accordance with Lille 3 > point) as minus 140 (3Spades, just made). > Best wishes and sorry for long post Vitold 3 comments : 1) I agree in this particular case that NS should be kept to -500. 2) When changing the score for EW, surely that should be to -650, not -140. 3) This is a good case where I see that the traditional way of calculating split-scores is not the correct one. I am starting a new thread on that one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 03:41:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:50:54 +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 WAA02494 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:50:46 +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 JAA25116 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:03:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990712085057.0071e46c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:50:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? In-Reply-To: <6f9df995.24ba8f5e@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I must apologize publically to Mr. Schoder for my failure to notice that his message, to which I replied yesterday, was addressed to me personally and not to the group, and apologize to the group for having inappropriately subjected them to my reply, which was inappropriate given that they had not seen the original. I should, however, like to point out that BLML *is* "a forum for voicing personal opinions"; if we restricted ourselves to voicing only opinions that are shared consensually, our discussions would be rather dull and pointless. And if we believe that someone's opinion is "illy formed", we react by debating the substance of that opinion, not the choice of words by which it is expressed. Perhaps my view on the subject under discussion (whether the declarer who claimed with four cards left might be deemed to lose two tricks by cashing out in a somewhat odd order) was incorrect, or even "biased horse..it", but I don't see it that way, especially as I attempted, in the message to which Mr. Schoder refers, to give the case for both sides, and even pointed out my awareness of my own bias on the matter (in favor of encouraging players to claim), and am somewhat gratified to discover that, baised horse..it or not, I am far from alone among BLMLers in this particular interpretation of the law. I still fail to see, however, why my choice of "abnormal" -- a perfectly good English word -- rather than the synonymous "not normal", should turn my opinion from "substantive discussion[]" to "biased horse..it". Granted, "it's not in the law", and perhaps, as Mr. Schoder opines, "doesn't belong there", but I don't see how that disqualifies it for use in ordinary discourse. I certainly find nothing in the dictionary to support Mr. Schoder's contention that "normal includes those [I] might consider abnormal". I may be wrong, as the lawmakers may have intended the word "normal" in the laws as some kind of specialized bridge jargon in which something may be both "normal" and "abnormal" simultaneously, but, if so, that was obviously not the sense I intended. When quoting the law, we should indeed by "limited to the words contained therein", but surely not when discussing it. At 08:22 PM 7/11/99 EDT, Schoderb wrote: >In a message dated 7/11/99 5:21:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com >writes: > >> With all due respect to Mr. Schoder, I am unaware of any shared sentiment >> within BLML to limit the language of our discourse to only those words >> which appear in the Law, holy though it may be. > >Dear Sir: >....(after all you called me Mr. Schoder, it's only fair that I also be >formal)..... > >I was trying to point out to you personally that the words in the Laws were >carefully chosen. Normal includes those you might consider abnormal .... >that is careless or inferior but not irrational..... >When applying the Law, as you indicated you have done, you are limited to the >words contained therein, not what you would like them to be. I'm certainly >not trying to limit discourse, and I don't consider the Laws to be holy, but >I am trying to ask that we carefully examine the extant Law before we go off >on tangents that are personal opinions. If there is any value I can provide >to BLML, it is because I've been on this street a long time, involved not >only in the promulgation but the application of the Laws at all levels of our >game. Perhaps I have something I can contribute. If BLML simply is a forum >for voicing personal opinions, no matter how illy formed, arrogant, or >misguided, then I question it's value to any of us. > >You might also notice that my response to you was not on BLML but private. Of >course, since you decided to make this private posting public, I have no >choice but to accede to your procedure. I don't care to point fingers at >anyone, I just care that we derive value from substantive discussions, and >stop the biased horse..it about ACBL, EBL, the Zones, the Laws, (yea even the >ACBL!!! Laws(?)etc.... that I read. Also, when I think that I can engender >some introspection, I GO PRIVATE. And, contrary to some others, I am NOT in >love with my own voice. The words were carefully chosen by the Drafting >Committee, and abnormal was discarded for many reasons, some of which were >because it includes exactly the kind of situations which you cite as reasons >to rule the way you chose to. It's not in the Law, and IMHO doesn't belong >there, so it is irrelevant. > >Cheers, ( I like that, wherever it came from) > >Kojak > >PS. If you guys want me to stay off - just tell me, I don't want to spoil >anyone's party. > > 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 Jul 13 03:46:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:22:32 +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 WAA02443 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:22:22 +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 113f5z-000LPx-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:22:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:02:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta-69b References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1CC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1CC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >I like to draw your attention for an appeal in malta, which in my opinion >was one of the most interesting there. There is a wrong claim with wrong >acquiescence (sorry, no dictionary). Discovered at a moment when having to >apply 69b: 'not lost with any normal play'. The AC, completely aware of the >meaning of the laws, interpreted the laws in a friendly way for the agreeing >side and therewith put the burden of the responsibility on the claiming >side. The report was in the last bulletin (Saturday 26), I don't know the >number. Please take notice. Appeal No 27. Claim, Acquiescence Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, Great Britain), Naki Bruni (Italy), Anton Maas (the Netherlands), Krzysztof Martens (Poland). Open Teams Round 27 France v Hungary Board 16. Dealer West. East/West Game. S K Q J 5 H K J 6 5 D 8 C 8 6 5 3 S 8 6 3 2 S A 7 4 H 8 4 H Q 10 9 2 D K 5 D Q 7 6 C A K Q 10 4 C J 9 7 S 10 9 H A 7 3 D A J 10 9 4 3 2 C 2 West North East South Bitran Szalay Voldoire Szilagyi 1C Pass 1D 4D Dble All Pass Contract: Four Diamonds, played by South. Lead: Ace of Clubs Play: West North East South CA C3 C7 C2 H8 H5 H9 HA D5 D8 D6 DA DK C5 D7 DJ Result: claimed for nine tricks by South, -100 to North/South The Facts: One Diamond showed hearts. The Director had earlier been called to this table, during the auction of this deal, by South, who complained that when he had asked about the meaning of the Double, West had responded in a loud voice "punitif!". That had however nothing to do with the later ruling, or with this appeal. After trick four, South claimed the remainder of the tricks, minus the queen of diamonds and the ace of spades, that is a total of nine tricks. A score of -100 was entered on the score form. 27 minutes after the end of the match, the defenders came to the Director, wishing to withdraw acquiescence to the claim. When West returns a heart in trick five, there is no way the defence can avoid going two down. The Director: Applied Law 69B, which says that a trick is transferred only when all normal lines of play result in a different outcome. He considered a club or spade return also as normal. Ruling: Result Stands East/West appealed. The Players: East showed the Committee that he was quite aware of how the play had gone so far. South admitted that he had improperly claimed before West had the chance to return the Heart. East/West stated they had acquiesced in the claim, counting on the good intentions of South, and because of time pressure. The Committee: Read Law 69B: Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent's claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side. and the footnote which defines the word "normal": For the Purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational. The withdrawal of the acquiescence was within the correction period, so the Director, and now the Committee, had to decide whether or not there were normal lines that lead to nine tricks. If any of those lines could be found, the claim had to stand. The Committee noted that in the definition of the word "normal", there is a reference to the class of player, which was in this case very high. The Committee came to a first conclusion that said that if West returns a Heart, no normal line will then lead to anything more than eight tricks. So the Committee had to decide on the normality of some other return than a heart at trick five. The Committee regretted that South had claimed at precisely this moment. The Committee accepted that it would be irrational for a player of West's ability to do anything other than continue with the hearts. He had already shown, by discontinuing his Club start at trick two, that he had read East's length signal on trick one, and he is able to recognize that there is no imperative to lead a Spade - the trick cannot disappear. Furthermore, his partner's nine was very helpful. A player of his quality will not get it wrong. The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to eight tricks, -300 to North South Relevant Laws: Law 69B Deposit: Returned Separate decision of the Committee: The Committee took note of the happenings earlier on the board and found the alleged events disturbing. The Committee asked the Director to investigate, giving the ruling he had not given at the time, and applying a penalty if this appeared appropriate. (The Director subsequently held his investigation and decided to give a warning but no penalty) -- 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 Jul 13 03:52:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA03651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:52:14 +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 DAA03646 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:52:04 +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 OAA08524 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990712135214.007136cc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:52:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements In-Reply-To: <3789D042.54423155@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19990711150527.0071c2b8@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:23 PM 7/12/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >You don't agree that a higher level of "attention to the >game" should be asked from people who are going to play 500+ >hands together at the highest level they will ever attain in >their lives ? I don't disagree, but I do agree with Michael and others who believe that L74 governs conduct at the table, not away from it, and would no more apply L74B1 to a partnership's prior discussion of their methods than I would, say, L74A1. >I have never understood the term 'convention disruption' but >this was certainly not it. I may not understand it either, but I am under the impression that it means agreeing to play a conventional sequence without making agreements as to the meanings of the possible follow-up actions. My understanding is that the penalty being discussed was levied for exactly that. >Remember that the word used in the Laws is "insufficient". >It is up to the TD or AC to determine what is sufficient. I entirely agree. The issue here isn't what constitutes "insufficient attention", but rather what constitutes "the game". IMO "the game" refers to the game we're playing at the table, not to whatever we may do in the course of our lives that pertains to the game of bridge. 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 Jul 13 03:59:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA03674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:59:27 +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 DAA03669 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:59:20 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id 5EICa17767 (572); Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:52:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <57423d0.24bb8558@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:52:24 EDT Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements To: hermandw@village.uunet.be CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I sympathize with your difficulty in finding a Law reference, but I can't agree that 74B1 is in any way appropriate. The whole subject of Etiquette that this exists under has to do with the manners of the people at the time they are actively playing. Please don't take this point of Law out of the context it appears in. ---- As one point of 5 in proper behavior at the table. It was particularly desired to point out to the players that reading the newspaper while dummy (I've even seen a defender do that!), having to be prompted frequently about your turn to call, your turn to play, making repeated requests to see the last trick because you paid insufficient attention to the trick while it was being played, etc. were violations of Etiquette (courtesy). To extend that meaning to paying insufficient attention to the game by not having a more complete understanding of partner's calls than shown is not good reasoning, In my reading of the Laws. The context is clear to me. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 04:08:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:08:26 +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 EAA03692 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:08:19 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id fWUGa21560 (572); Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4042e527.24bb86fe@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:59:26 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals To: gester@globalnet.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/12/99 12:52:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gester@globalnet.co.uk writes: > We are > currently still at a stage where Directors are being > 'encouraged' to relate their rulings explicitly to the > relevant laws, so practice is uneven. > Whoever reports the AC proceeding is sometimes left > to research what law the Director applied, so that > Europe's most prolific Scribe may have additional > experience on the subject, Herman? ~Grattan~ +++ I would suggest that "we" (EBL?) follow the procedure I try to insist on in WBF tournaments. The Director MUST give a written law reference for the TD Decision, and I've asked the Chairman in charge of appeals to please do the same, particularly when the AC ruling differs from the TD decision. It does help to sometimes clear the air of muddled thinking, and on occasion has caused TDs and ACs to further consider their conclusions before going to the pen or pencil. I also notice from the Vancouver Appeals that this is becoming de rigeur in ACBL NABCs Seems like simple logic to simple me. .......Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 04:20:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:10:25 +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 EAA03707 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:10:18 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id dWDNa11075 (572); Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1963d656.24bb8915@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:08:21 EDT Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? 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 7/12/99 1:43:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com writes: > I may be wrong, as the lawmakers may have intended the word > "normal" in the laws as some kind of specialized bridge jargon in which > something may be both "normal" and "abnormal" simultaneously, but, if so, > that was obviously not the sense I intended. I can only add that the Drafting Committee carefully used the word "irrational" to define the limits of when you can't be forced to make an inferior or careless play. Had they chosen to define normal with more limited meaning I think they would have done so. My remarks were of more general nature about hose..it. I did not ascribe that to Mr. Landau's opinions. I welcome opinion, and the BLML does very well in stating, refining, and changing opinions. It is when I am confronted with "When I rule" that my hackles tend to rise. Sorry. I'm learning. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 04:33:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:33:54 +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 EAA03826 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:33:47 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id dCLMa12406 (572); Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <49bd84cc.24bb8e92@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:31:46 EDT Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements 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 7/12/99 1:55:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com writes: > >I have never understood the term 'convention disruption' but > >this was certainly not it. > > I may not understand it either, but I am under the impression that it means > agreeing to play a conventional sequence without making agreements as to > the meanings of the possible follow-up actions. My understanding is that > the penalty being discussed was levied for exactly that. We have found one of the many things I'm sure we agree on. Convention Disruption was, to my understanding, more than just not having a complete agreement as to the meanings of various calls. It meant misusing, forgetting, or inappropriately (to the cards held) using a convention...thereby getting a better score than they would have had had the player gotten all his agreements and calls according to system. I find this a very insiduous concept - it was part of an often voiced opinion that bad bridge can't get good results. If they happen, take them away, even if no damage can be exhibited by the opponents. I think it is fast losing its popularity. It is one of many acronyms that were being assigned to various violations, procedures, etc. and the pigeonhole concept always causes the pigeons to be made to fit the holes. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 06:32:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 06:32:01 +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 GAA04165 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 06:31:53 +1000 (EST) Received: by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id AAA29307; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:31:32 +0400 (MSK DST) Received: from h95.50.elnet.msk.ru(195.58.50.95) by gateway via smap (V2.0) id xma029259; Tue, 13 Jul 99 00:30:38 +0400 Message-ID: <378A50A4.9D842791@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:31:34 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <37886D4A.9C8AB60B@village.uunet.be> <3788BD9D.4AD83846@elnet.msk.ru> <3789C807.96FDCF03@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Herman De Wael wrote: > SNIP > 1) I agree in this particular case that NS should be kept to > -500. > 2) When changing the score for EW, surely that should be to > -650, not -140. Well - I do not understand Herman's position at all. Sorry. As the Laws say OS should receive (L12C2) "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable". And there are only two principle position: 1. This (the most unfavourable) result is to be judged with the board played against curretn opponents 2. This result should be considered as if the board is played against some theoretical opponents. The Laws say nothing on this matter - so it is TD right to interpret the question. IMO that case 1 is more realistic. But I agree that one may have another opinion. Then - why 650?:) With another opponent the most unfavourable result would be 850 (5 Spades doubled, just made). So - we have pure chose between 140 and 850. That's why I consider 650 as attempt to avoid the principle decision. Or 850 seems to be too unfair? If so - it seems (to me) that more logical thing is to return to 140:) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 08:08:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA04445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 08:08:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04440 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 08:08:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp210-80.worldonline.nl [195.241.210.80]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA06747; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:07:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002201becc07$90479400$d1f0f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 03:40:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Part of the trouble over the years has been the lack of promulgation >of the reasons for Laws, and interpretations thereof. Apart from any >reasons of character, it is possible that one main reason for personal >opinions here is lack of anything else. > > So if you can give us guidance as to why we should read the Laws in a >particular way, then that is very useful. Interpretations are helpful: >interpretations plus the reason for them plus the logic behind them is >considerably more useful. > > We have been told that such-and-such a thing is so. Sometimes we have >been told so when it appears that the Laws say the opposite. If we can >get guidance in such things, so much the better. > > When Kaplan spoke, you listened: Grattan listened: Ton listened Come on, this is not reality I am reading about. I am not a big listener, but that is only a minor deviation. Please David, the laws are not that bad and if there are defects I feel fully responsible, not as a listener to Kaplan who is the only one to blame, but as co-composer. I went through every word peparing the '97 edition. And I will consider every serious proposal for improvements going to the next edtion. Have one? Our 'problem' is that we play a quite complicated game for which we want high standards. And that all those wise kids seem to play or rule our game. And that internet is too easy to use. I have to confess to you that my list of changes that are really needed is quite short, and don't tell me that I am not critical enough. > Some time ago, I applied to join the EBL Laws Commission. Ton asked >me what role I would expect to play if I were to be accepted. I >answered that I would expect to be involved in dissemination of >information: it seems to me that the EBL LC should be active in this >role, which is needed. It is not enough that decisions are made: they >need to be available to Directors, whether Club, Local, State, Country >or International. I don't want to give the EBL LC a big role at this moment, for apparent reasons. I am not so happy with the relation between the ACBL LC and the WBF LC. Let us clear that first and than we decide what role the EBL LC can play. This BLML list probably is a much better medium for communication than any other, despite the confusion it sometimes gives. ton From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 08:50:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA04592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 08:50:28 +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 IAA04587 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 08:50:19 +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 SAA05068 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA25343 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:50:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907122250.SAA25343@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > L75A is a good enough reference on its own for the Law. Before I opened the FLB, I was going to suggest L75C. Now that I've had a look, L75A is much better. (This proves that either David knows the FLB better than I do or that he looked at it before posting. Most likely both are true.) L40B also comes to mind. Don't the CoC require each player to give the opponent on his side of the screen an accurate explanation of the side's agreements? If the explanations on opposite sides of the screen differ, isn't that _prima facie_ evidence of a violation? from the AC writeup: >The AC did not find it acceptable that a partnership had no >agreements over a simple third round bid in an uncontested >auction (in a European Championship). This, on the other hand, is hard to believe. Why should they be required to have agreements? Do the CoC require it? What no pair may do is tell the opponents that they have an agreement (let alone two different agreements) when really they have none. A PP on that basis seems reasonable. On the other hand, I'm reminded of a recent case from a club game here in the Boston area. Some young scientists decided to modify their responses to Standard American five-card-major opening bids. They decided that 1NT would be game forcing, suit bids natural and limited with 2/1 about as in Acol or perhaps even a touch weaker, and jump shifts preemptive. (This is arguably GCC-legal, by the way, although I find the GCC wording confusing. For present purposes, assume the agreements are legal ones.) What the pair never discussed was which hands are "left over" and had to pass. Thus when the auction went 1H-P-P-, they were not in position to explain responder's pass or even know whether it should be alerted. Discussion in committee revealed that the pass could contain balanced and semi-balanced hands up to 8 HCP or so, while hands with 3 or 4 points and a good, long suit were excluded (no preemptive jump shift), as were 5+ point hands with decent spades. Now that the pair have discussed the matter, this pass almost certainly does require an alert. (Does anyone think it doesn't?) Of course it was not alerted at the table. Have this pair committed an infraction? What law? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 09:02:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:02:57 +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 JAA04653 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:02:46 +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 TAA05357 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA25363 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:02:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907122302.TAA25363@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan" > ++++ Or, of course, in the play. A more poignant case than > the one cited was the Zone 4 lady who correctly described > the content of her own hand, which was not in accord with the > partnership agreement. A very experienced opponent > claimed the difference affected her opening lead. I remember another case from one of the World Championships, perhaps five or so years ago. I think it was after Santiago, but it might have been that one. One defender was told "a long suit and no outside controls in declarer's hand" while the other was told "long suit and one outside control." One explanation was a correct description of the agreement, but the other actually matched declarer's hand. No infraction for one, no damage for the other? Nope, clear damage! _Either_ explanation, if given to _both_ defenders, would have let them set the hand. But when one defender wrongly assumed the other had seen the same explanation he had, the setting trick got away. ("If he had the setting trick, he would have cashed it, so he must know it isn't cashing. Thus declarer is void, so my only chance..." or something like that.) Of course the AC had no trouble adjusting the score. (I'm not sure why the case ended up on appeal. It seems simple enough.) As long as we stick to the rule of disclosing agreements, not hands, the principles are simple. Departing from that rule leads to trouble. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 11:19:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:19:49 +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 LAA05121 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:19:42 +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 113rEJ-000LAZ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:19:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:46:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <001001becc86$115acd40$f48993c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001001becc86$115acd40$f48993c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >>[2] >> >> If the Law numbers quoted included 63D, does this mean >> >>[a] The Committee used 63D >>[b] The Committee considered 63D, whether they used it or not >>[c] The Director used 63D >>[d] The Director considered 63D, whether he used it or not > > >+++ My experience is that the Director puts on the >appeal form the number of any law he considers >potentially relevant to the TD's ruling; he is likely to >mention it (but not certain to) in his verbal statement >to the Committee if he is relying upon it particularly. >The Committee is only likely to pass comment upon >a numbered law if it feels there is something in >particular to be said, which would include any question >in its mind about what the Director has said. We are >currently still at a stage where Directors are being >'encouraged' to relate their rulings explicitly to the >relevant laws, so practice is uneven. >Whoever reports the AC proceeding is sometimes left >to research what law the Director applied, so that >Europe's most prolific Scribe may have additional >experience on the subject, Herman? ~Grattan~ +++ But do you expect reports of appeals to quote Laws in the same way? Will the readers understand it to be the Director's opinion, rather than the AC's? -- 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 Jul 13 12:27:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:27:55 +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 MAA05338 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:27:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem11.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.11] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 113sI9-0000gZ-00; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:27:34 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:16:51 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. =========================> > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. > Date: 12 July 1999 11:43 > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > >I don't believe it is correct for Zones to have any input in > > >the Laws.> ................. \x/ .............. > > Of course the zones should have input. > But I would not like to see this example leading to > something like : > The Australian zone objecting to this, and the matter > resolved in such a manner that it becomes forbidden in the > EBL, and in zones 3,5 and 7, but prohibited in zones > 2,4,6,8. > > Understood ? > ++++ That's input! ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 12:27:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:27:54 +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 MAA05337 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:27:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem11.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.11] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 113sI7-0000gZ-00; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:27:32 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:13:59 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ================================ > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements > Date: 12 July 1999 12:23 > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > At 11:56 AM 7/11/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > > > ---------------------------\x/----------------------- > > >Next came my job of putting this to paper and I felt I > > >needed a Law reference to underpin the PP. ------------------------- \x/ -------------------- ++++ I suddenly thought: hang on a minute, what is the scribe doing looking for a Law reference to insert if it was not there in committee? He is supposed to be reporting, not indulging in creativity. It ceases to be a true record of an appeal and it turns into a work of fiction if the scribe inserts, as a matter of personal opinion, a Law number that *he* judges to be relevant. His view on this is not relevant to the report. At the least he should make clear what he has done and not mislead. Perhaps to say "the committee provided no law reference but Law 103D appears relevant" or the like. The reporter should provide a factual account unmingled with his personal thoughts (which may be contributed in later comment external to the report if appropriate). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 13:09:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA05511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:09:08 +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 NAA05505 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:09:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem101.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.229] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 113sw8-0001B1-00; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:08:53 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:49:53 +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 o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Malta Appeals > Date: 12 July 1999 22:46 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >+++ My experience is that the Director puts on the > >appeal form the number of any law he considers > >potentially relevant to the TD's ruling; he is likely to > >mention it (but not certain to) in his verbal statement > >to the Committee if he is relying upon it particularly. > >The Committee is only likely to pass comment upon > >a numbered law if it feels there is something in > >particular to be said, which would include any question > >in its mind about what the Director has said. We are > >currently still at a stage where Directors are being > >'encouraged' to relate their rulings explicitly to the > >relevant laws, so practice is uneven. > >Whoever reports the AC proceeding is sometimes left > >to research what law the Director applied, so that > >Europe's most prolific Scribe may have additional > >experience on the subject, Herman? ~Grattan~ +++ > > But do you expect reports of appeals to quote Laws in the same way? > Will the readers understand it to be the Director's opinion, rather than > the AC's? > +++ I am wary of 'expect'. What I would like to see is accurate reporting. If a Law number is part of the ruling by the TD then I do think it is 'present' in the matters under review by the committee; so if mentioned, or if written on the form, I think it is accurate to report the number as part of the foundation on which the appeal is erected. I do not think it is then necessary for the committee to discuss the law reference unless one of their number challenges it. In some circumstances they may need to put a problem to the Director, but this is not what we are concerned with here. If they make a decision which is based upon a law not introduced by the Director it is appropriate for them to add the reference, and this is what I would like to see - the scribe should probably inform himself whilst still with the Committee - I do not think it is correct for the scribe to add something subsequently of his own volition - he has no authority to commit the Committee to a reference it has not stated. I see no reason why a report should not say if a committee is silent on a law reference. The absence of the reference does not in itself invalidate a ruling, provided a relevant reference does in fact exist in the laws. Just accuracy of reporting is what we should aim for IMO. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 14:11:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA05639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:11:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05634 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:11:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA08279; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <036801becce5$b78b7660$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <37886D4A.9C8AB60B@village.uunet.be> <3788BD9D.4AD83846@elnet.msk.ru> <3789C807.96FDCF03@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:10:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > 3 comments : > > 1) I agree in this particular case that NS should be kept to > -500. > 2) When changing the score for EW, surely that should be to > -650, not -140. This boils down to the question of whether better card play can be assumed for the NOS when determining "the most unfavorable result at all probable." If poor card play can be directly linked to the changed "siutation" (as David calls it) brought about by the infraction, then sure, adjust the play. But always granting better play to the NOS leads to the most perfect play (where do you stop?) that was at all probable for the non-offender(s) involved. No revokes, no leads out of turn, queen locations guessed, etc. It's hard to believe that this sort of thing was envisioned by whoever wrote L12C2. If declarer's play is not to be changed, then -140 is the worst result at all probable (.25 probability) for the OS, and that is what should be assigned. Agreeing with Vitold. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 15:14:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:14:31 +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 PAA05768 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:14:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA25426 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <037201beccee$8b7d9ae0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:14:08 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > I tend to wonder, incidentally, whether the TD who is > called to the table by a player wishing to correct partner's > explanation before the end of the hand, should perhaps include > in his instructions to the players a standard admonishment > that the explanation relates to the partnership agreement and > is not a guarantee of the content of the hand. I should like > to know what the most experienced TDs think is the desirable > path through this undergrowth You're not interested in what we players think? I reserve the right to comment on any submission to BLML, invited or not. The delete key is on the right side of the keyboard. An excellent suggestion, and another reason why the TD call required by 75D2 should be made. Such a TD statement removes the possibility of hard feelings that will usually arise when a player corrects an explanation (or misAlert) after her partner has erred in a way that happens to describe her actual holding. I would like to see a more straightforward and less instructive (to the other side) statement: "You must describe your partnership agreement accurately, while completely ignoring your actual hand." Had McCallum called the TD before correcting the explanation, and the TD had made this statement, I doubt that Garozzo would have complained after seeing McCallum's hand. Of course it is better if the TD doesn't look at the corrector's hand before making this statement! Just noticed that L75D2 does not require that a correction actually be made by declarer or dummy, only notification that there was an error. I guess the defenders have to ask for it when notified of the error before the opening lead is made. Don't understand that subtlety, but I suppose there is a reason for it. The first footnote says that a declarer (or dummy) *volunteers* to correct a misexplantion, but that the defenders (after play is over) just go ahead and correct it. I may be misinterpreting the word "volunteer," perhaps. Are there possible situations when the TD would want to say, "Go ahead and play," without requiring a correction at the time? If so, that would be another reason to call the TD as required by L75D2. A common mistake is to believe that if a player realizes during the auction that his explanation was wrong, he must wait until the auction (or play, when defending) is over to correct it. Of course L75D1 requires that the TD be called immediately in that case. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 15:34:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:34:37 +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 PAA05835 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:34:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA01746 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <03ab01beccf1$5ae9a9c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907120857.JAA09558@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:28:58 -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 Robin Barker wrote: Marvin French wrote: > > > Now for some bias. As an American, it gripes me a little to see games > > that we invented (basketball, contract bridge), and in which we are > > major players, modified by those with a "we know better" attitude. > > As an Englishman, it gripes me that Americans continue to win at > games they invented even if the rest-of-the-world changes the laws. > We seem to have invented sports in the last several hundred years, > solely for the purpose of other countries beating us at them. > > Even if we invented motor car racing (which I doubt), it was still > two Scots who won the grand prix? > India and Pakistan do pretty well at cricket too, I seem to remember. It also gripes me to be quoted out of context. Neatly unrevealed are my following sentiments *against* zonal options for the Laws (agreeing with Herman), urging that we suppress such feelings as those quoted, and that we conform to the Laws as written and to the WBFLC interpretations of the Laws.. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 16:13:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:13:03 +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 QAA05930 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:12:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA06130 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:12:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <03bf01beccf6$b7292260$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:12:30 -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 John Probst wrote: > > This is *hard* because it's not clear why I'm asking it :))) > > The auction proceeds 2N - 3C - 3D - 3H - 3S - 3N - 4D > > I don't care what your methods are: as long as you can explain what 4D > MEANS > > Takers vote Aye, Non-takers Vote Nay > > Those who have forgotten their agreement (at the point you looked at > this) are *required* to vote *Nay* > > Proddy gets 2 votes (since I know what I would rule playing with him!) > Those voting *Nay* get a 1VP fine because *I said so* or perhaps because > the AC is stupid > 4D is a second cue bid in support of hearts, implying a great hand for a heart contract, something like S-AKx H-KQJ D-AKxxx C-Jx If responder has S-xxxx H-10xxxx D-xx C-KQ, she stops in 4H. If she has S-xxxx H-A10xxx D-Qxx C-Q, she does not stop in 4H. There is no need for a special partnership agreement, it is commonsense bidding that I would assume when playing with any intelligent-lookoing stranger, and in fact I cannot imagine any other meanings for any of these bids. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 17:09:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:09:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06039 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:09:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA11087 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 08:08:55 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 08:08 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Adjustment 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 In-Reply-To: <199907121549.LAA24977@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > > Playing in 4S a poor player will win, draw two rounds of trumps and > > lose the 2 rounded finesses without showing any apparent thought or > > discomfort. > > Playing in 5S* by West the same player will worry about West holding > > SQTx and lose 3 finesses. > > > > A slightly better player might, in a "pressure-free" 4S, actually see > > the possibility of a throw-in after SK, S toward AJ while in 5S* he > > "places" West with QTx and doesn't think hard enough about the rest > > of the hand. > > > > Of course there is no "bridge reason"* (as I understand the term) for > > taking that spade finesse - risking a doubled game for the sake of a > > possible overtrick qualifies is irrational in my book. > > "The finesse might win, probably should win if the opponent has his 5C > bid," qualifies as a bridge reason in my book. _Maybe_ if declarer is > a top player (having a bad day), I _might_ be stricter about > "irrational," but probably not. This means we interpreted "bridge reason" differently, not a problem since the words aren't (yet) in the laws and I'm happy to use the looser definition (as both you and Eric interpreted it) henceforth. I just wanted to be sure we weren't being too tough on NOS. > > > I would suggest > > that adjusting from 5S*-1 to 4S+1 is always going to be correct on > > this hand. > > I agree. The play might well have been different in 4S, so we give > the NOS the benefit of the doubt. > > In contrast, what if declarer plays diamonds without drawing any trumps > at all? Now an opponent gains an unnecessary ruff with a low trump. > I'd call that irrational, and it has nothing obvious to do with the > level of the contract. I am still not sure what the correct result > is in this situation, but I am sure it is a different situation than > the example. > Declarer (having improved rapidly) might say "East might have held QTxx,xxx,xxxx,xx". My analysis may be flawed but I think this holding does require cashing diamonds before trumps (and endplaying each opponent in turn). Anti-percentage maybe but a bridge reason. This was not a "trap" in the original post - I was inspired by your comment to try and find a "rationale" (however poor) for playing diamonds first. What if declarer (not having improved at all) remained silent but Dummy offered this "helpful" analysis? I'm not sure where I'm going except to say "bridge reason" must be pretty wide and irrational pretty narrow when these adjustments are made. Tim. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 17:25:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:25:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mgwlsy1.dlh.de (mgwlsy1.dlh.de [193.24.34.221]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06074 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:25:40 +1000 (EST) From: CLEMENS.OELKER@DLH.DE Received: from xnt-fralic-0.cns.dlh.de (xnt-fralic-0.fra.dlh.de [10.254.252.2]) by mgwlsy1.dlh.de (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA27858 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:24:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by XNT-FRALIC-0 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <338LZKAM>; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:25:13 +0200 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Split Scores Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:25:12 +0200 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 RAA06075 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Gesendet am: Montag, 12. Juli 1999 13:07 > An: Bridge Laws > Betreff: Split Scores > > Let's suppose that the ruling is : > NS keep their bad score (-500) > EW score is changed to 4Sp+1 (+650) > > [snip] > > This is where my suggestion comes in : give the split scores > each half a weight in the frequencies, and calculate once > and for all : > > +850 1 38 0 > +650 11.5 25.5 12.5 > +200 2 12 26 > -100 4 6 32 > -500 0.5 1.5 36.5 > -800 1 0 38 > > two advantages : EW and NS keep complementary scores; and > all NS and EW gain equally from the change at the one table. > (middle scores gain one point each, +650's gain half a point > each) > This suggestion has two disadvantages: First, the minor one, both Pairs are penalized by a very small extra points (just 0.5), in addition to their bad "artificial" score. And second, the major disadvantige results when describing your new scoring-method in terms of a formular. The solution for this has to be: You get 2 MP for each result you have beaten and 1 MP for each result which equals your own (as in common scoring), but now you have to substract 0.5 MP from that sum, which can be explained by "your own result has only have the weight, so you are handled only as have a pair". So what is the result if you get an artificial BOTTOM as split score from the AC? Then the formular would give you a score of -0.5 on the board, which is also necissary to score the rest of the board correctly. This can't hardly be fair, can it? And the last comment on your suggestion: the fact that some scores are influenced by 2 MP from other results at the same board isn't a fault, that's just the principle of scoring!!! Clemens Oelker Hamburg, Germany >> Minds are like parachutes. They only function when open. (Charles Handy) << > -- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 19:19:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:19:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from nbrmr1002.ac.com (NBRMR1002.ac.com [170.252.248.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06272 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:19:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from emehm1101.ac.com ([170.252.192.148]) by nbrmr1002.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id EAA27581 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:05:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.4 (830.2 3-23-1999)) id 862567AD.0033614B ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:21:12 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AC_TELEKOM@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING From: "Christian Farwig" To: "bridge-laws" Message-ID: <862567AD.00335715.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:10:00 +0200 Subject: Re: Returned Mail Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello everybody, to bring this off-topic-thread to a well deserved end, I would like to apologize for the inconvenience caused. Fortunately, no-one in this list is to blame. Occasionally bouncing mail to and from the internet is mainly caused by my firms gateway to the internet. The architecture was not designed to cope with the gigantic rise in mail-traffic (I understand that this problem is being worked on). Additionally, a screw-up in an internal adressbook previous week made the mess complete. Again, sorry for the bounces, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 19:19:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:19:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mgwlsy1.dlh.de (mgwlsy1.dlh.de [193.24.34.221]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06266 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:19:17 +1000 (EST) From: CLEMENS.OELKER@DLH.DE Received: from xnt-fralic-0.cns.dlh.de (xnt-fralic-0.fra.dlh.de [10.254.252.2]) by mgwlsy1.dlh.de (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA06885 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:18:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by XNT-FRALIC-0 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <338LZMJ7>; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:18:49 +0200 Message-ID: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:18:49 +0200 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 John Probst wrote: > > This is *hard* because it's not clear why I'm asking it :))) > > The auction proceeds 2N - 3C - 3D - 3H - 3S - 3N - 4D > > I don't care what your methods are: as long as you can explain what 4D > MEANS > > Takers vote Aye, Non-takers Vote Nay > > Those who have forgotten their agreement (at the point you looked at > this) are *required* to vote *Nay* > > Proddy gets 2 votes (since I know what I would rule playing with him!) > Those voting *Nay* get a 1VP fine because *I said so* or perhaps because > the AC is stupid > What about the following interpretation: 2 NT : I have lots of points 3 C : puppet stayman, asking for 4card and 5card majors 3 D : no 5card major, but at least one 4card major 3 H : I have 4 spades 3 S : me too, and I have a really nice hand, otherwise I would have bid 4 S 3 NT : ok, let's look after a spade-slam then 4 D : Q-bid, lacking control in clubs Cheers, Clemens Oelker Hamburg, Germany From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 21:43:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:43:05 +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 VAA06578 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:42:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-12.uunet.be [194.7.148.12]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18299 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:42:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378B1278.441BE7F1@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:18:32 +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: Malta Appeals References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > If they (the AC) make > a decision which is based upon a law not introduced by > the Director it is appropriate for them to add the > reference, and this is what I would like to see - the scribe > should probably inform himself whilst still with the > Committee - I do not think it is correct for the > scribe to add something subsequently of his own > volition - he has no authority to commit the Committee > to a reference it has not stated. I don't see it that way, Grattan. It is my task, among others, to inform the AC, if I feel the need, of the Laws involved. Some members there are less informed than myself about the actual wording of the Laws. But I don't feel the need at all times to explicitely tell the AC what Laws they are using, expecially if I find that they are ruling in a manner that is consistent with the Law I have in mind. Yet, when telling the world about the ruling, it is deemed necessary to mention the specific Laws, and I do so whether or not the Law was actually read in Committee. Indeed, when I feel that a literal reading of the Law was necessary, not only did I read it in the Committee, but also I included it complete in the report. So in all, I feel it is my duty to mention Law numbers even if the AC did not specify them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 21:43:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:43:08 +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 VAA06585 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:42:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-12.uunet.be [194.7.148.12]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18303 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:42:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378B151A.6B5DDF24@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:29:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements References: <3.0.1.32.19990711150527.0071c2b8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990712135214.007136cc@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 01:23 PM 7/12/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >You don't agree that a higher level of "attention to the > >game" should be asked from people who are going to play 500+ > >hands together at the highest level they will ever attain in > >their lives ? > > I don't disagree, but I do agree with Michael and others who believe that > L74 governs conduct at the table, not away from it, and would no more apply > L74B1 to a partnership's prior discussion of their methods than I would, > say, L74A1. > You may believe this, but it is not what this Law states. > >I have never understood the term 'convention disruption' but > >this was certainly not it. > > I may not understand it either, but I am under the impression that it means > agreeing to play a conventional sequence without making agreements as to > the meanings of the possible follow-up actions. My understanding is that > the penalty being discussed was levied for exactly that. > If that is the definition, then yes, this is convention disruption. But that is one possible definition I had never thought of. > >Remember that the word used in the Laws is "insufficient". > >It is up to the TD or AC to determine what is sufficient. > > I entirely agree. The issue here isn't what constitutes "insufficient > attention", but rather what constitutes "the game". IMO "the game" refers > to the game we're playing at the table, not to whatever we may do in the > course of our lives that pertains to the game of bridge. > Well, again, that is not clear from the text of the Laws. I think there is another matter of importance. Whether or not attention to the game includes actions prior to sitting at the table (and I repeat that I don't see why not), but if this (a matter of courtesy) is possible to incur a PP. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 21:43:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:43:19 +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 VAA06607 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:43:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-12.uunet.be [194.7.148.12]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18322 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:42:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378B2434.F4CFA5D9@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:34:12 +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: Split Scores References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hallo Clemens, nice to see a new name here, and welcome ! CLEMENS.OELKER@DLH.DE wrote: > > > > This suggestion has two disadvantages: > First, the minor one, both Pairs are penalized by a very small extra points > (just 0.5), in addition to their bad "artificial" score. I name that a consequence of them playing even worse than the opponents of their opponents (they got -500, but the opponents of their opponents got +650 !) > And second, the major disadvantige results when describing your new > scoring-method in terms of a formular. That is not a big disadvantage, the formulae are difficult enough as it is, and I believe that including this version in some regulations is no more complicated than including the "traditional" version. > The solution for this has to be: > You get 2 MP for each result you have beaten and 1 MP for each result which > equals your own (as in common scoring), but now you have to substract 0.5 > MP from that sum, which can be explained by "your own result has only have > the weight, so you are handled only as have a pair". > So what is the result if you get an artificial BOTTOM as split score from > the AC? Then the formular would give you a score of -0.5 on the board, which > is also necissary to score the rest of the board correctly. This can't > hardly be fair, can it? > Very well, Clemens, you spotted it. I had deliberately included both a +850 and a -800 to avoid this seeming irregularity. But I don't believe it is a problem. These pairs have played worse than some others, and should get less points. The fact that less than 0 is negative is a consequence of the counting system, to which I have given an alternative, if needed. But there are other cases in which a negative score can arise, well within currently accepted regulations. > And the last comment on your suggestion: the fact that some scores are > influenced by 2 MP from other results at the same board isn't a fault, > that's just the principle of scoring!!! > But the fact that NS scores are influenced and EW are not, is a fault IMO. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 21:50:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:50:29 +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 VAA06659 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:50:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u3.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id HAA20628 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 07:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 07:45:39 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: establishment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > > So, I ask again, is it a good thing for the WBFLC to get rid of > differing interpretations of the Laws in different parts of the world? > Should the line as to what RAs [regulating authorities] may regulate be > moved to give the WBFLC more power in decisions and the various RAs > less? > I believe it is a good thing. Most of the time it does not matter, because most people only play within one jurisdiction. The problems really only turn up in international events where you have tournament officials from different cultures who are interpreting the laws in different ways. Possibly only an academic point--I've never been near an international event, much less participated in one. Other organizations have had this problem. FIFA had a major training session for its game officials before the 1970(?) World Cup _because_ of the perception of different interpretations of soccer laws in different parts of the world. FIFA was not concerned that the officials were inconsistent, but did want the whole event run in the same way and believed the players should know what to expect without having to know refereeing style in various parts of the world. -- Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 23:09:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:09:41 +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 XAA06932 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:09:30 +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 1142JE-000PNu-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:09:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:27:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements References: <037201beccee$8b7d9ae0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <037201beccee$8b7d9ae0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Just noticed that L75D2 does not require that a correction actually be >made by declarer or dummy, only notification that there was an error. I >guess the defenders have to ask for it when notified of the error before >the opening lead is made. Don't understand that subtlety, but I suppose >there is a reason for it. An alert [or failure to alert] is covered by this. The correction should be "My partner should have alerted my 3S" rather than explaining it when it has not been asked for. -- 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 Jul 13 23:09:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:09:41 +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 XAA06933 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:09:30 +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 1142JE-000PNw-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:09:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:37:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Clemens wrote: >What about the following interpretation: Reasonable enough: so John, some can explain it, some can't. >Clemens Oelker >Hamburg, Germany Hi Clemens, nice to see you here. You have cats? -- 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 Jul 13 23:09:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:09:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06951 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:09:48 +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 1142JI-000CU5-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:09:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:44:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? References: <002201becc07$90479400$d1f0f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <002201becc07$90479400$d1f0f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: >> Part of the trouble over the years has been the lack of promulgation >>of the reasons for Laws, and interpretations thereof. Apart from any >>reasons of character, it is possible that one main reason for personal >>opinions here is lack of anything else. >> >> So if you can give us guidance as to why we should read the Laws in a >>particular way, then that is very useful. Interpretations are helpful: >>interpretations plus the reason for them plus the logic behind them is >>considerably more useful. >> >> We have been told that such-and-such a thing is so. Sometimes we have >>been told so when it appears that the Laws say the opposite. If we can >>get guidance in such things, so much the better. >> >> When Kaplan spoke, you listened: Grattan listened: Ton listened > >Come on, this is not reality I am reading about. I am not a big listener, >but that is only a minor deviation. Please David, the laws are not that bad >and if there are defects I feel fully responsible, not as a listener to >Kaplan who is the only one to blame, but as co-composer. I went through >every word peparing the '97 edition. And I will consider every serious >proposal for improvements going to the next edtion. Have one? Our 'problem' >is that we play a quite complicated game for which we want high standards. >And that all those wise kids seem to play or rule our game. And that >internet is too easy to use. I have to confess to you that my list of >changes that are really needed is quite short, and don't tell me that I am >not critical enough. Well, you had the advantage of major input to the last book. As you know, there are a number of alterations that I would like to see made. >> Some time ago, I applied to join the EBL Laws Commission. Ton asked >>me what role I would expect to play if I were to be accepted. I >>answered that I would expect to be involved in dissemination of >>information: it seems to me that the EBL LC should be active in this >>role, which is needed. It is not enough that decisions are made: they >>need to be available to Directors, whether Club, Local, State, Country >>or International. >I don't want to give the EBL LC a big role at this moment, for apparent >reasons. I am not so happy with the relation between the ACBL LC and the WBF >LC. Let us clear that first and than we decide what role the EBL LC can >play. This BLML list probably is a much better medium for communication than >any other, despite the confusion it sometimes gives. The problem with it [as certain people have hammered into us] is that the list is not official. So if I give an opinion, all I do is to try to persuade people I am right: then, if they believe me, they have added something to their knowledge, but not something official. I understand the question of the relation between the WBF LC and the ACBL LC, and can see why this affects the EBL LC. I think it a pity, because I believe an active EBL LC is needed to provide a means of communication that is official. -- 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 Jul 13 23:09:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:09:39 +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 XAA06931 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:09:28 +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 1142J7-000CU5-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:09:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:20:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <37886D4A.9C8AB60B@village.uunet.be> <3788BD9D.4AD83846@elnet.msk.ru> <3789C807.96FDCF03@village.uunet.be> <036801becce5$b78b7660$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <036801becce5$b78b7660$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: > >> 3 comments : >> >> 1) I agree in this particular case that NS should be kept to >> -500. >> 2) When changing the score for EW, surely that should be to >> -650, not -140. > >This boils down to the question of whether better card play can be assumed >for the NOS when determining "the most unfavorable result at all >probable." > If poor card play can be directly linked to the changed >"siutation" (as David calls it) brought about by the infraction, then >sure, adjust the play. Let us take a simple situation. West is on lead against 6NT with KQxx xx Axxx xxx and leads the SK. Thirteen tricks are made. Now, owing to an infraction, N/S are adjudged to have stayed out of a grand slam unfairly [perhaps the wrong response to Blackwood was made, and then the player said "Oh no: I haven't shown two aces, have I?", and then his partner did not bid the grand]. So do we adjust to 7NT making? Or perhaps East/West committed the infraction, and without their infraction, North/South might have bid 7NT. So do we adjust to 7NT making? Don't be ridiculous, people will tell me. Well, I am not the one being ridiculous: I know that Bridge players who are not beginners play and defend in different ways against different contracts. But there seem to be some people on this thread who assume the same play at different levels. Ok, you say, that's defence. Right, let's look at another case. Declarer is in 3NT, with AQ xx KQJ10 xxxxx xx Ax A9xxxx Axx and goes several off by taking the spade finesse after a heart lead. Tough. How would he have played it in 2NT? He would have taken his eight tricks, of course. So if we adjust from 3NT-4 to 2NT, how many tricks do we give him? 2NT-3? No, of course not: we give him 2NT making. > But always granting better play to the NOS leads to >the most perfect play (where do you stop?) that was at all probable for >the non-offender(s) involved. No revokes, no leads out of turn, queen >locations guessed, etc. It's hard to believe that this sort of thing was >envisioned by whoever wrote L12C2. Having accepted as a principle that we alter the number of tricks made to the contract does not mean that we then act in a ridiculous fashion. The lawmakers drafted a Law, which says nothing about keeping the number of tricks the same in different contracts. Good. But it says nothing about what to do with revokes and so on. It just gives a basis for adjustment, and it is expected that TDs and ACs use that basis and adjust as a result. -- 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 Jul 13 23:20:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:43:04 +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 VAA06577 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:42:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-12.uunet.be [194.7.148.12]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18295 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:42:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378B100C.15E9750D@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:08:12 +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: Malta Appeals References: <001001becc86$115acd40$f48993c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > But do you expect reports of appeals to quote Laws in the same way? > Will the readers understand it to be the Director's opinion, rather than > the AC's? > I have tried to make the Law references those that the AC used, not the TD. After all, once the case gets to Committee, the Director's ruling is cancelled, isn't it ? Now in this particuar case, the TD had put in the appropriate space "NOT 63D", but I felt that this was not correct. We read 63D, and decide it does not apply. But we read it anyway. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 13 23:51:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:51:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk ([195.147.248.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07079 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:51:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from p15s14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.22] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 1142xV-0006yM-00; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:50:57 +0100 Message-ID: <004501becd36$34633ec0$168e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "David Stevenson" Cc: "Kooijman, A." Subject: Hunting in packs for answers Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:45:41 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 12 July 1999 23:33 Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? >> ................................. \x/ ........................... >Come on, this is not reality I am reading about. I am not a big listener, >but that is only a minor deviation. Please David, the laws are not that bad >and if there are defects I feel fully responsible, not as a listener to >Kaplan who is the only one to blame, but as co-composer. I went through >every word peparing the '97 edition. And I will consider every serious >proposal for improvements going to the next edtion. Have one? Our 'problem' >is that we play a quite complicated game for which we want high standards. >And that all those wise kids seem to play or rule our game. And that >internet is too easy to use. I have to confess to you that my list of >changes that are really needed is quite short, and don't tell me that I am >not critical enough. .............................. \x/ .............................. ++++ David (and bystanders), I think you must give Ton a little leeway for a while to come. We have lost Edgar, who characteristically took it upon himself to prescribe answers to all kinds of questions, and we no longer have a committee that is prepared to countenance that procedure in any of us. Some WBFLC members have made it plain beyond all peradventure that they are to be consulted before anything not previously established is attributed to the committee, and they will not have it otherwise. And whilst Ton's list may be short, members of the committee in the aggregate may well have a significantly longer list of subjects that they will want to look at. So until we see the direction in which the WBFLC as a whole decides to go, not uninfluenced by its non-European majority, we are necessarily respectful of its corporate will and each of us will tread softly in responding to your expectations of us, probably disappointing you with equivocal responses or statements that can only be provisional or qualified if they tread uncharted ground or envisage what we may like to do in future. As for the EBL LC we have yet to feel the effects of the changes instituted in Malta (in its chairmanship and composition), but I do agree with Ton that it is only sensible to defer its discussions until we know the course of events at WBF level. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 00:02:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:02:22 +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 AAA07114 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:02:14 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id 5NZMa28769 (3941); Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:59:49 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/13/99 7:45:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > It is my task, among others, to inform the AC, if I feel the > need, of the Laws involved. Some members there are less > informed than myself about the actual wording of the Laws. > But I don't feel the need at all times to explicitely tell > the AC what Laws they are using, expecially if I find that > they are ruling in a manner that is consistent with the Law > I have in mind. Kojak here....... IMO.......Reading the Laws to the AC is fine, I get nervous when you state the last few words of the above. > Yet, when telling the world about the ruling, it is deemed > necessary to mention the specific Laws, and I do so whether > or not the Law was actually read in Committee. You certainly are free to expres your opinion during the AC as a committee member, but not as part of what I would think your post meeting duties as a scribe are if this was not part of the committee's deliberations/actions. > Indeed, when > I feel that a literal reading of the Law was necessary, not > only did I read it in the Committee, but also I included it > complete in the report. > > So in all, I feel it is my duty to mention Law numbers even > if the AC did not specify them. I'm very happy with the extensive reporting you have done as Scribe. I'm nervous as to what you consider the scribe's job to be. According to Law 81 C 5 the Chief TD is the person who interprets the Law. I would hope you are not indicating that the Scribe has this right, unless the Chief TD in accordance with Law 81D has specifically authorized it. According to Law 93 B 3, the AC has this same right when in session. Of even greater importance is that the Committee has no choice to depart from the Law. In WBF tournaments where I am the Chief TD I DO NOT delegate this duty. In ACBL there is a special group of TDs assigned at NABCs who are delegated by the Chief TD to do this - called the Screeners.) Making the AC clearly aware that they are bound by Law, just like the TD, tends to limit the flights of fancy on parts of committee members who feel they are empowered to "do what's right." Maybe I have the wrong impression of "Scribe" as the EBL sees it. I think, though, that in your words.......among others.......should give you pause to see that as Scribe you have a different task than as an active AC member - to report as accurately as possible what actually took place. By the way, you deserve much credit for doing the onerous job as well as you have. ............Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 00:06:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:06:09 +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 AAA07129 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:06:02 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id 5FVBa06441 (14416); Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:04:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2f64979d.24bca16f@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:04:31 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/13/99 9:21:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > After all, once the case gets to > Committee, the Director's ruling is cancelled, isn't it ? Is this true in EBL?.........Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 00:31:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:09:59 +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 XAA06952 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:09:49 +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 1142JE-000Er3-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:09:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:33:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> > >Next came my job of putting this to paper and I felt I >> > >needed a Law reference to underpin the PP. >++++ I suddenly thought: hang on a minute, what is >the scribe doing looking for a Law reference to insert if >it was not there in committee? He is supposed to be >reporting, not indulging in creativity. > It ceases to be a true record of an appeal and it >turns into a work of fiction if the scribe inserts, >as a matter of personal opinion, a Law number >that *he* judges to be relevant. His view on this is not >relevant to the report. At the least he should >make clear what he has done and not mislead. Perhaps >to say "the committee provided no law reference but >Law 103D appears relevant" or the like. The reporter >should provide a factual account unmingled with his >personal thoughts (which may be contributed in later >comment external to the report if appropriate). Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. We are not talking about the narrative, but there is a heading Law Number[s] in Appeals reporting. It seems that we are not consistent in what we think this shows. -- 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 Jul 14 00:57:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:57:23 +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 AAA07266 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:57:14 +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 KAA24581 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA25866 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:57:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907131457.KAA25866@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. We are not talking about the > narrative, but there is a heading Law Number[s] in Appeals reporting. > It seems that we are not consistent in what we think this shows. Perhaps the form needs to be changed? Put "Law Numbers" in two places: one after the "TD Ruling" and another after "AC ruling." I agree that the report should be an accurate record of the AC proceedings above all else. The problem case is where it is obvious to the scribe which laws were considered, but the initial writeup omits them. Ideally the scribe would add law numbers _after_ verifying them with the AC chairman, but this may not always be possible. If it isn't clear which law the AC used, I don't think the scribe guess. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 01:05:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:05:53 +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 BAA07310 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:05:40 +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 LAA24910 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:05:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA25886 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:05:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907131505.LAA25886@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "ton kooijman" > And that all those wise kids seem to play or rule our game. This is what we want, isn't it? (Some of us are "kids" only in ACBL years, I'm afraid.) > I have to confess to you that my list of > changes that are really needed is quite short, and don't tell me that I am > not critical enough. We have seen in this forum that reasonable people can derive different meanings from the existing Laws text in a great many places. That being so, there are only three options I can see: clarify the text to remove ambiguity, or provide separate guidance for how the text is to be interpreted, or accept that rulings will differ on different occasions. In practice, the most likely result is a mix of all three options, and wiser heads than mine will have to figure out how to achieve the optimum ratio. Another whole problem comes from suggestions that some laws, while clear enough, are less than optimum. No doubt some of these suggestions have merit and others do not, and the responsible parties will have to decide what to do. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 01:32:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:43:15 +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 VAA06602 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:43:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-12.uunet.be [194.7.148.12]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18313 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:42:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378B1921.F0DD55C0@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:46:57 +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: Obligation to have agreements References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > > > ---------------------------\x/----------------------- > > > >Next came my job of putting this to paper and I felt I > > > >needed a Law reference to underpin the PP. > ------------------------- \x/ -------------------- > > ++++ I suddenly thought: hang on a minute, what is > the scribe doing looking for a Law reference to insert if > it was not there in committee? He is supposed to be > reporting, not indulging in creativity. > It ceases to be a true record of an appeal and it > turns into a work of fiction if the scribe inserts, > as a matter of personal opinion, a Law number > that *he* judges to be relevant. His view on this is not > relevant to the report. At the least he should > make clear what he has done and not mislead. Perhaps > to say "the committee provided no law reference but > Law 103D appears relevant" or the like. The reporter > should provide a factual account unmingled with his > personal thoughts (which may be contributed in later > comment external to the report if appropriate). > ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Read my other post on this subject, dealing with more general issues. Indeed in this case, I needed to give a reason for the PP. Indeed in this case, the PP was given in Committee without a Law reference. Indeed in this case, had we argued on our right to issue a PP for this particular offence, we might have found L74B1 in the room as well. In any case, the reports have been read by the chairman and several other members. None of them have questioned my insert of L74B1. Even if they had, they would probably simply have believed me that L74B1 applies. So if the majority of the World agrees that this is a wrong reference, then I have led the AC astray and we have given a wrong ruling. It happens. Let me summarise: The AC felt this warranted a penalty. I feel this is a penalty under L74B1, and I don't find any other. So the AC decided this was a case in which L74B1 applied. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 01:45:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:45:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07414 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:45:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt054n1d.maine.rr.com [24.95.20.29]) by proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA20903 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:44:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990713114101.007c6730@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:41:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <378B1278.441BE7F1@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:18 PM 7/13/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >So in all, I feel it is my duty to mention Law numbers even >if the AC did not specify them. Just in case we're voting, I don't think the duties of a scribe include adding any information not set forth by the committee or the director. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 02:07:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:43:12 +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 VAA06595 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:43:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-12.uunet.be [194.7.148.12]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18309 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:42:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378B17C8.9887C177@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:41:12 +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: Obligation to have agreements References: <199907122250.SAA25343@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: David Stevenson > > L75A is a good enough reference on its own for the Law. > > Before I opened the FLB, I was going to suggest L75C. Now that I've > had a look, L75A is much better. (This proves that either David knows > the FLB better than I do or that he looked at it before posting. Most > likely both are true.) > > L40B also comes to mind. Don't the CoC require each player to give the > opponent on his side of the screen an accurate explanation of the > side's agreements? If the explanations on opposite sides of the screen > differ, isn't that _prima facie_ evidence of a violation? > neither Law is really what we meant. > from the AC writeup: > >The AC did not find it acceptable that a partnership had no > >agreements over a simple third round bid in an uncontested > >auction (in a European Championship). > In the AC, it became clear that the partnership really had not discussed this. There was no evidence of anything else, and so the penalty really was for "failure to have an agreement over a simple auction". This list seems to think that this is not punishable. I happen to think that it must be a requirement at a certain level. So again, if L74B1 does not apply off the table, what else ? > This, on the other hand, is hard to believe. Why should they be > required to have agreements? Do the CoC require it? > No they don't. But do you find it acceptable if a pair comes to your table and answers to your question about 1NT range "we have not discussed that" (unless it is really the first board of a partnership formed 2 seconds prior). While technically the answer might be true, and you may not even be able to rule MI, isn't there something wrong ? And if that is not "paying insufficient attention to the game", what is? > What no pair may do is tell the opponents that they have an agreement > (let alone two different agreements) when really they have none. A PP > on that basis seems reasonable. > No, the PP was really for not having an agreement. They tried to tell the inferences they drew, and were unfortunate enough not to find the same inference, but it was clear (to me if not to the full Committee) that they had failed to discuss this sequence even in the most general manner. > On the other hand, I'm reminded of a recent case from a club game here > in the Boston area. Some young scientists decided to modify their > responses to Standard American five-card-major opening bids. They > decided that 1NT would be game forcing, suit bids natural and limited > with 2/1 about as in Acol or perhaps even a touch weaker, and jump > shifts preemptive. (This is arguably GCC-legal, by the way, although I > find the GCC wording confusing. For present purposes, assume the > agreements are legal ones.) > > What the pair never discussed was which hands are "left over" and had > to pass. Thus when the auction went 1H-P-P-, they were not in position > to explain responder's pass or even know whether it should be alerted. > Discussion in committee revealed that the pass could contain balanced > and semi-balanced hands up to 8 HCP or so, while hands with 3 or 4 > points and a good, long suit were excluded (no preemptive jump shift), > as were 5+ point hands with decent spades. Now that the pair have > discussed the matter, this pass almost certainly does require an > alert. (Does anyone think it doesn't?) Of course it was not alerted > at the table. > > Have this pair committed an infraction? What law? As long as you accept that they are using your tournament as a laboratory, they are not yet expected to have full agreements; but the European Championships are not a laboratory. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 02:08:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:08:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA07642 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:08:33 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id 5DHVa07706 (3941); Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:06:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:06:13 EDT Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/13/99 11:35:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > In any case, the reports have been read by the chairman and > several other members. None of them have questioned my > insert of L74B1. > Even if they had, they would probably simply have believed > me that L74B1 applies. >From the tone of your post it is evident to me that you feel yourself righteously correct. Have you ever thought about the fact that the Laws provide a Law covering Procedural Penalties? You couldn't even have used Law 90A as a catch-all? Have you ever thought about the fact that if you can't find a reason under this Law, then you (the AC) have no basis for awarding PPs? Are your (EBL) regulations (established under Law) lacking enforcement provisions for those things they probably should mandate to players, i.e. knowing what your agreements are? Are you continuing to maintain that each Law of the Laws stands separately? Do you still not see the forest for the trees? On one hand you agree that the Laws do not provide that players must have agreements , and then you wish to penalize the failure to have agreements by reference to a Law which deals with Etiquette? am I crazzzzzy? (Mexican gringo please note) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 03:08:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:08:41 +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 DAA07750 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:08:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u3.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id NAA10579 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:08:25 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? In-Reply-To: <033901becc29$30bd7280$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 11 Jul 1999, Marvin L. French wrote: > We very much need ACBL BoD members, especially those on the Tournament > Committee, also Competition and Convention Committee members (Bobby > Goldman was active on rgb, but not BLML), and ACBL LC members, anyone who > is willing to discuss the actions taken (or not taken, or being > considered) by those various bodies. I know there is one ACBL BoD member who reads the list, but would probably prefer it if his/her name were not revealed. He/she knows of whom I speak. Would you care to be more active? > > Does anyone know Chip Martel well enough to invite him in? He would be a > big help, considering his position as co-chair of the LC ( the other > co-chair isn't interested, I asked). He was on the drafting committee for > the 1997 Laws, by the way.. > Jeff Goldsmith I think knows him well, but I haven't seen Jeff being active either here or on RGB recently. > I think I am right in saying that not only Laws-related topics, but also > other concerns of TDs (e.g., movements, scoring) are suitable subjects for > discussion on BLML. And cats, of course. > Agreed, but dogs (and teddy bears) should be added :-) -- Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 03:26:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:26:43 +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 DAA07793 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:26:33 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id 5RRQa29496 (8080); Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:17:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:17:46 EDT Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/13/99 12:09:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > As long as you accept that they are using your tournament as > a laboratory, they are not yet expected to have full > agreements; but the European Championships are not a > laboratory. If this is true, then why not give the Procedural Penalty for violating it? Written someplace. Neither should the European Championships (or any other for that matter) be a place where the kind of laboratory thinking evident in the use of 74B1 takes place.....IMNSVHO.........Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 04:20:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:20:26 +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 DAA07776 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:20:14 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id eOGGa17700 (8080); Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1549e15a.24bccf0f@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:19:11 EDT Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? 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 7/13/99 1:11:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lighton@idt.net writes: > Agreed, but dogs (and teddy bears) should be added :-) > And ferocious alligators? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 06:53:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:53:16 +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 GAA08389 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:52:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from kapustin (ppp05.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.105]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02486 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:53:02 +0300 (EEST) Message-Id: <199907132053.XAA02486@hunter2.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: Subject: Avg - (Please help) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:43:55 +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: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All! Next week will be the Final of the mixt pair championship of Ukraine. They will play round Buttler; one pair against another plays 12 boards in one session. In whole will be played 19 sessions. IMPs are converted into VP according to the 25:0 scale. I am not TD/AC in this Tournament. As one of the official person of the Federation I was asked the following. One woman has very important reason to be late for the first and second sessions. She asks: Is it possible to be late for? How many VPs will be given to her pare in the first and the second sessions? If it is 40%, she will play, if less - she will not. The answer for the first question is "YES, but her artificial result must be with accordance to the Low". No more, but no less. But I don't know the answer for the second. (Of course, before I sent this question to BLML I re-read the thread Avg + Avg - and David's article "What to do when pair leaves early".) What is the relevant Low in this case? Or, rephrase, What to do when pair in IMP=>VP play leaves early or is late? May be 80F? Then, I think, we will announce regulation VP 12:18. But I am not sure that it is not in conflict with Lows, because L86A exists. That Is (-3mp)*12boards = (-36imp) => VP 6:24, but IMO it isn't correct. Thank you in advance Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 07:43:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:43:37 +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 HAA08521 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:43:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei7i.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.242]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA06026 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:43:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990713173901.011ef85c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:39:01 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: AC's and PP's In-Reply-To: <37886A3C.EADFB6D9@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:56 AM 7/11/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >Hi all, > >I am currently corresponding with David on the final touches >of the Appeals from Malta, and they should appear on the >swiss site soon. > >We have an interesting discussion about something the AC >decided (appeal 25) > >In short, the bidding had gone : > >2Cl pass 2Di pass >2Sp pass 3Di > >2Cl was 11-16 with 6Cl >2Di was asking relay >2Sp showed 4 spades >2NT would have been the next relay (very well described in >system notes) >3Di was explained differently on either side. > >What happened next is of little importance to us here, but >in addition to their ruling, the AC decided to give to this >pair a PP of half a VP. > >The AC did not find it acceptable that a partnership had no >agreements over a simple third round bid in an uncontested >auction (in a European Championship). I originally responded to Herman to express my distaste at the AC ruling in this particular case, and at his reliance on L74B1 as a supporting legal basis for the ruling. The more I have thought about it, though, the more I am convinced that there is a deeper issue here than just a question of bridge journalism. Is it ever appropriate, or even permitted, for an AC to issue a PP? My own opinion is that it is not. The Laws address the purpose and nature of PP's in Chapter X, which defines the duties of the TD. It is worth noting that the language of L90 makes it clear that such penalties are essentially disciplinary in character, intended to support the TD in maintaining an orderly contest. It is true that L93B1 delegates the TD's powers to the AC, with this important caveat: "except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers." Now if the TD has determined that no PP is called for, then that would seem to be a legitimate exercise of his disciplinary powers. An AC which then decides to award a PP is contravening the TD in precisely that exercise. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 07:52:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:52:32 +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 HAA08549 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:52:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei7i.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.242]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA04054 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:52:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990713175010.011fa4bc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:50:10 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements In-Reply-To: <378B17C8.9887C177@village.uunet.be> References: <199907122250.SAA25343@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:41 PM 7/13/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >In the AC, it became clear that the partnership really had >not discussed this. There was no evidence of anything else, >and so the penalty really was for "failure to have an >agreement over a simple auction". >This list seems to think that this is not punishable. >I happen to think that it must be a requirement at a certain >level. >So again, if L74B1 does not apply off the table, what else ? Nothing else. As a matter of Law, this ruling is unsupported and unsupportable. There is simply no requirement in the Laws to "have an agreement over a simple auction", an so the failure to do so is not an infraction (again, assuming that the relevant SO regulation does not apply). It is not the right of the AC to invent infractions for which unsuspecting players may be held accountable. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 08:08:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:08:59 +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 IAA08597 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:08:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.58]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA04379 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:08:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:08:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907132208.SAA18076@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19990713173901.011ef85c@pop.mindspring.com> (msd@mindspring.com) Subject: Re: AC's and PP's Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis writes: > Is it ever appropriate, or even permitted, for an AC to issue a PP? My own > opinion is that it is not. The Laws address the purpose and nature of PP's > in Chapter X, which defines the duties of the TD. It is worth noting that > the language of L90 makes it clear that such penalties are essentially > disciplinary in character, intended to support the TD in maintaining an > orderly contest. > It is true that L93B1 delegates the TD's powers to the AC, with this > important caveat: "except that the committee may not overrule the Director > on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary > powers." Now if the TD has determined that no PP is called for, then that > would seem to be a legitimate exercise of his disciplinary powers. An AC > which then decides to award a PP is contravening the TD in precisely that > exercise. I would say that an AC should be allowed to award a PP for an infraction which was known only at the AC hearing (such as if a TD ruled no UI had been transmitted, and the AC ruled that it had and thatt a PP was appropriate for taking the suggested action), or for an infraction committed at the appeal (not giving full disclosure, or frivoulous appeals). The AC should not impose a PP for an infraction which was known to the TD. If West made a slow penalty double, and East pulled it, the TD can award a PP or not. If the AC chooses to impose or remove the penalty, it is overruling the TD on exercise of his disciplinary powers. -- 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 Jul 14 08:45:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:45:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08668 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:45:26 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id dKXGa11759 (8014); Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:44:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:44:35 EDT Subject: Re: AC's and PP's To: msd@mindspring.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/13/99 5:47:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, msd@mindspring.com writes: > Is it ever appropriate, or even permitted, for an AC to issue a PP? Yes,. since the Laws give the AC the same powers assigned to the TD in Law 93 B 3.....Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 08:50:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:50:55 +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 IAA08691 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:50:44 +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 SAA13392 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:50:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA26223 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:50:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:50:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907132250.SAA26223@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: AC's and PP's X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > The AC should not impose a PP for an infraction which was known to the > TD. If West made a slow penalty double, and East pulled it, the TD can > award a PP or not. If the AC chooses to impose or remove the penalty, > it is overruling the TD on exercise of his disciplinary powers. I have always understood the "disciplinary powers" to refer to L91, not L90. I think this understanding probably comes from the Bridge World's, i.e. Kaplan's, "Appeals Committee" booklets, but I don't have them at hand to check. For L90 PP's, I see nothing either illegal or unwise about the AC exercising its L93B3 powers. In the example David gives, whether to give a PP or not depends on (among other things) the bridge judgment of whether "suggested over another" and LA's ought to have been obvious to the player. There is no reason the TD's bridge judgment ought to stand over the AC's; quite the opposite, in fact. For the more technical infractions covered by L90, tardiness, misboarding, comparing scores, etc., it would be remarkable for an AC to overrule a TD, but I don't see why it is illegal. It would be akin to an AC ruling that no hesitation had occurred after a TD determined that one had: ridiculous but legal. If this sort of nonsense exists anywhere (and I doubt it does), I don't think the remedy lies in a reinterpretation of laws. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 09:20:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:52:03 +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 IAA08714 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:51:55 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id bJUPa14320 (8014); Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:50:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:49:56 EDT Subject: Re: AC's and PP's To: grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/13/99 6:13:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu writes: > I would say that an AC should be allowed to award a PP for an infraction > which was known only at the AC hearing (such as if a TD ruled no UI had > been transmitted, and the AC ruled that it had and thatt a PP was > appropriate for taking the suggested action), or for an infraction > committed at the appeal (not giving full disclosure, or frivoulous > appeals). I can almost buy that. Except for the fact that UI infractions and their penalties are adequately covered in the Laws. It is, to me, a stretch of the Laws to also make them subject to PPs. I don't see that as the meaning of the Laws. Of course, ICBW. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 09:57:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:57:11 +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 JAA08882 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:57:03 +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 SAA46427 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:56:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0QMER01U Tue, 13 Jul 99 18:57:02 Message-ID: <9907131857.0QMER01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 99 18:57:02 Subject: AVG - (PLEASE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Do the CoC permit a substitute in the situation and is the contestant willing and able to provide a suitable one? Roger Pewick B>Hi All! B>Next week will be the Final of the mixt pair championship of Ukraine. B>They will play round Buttler; one pair against another plays 12 boards B>in one session. In whole will be played 19 sessions. IMPs are converted B>into VP according to the 25:0 scale. B>I am not TD/AC in this Tournament. B>As one of the official person of the Federation I was asked the B>following. B>One woman has very important reason to be late for the first and second B>sessions. B>She asks: Is it possible to be late for? How many VPs will be given to B>her pare in the first and the second sessions? If it is 40%, she will B>play, if less - she will not. B>The answer for the first question is "YES, but her artificial result B>must be with accordance to the Low". No more, but no less. B>But I don't know the answer for the second. B>(Of course, before I sent this question to BLML I re-read the thread B>Avg + Avg - and David's article "What to do when pair leaves early".) B>What is the relevant Low in this case? B>Or, rephrase, What to do when pair in IMP=>VP play leaves early or is B>late? May be 80F? Then, I think, we will announce regulation VP 12:18. B>But I am not sure that it is not in conflict with Lows, because L86A B>exists. That Is (-3mp)*12boards = (-36imp) => VP 6:24, but IMO it isn't B>correct. B>Thank you in advance B>Sergey Kapustin B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 09:57:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:57:46 +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 JAA08893 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:57:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem80.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.80] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 114CQV-00065B-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:57:32 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:56:13 +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=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. <<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements > Date: 13 July 1999 00:02 > ---------------- \x/ ------------------------ > Of course the AC had no trouble adjusting the score. (I'm not sure > why the case ended up on appeal. It seems simple enough.) > ....................... \x/ ............................. ++++ Whether to appeal is sometimes based on a feeling of injustice done, but sophisticated sides are more apt to calculate the potential advantage to be gained and whether they can afford not to appeal. There is more than one of these amongst the 38 from Malta, in my opinion. A monetary deposit does not deter them, and only serves to create imbalance if any sides do not have the money to appeal. Where appeal committees are competent (only proven by performance) and consistent I now list myself amongst those who consider lack of merit in an appeal should cost the appellant in the score for the session. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 10:10:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:10:48 +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 KAA08929 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:10:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from pbas01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.187] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 114Cd6-0004HX-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:10:32 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:26:53 +0100 Message-ID: <01becd87$30a2b080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Schoderb@aol.com To: hermandw@village.uunet.be ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 3:49 PM Subject: Re: Malta Appeals >In a message dated 7/13/99 9:21:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > >> After all, once the case gets to >> Committee, the Director's ruling is cancelled, isn't it ? >Is this true in EBL?.........Kojak I wouldn't think so. It is my opinion that an appeal to a comittee is an appeal against the ruling of the TD. That ruling stands until such time as the AC committee considers that it was flawed. Anne > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 10:22:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:51:08 +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 IAA08703 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:50:58 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id dEHJa00129 (8014); Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:48:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:47:54 EDT Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements To: msd@mindspring.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/13/99 5:56:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, msd@mindspring.com writes: > Nothing else. As a matter of Law, this ruling is unsupported and > unsupportable. There is simply no requirement in the Laws to "have an > agreement over a simple auction", an so the failure to do so is not an > infraction (again, assuming that the relevant SO regulation does not > apply). It is not the right of the AC to invent infractions for which > unsuspecting players may be held accountable. > > Mike Dennis > thank you, It's a pleasure to see someone who can read the Law and take into account that the drafters of the Law weren't dunces. If you want to be toughter on the players than the Laws provide for, then the Laws provide for you to issue regulations suuplementary to, but not in conflict with these Laws. 80F From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 10:25:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:25:33 +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 KAA08954 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:25:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.61.150]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06248 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:07:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:07:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907140007.UAA04108@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (Schoderb@aol.com) Subject: Re: AC's and PP's Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb writes: > In a message dated 7/13/99 6:13:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu writes: >> I would say that an AC should be allowed to award a PP for an infraction >> which was known only at the AC hearing (such as if a TD ruled no UI had >> been transmitted, and the AC ruled that it had and that a PP was >> appropriate for taking the suggested action), or for an infraction >> committed at the appeal (not giving full disclosure, or frivoulous >> appeals). > I can almost buy that. Except for the fact that UI infractions and > their penalties are adequately covered in the Laws. It is, to me, a > stretch of the Laws to also make them subject to PPs. I don't see > that as the meaning of the Laws. Of course, ICBW. AC's tend to award these PP's for serious ethical infractions, when a player who should know better tskes an action which is reasonable only with the UI. In the example I gave before, a PP might be appropriate if East had made a forcing pass, and then pulled West's slow double, overriding the decision he had left to partner. A more natural example is hesitation Blackwood. In both cases, the PP should be imposed whether or not there is damage, as a deterrent. -- 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 Jul 14 10:28:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:28:12 +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 KAA08972 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:28:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA26134 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:27:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <041501becd8f$b4c9e420$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <037201beccee$8b7d9ae0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:27:43 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Just noticed that L75D2 does not require that a correction actually be > >made by declarer or dummy, only notification that there was an error. I > >guess the defenders have to ask for it when notified of the error before > >the opening lead is made. Don't understand that subtlety, but I suppose > >there is a reason for it. > > An alert [or failure to alert] is covered by this. The correction > should be "My partner should have alerted my 3S" rather than explaining > it when it has not been asked for. > Yes, and this statement is made *after* the TD arrives at the table. Then the player says to the TD, "My partner should have Alerted three spades," or "My partner's explanation of my 2NT bid was not correct." I presume that the TD should then make a statement like this: "If an opponent asks for an explanation of the call, you must describe your partnership agreement accurately without regard to your actual holding." Then, if the opponents ask, the explanation is given. Is this the recommended procedure, David, Kojak, whoever? Can you improve on the TD instruction? All opinions welcome, not just those of experienced TDs. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 10:35:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:35:32 +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 KAA09007 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:35:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA26958 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <042701becd90$ba557520$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: AC's and PP's Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:34:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: To: ; > In a message dated 7/13/99 6:13:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu writes: > > > I would say that an AC should be allowed to award a PP for an infraction > > which was known only at the AC hearing (such as if a TD ruled no UI had > > been transmitted, and the AC ruled that it had and thatt a PP was > > appropriate for taking the suggested action), or for an infraction > > committed at the appeal (not giving full disclosure, or frivoulous > > appeals). > > > I can almost buy that. Except for the fact that UI infractions and their > penalties are adequately covered in the Laws. It is, to me, a stretch of the > Laws to also make them subject to PPs. I don't see that as the meaning of > the Laws. Of course, ICBW. > Hooray! Where were you when I needed you??!! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com For some TDs, scratch the itch to direct and you will find the itch to rule. (with apologies to Will Durant) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 10:43:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:43:35 +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 KAA09064 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:43:27 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id sWZRa17767 (3945); Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:42:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8a4141c2.24bd3702@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:42:42 EDT Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements 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 7/13/99 8:30:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > Is this the recommended procedure, David, Kojak, whoever? Can you improve > on the TD instruction? Sounds right to me, David and I might even agree.....Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 11:24:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:54:22 +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 KAA09136 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:54:13 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id sWMSa17767 (3945); Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:44:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7369e052.24bd377f@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:44:47 EDT Subject: Re: AC's and PP's 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 7/13/99 8:37:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > Hooray! Where were you when I needed you??!! Probably out in the Keys killing Dolphin (el dorado for the uninitiated - not Flipper) which is where I'm going next Wednesday for three days with what I hope wil be my newly acquired deep sea boat.....kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 11:30:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:30:18 +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 LAA09241 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:30:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 114Drv-0000OM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:29:56 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990714031856.00ac1e90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:18:56 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <01becd87$30a2b080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:26 14-07-99 +0100, you wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Schoderb@aol.com >To: hermandw@village.uunet.be ; >bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 3:49 PM >Subject: Re: Malta Appeals > > >>In a message dated 7/13/99 9:21:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >>hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: >> >>> After all, once the case gets to >>> Committee, the Director's ruling is cancelled, isn't it ? >>Is this true in EBL?.........Kojak > >I wouldn't think so. It is my opinion that an appeal to a comittee is >an appeal against the ruling of the TD. That ruling stands until >such time as the AC committee considers that it was flawed. >Anne >> > > The question is perhaps if this committee is governed by by 93B3 or 93C. I am inclined to think that the latter is the case. We already have discussed in the past, that the powers of the committee in 93C are the same as these of the CTD, so they are certainly empowered to give PP'd or DP's if the CTD failed to do so. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 11:48:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:48:08 +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 LAA09285 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:48:01 +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 114E9H-000IGH-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:47:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:41:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Clemens wrote: > >>What about the following interpretation: > > Reasonable enough: so John, some can explain it, some can't. and as far as I can see if you can't explain it (on your side of the screen) there's an AC out there about to award you a PP of 1VP. That I find surprising. > >>Clemens Oelker >>Hamburg, Germany > > Hi Clemens, nice to see you here. You have cats? > -- 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 Jul 14 12:09:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:09:08 +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 MAA09364 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:08:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem74.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.74] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 114ETa-0007xe-00; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:08:51 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:36:48 +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 o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ================================ > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements > Date: 13 July 1999 06:14 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > I tend to wonder, incidentally, whether the TD who is > > called to the table by a player wishing to correct partner's > > explanation before the end of the hand, should perhaps include > > in his instructions to the players a standard admonishment > > that the explanation relates to the partnership agreement and > > is not a guarantee of the content of the hand. I should like > > to know what the most experienced TDs think is the desirable > > path through this undergrowth > > Marvin L. French wrote: > You're not interested in what we players think? I reserve the right to > comment on any submission to BLML, invited or not. The delete key is on > the right side of the keyboard. > .++ Oh, golly gee, Marvin, you are a one. I did not think for a minute that 'players' would fail to express views. Actually I find that Tournament Directors also tend to play the game, in fact quite a number of the people on this list apparently do play. I wanted to stir up responses, if I could, from those well marinated TDs who silently watch the churnings in this crucible with a kind of masochistic pleasure - but are not seen to comment. Indeed you have freedom to say what you like, courteously, and no doubt you concede me equal freedom to solicit, without discourtesy, such opinion as I wish. ~G~ ++. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 12:09:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:09:08 +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 MAA09366 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:09:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem74.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.74] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 114ETc-0007xe-00; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:08:52 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:32:30 +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: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ================================ > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Malta Appeals > Date: 13 July 1999 11:18 > > Grattan wrote: > > > > If they (the AC) make > > a decision which is based upon a law not introduced by > > the Director it is appropriate for them to add the > > reference, and this is what I would like to see - the scribe > > should probably inform himself whilst still with the > > Committee - I do not think it is correct for the > > scribe to add something subsequently of his own > > volition - he has no authority to commit the Committee > > to a reference it has not stated. > > Whereupon Herman said: > I don't see it that way, Grattan. > > It is my task, among others, to inform the AC, if I feel the > need, of the Laws involved. Some members there are less > informed than myself about the actual wording of the Laws. +++ When were you allotted that duty, Herman? It is something you have arrogated to yourself and not your duty at all. Who are you to judge other members of the committee? +++ > But I don't feel the need at all times to explicitely tell > the AC what Laws they are using, expecially if I find that > they are ruling in a manner that is consistent with the Law > I have in mind. +++ This statement is arrogant and insulting to a highly competent committee and a knowledgeable chairman. +++ > Yet, when telling the world about the ruling, it is deemed > necessary to mention the specific Laws, and I do so whether > or not the Law was actually read in Committee. Indeed, when > I feel that a literal reading of the Law was necessary, not > only did I read it in the Committee, but also I included it > complete in the report. > > So in all, I feel it is my duty to mention Law numbers even > if the AC did not specify them. > +++ But if you do you should make it known that it is your opinion and not the Committee's agreed reference. The world wants a report of what the committee did without bells and bows added by a scribe. +++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 12:09:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:09:15 +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 MAA09377 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:09:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem74.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.74] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 114ETf-0007xe-00; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:08:55 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , , Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:59:57 +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 o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. =============================== ---------- > From: Schoderb@aol.com > To: hermandw@village.uunet.be; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Malta Appeals > Date: 13 July 1999 15:04 > > In a message dated 7/13/99 9:21:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > After all, once the case gets to > > Committee, the Director's ruling is cancelled, isn't it ? > Is this true in EBL?.........Kojak +++ "The Appeals Committee may confirm, reverse, vary or modify the findings or decisions of a Tournament Director (except those foreseen by Law 93B3) and remove, increase or vary any penalty which may have been imposed, or substitute a different class of penalty or an adjusted score." -CoC 44th Generali European Bridge Championships, Malta 1999.+++ Untilthe AC exercises the above power for change the TD's ruling is still in place.~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 12:13:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:44:16 +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 KAA09071 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:44:08 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id fGUSa03246 (3945); Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:40:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9c2b3b6.24bd3691@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:40:49 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals 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 7/13/99 8:22:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, eajewm@globalnet.co.uk writes: > I wouldn't think so. It is my opinion that an appeal to a comittee is > an appeal against the ruling of the TD. That ruling stands until > such time as the AC committee considers that it was flawed. > Anne > > Thank you. I guess you can see why I'm a bit scared when I read the Malta Appeals and see what role the author of that fact played. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 12:32:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:59:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09174 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:59:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA29622 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <045101becd94$0d53c440$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <37886D4A.9C8AB60B@village.uunet.be><3788BD9D.4AD83846@elnet.msk.ru> <3789C807.96FDCF03@village.uunet.be><036801becce5$b78b7660$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:58:51 -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 David Stevenson wrote: ----- > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> 3 comments : > >> > >> 1) I agree in this particular case that NS should be kept to > >> -500. > >> 2) When changing the score for EW, surely that should be to > >> -650, not -140. > > > >This boils down to the question of whether better card play can be assumed > >for the NOS when determining "the most unfavorable result at all > >probable." > > If poor card play can be directly linked to the changed > >"siutation" (as David calls it) brought about by the infraction, then > >sure, adjust the play. > > Let us take a simple situation. West is on lead against 6NT with > > KQxx > xx > Axxx > xxx > > and leads the SK. Thirteen tricks are made. > > Now, owing to an infraction, N/S are adjudged to have stayed out of a > grand slam unfairly [perhaps the wrong response to Blackwood was made, > and then the player said "Oh no: I haven't shown two aces, have I?", and > then his partner did not bid the grand]. > > So do we adjust to 7NT making? > Of course not. The card play is directly linked to the situation (changed level of contract) brought about by the infraction, and that completely justifies an AC to change the supposed defense when assigning a result. But when the play of the cards by the NOS has no direct link to the situation brought about by the infraction, the actual play should not be changed. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 13:25:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:45:38 +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 KAA09090 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:45:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA27968 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <043401becd92$225270a0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907132208.SAA18076@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> Subject: Re: AC's and PP's Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:45:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Michael S. Dennis writes: > > > Is it ever appropriate, or even permitted, for an AC to issue a PP? My own > > opinion is that it is not. The Laws address the purpose and nature of PP's > > in Chapter X, which defines the duties of the TD. It is worth noting that > > the language of L90 makes it clear that such penalties are essentially > > disciplinary in character, intended to support the TD in maintaining an > > orderly contest. > > > It is true that L93B1 delegates the TD's powers to the AC, with this > > important caveat: "except that the committee may not overrule the Director > > on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary > > powers." Now if the TD has determined that no PP is called for, then that > > would seem to be a legitimate exercise of his disciplinary powers. An AC > > which then decides to award a PP is contravening the TD in precisely that > > exercise. > > I would say that an AC should be allowed to award a PP for an infraction > which was known only at the AC hearing (such as if a TD ruled no UI had > been transmitted, and the AC ruled that it had and thatt a PP was > appropriate for taking the suggested action), or for an infraction > committed at the appeal (not giving full disclosure, or frivoulous > appeals). > > The AC should not impose a PP for an infraction which was known to the > TD. If West made a slow penalty double, and East pulled it, the TD can > award a PP or not. If the AC chooses to impose or remove the penalty, > it is overruling the TD on exercise of his disciplinary powers. > PPs are not disciplinary, they are slaps on the wrist for violating some procedure associated with duplicate bridge procedures, as per the examples given in L90B. They are not meant to augment the lower-number Laws in the belief that they are not sufficiently harsh. They can be appealed, and can be overturned on appeal. L91 is disciplinary. Penalties applied by the TD under L91 can be appealed, but the AC can only advise the TD to retract the penalty, and cannot overturn it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 13:33:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:33:54 +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 NAA09580 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:33:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveimr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.219]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA19933 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:33:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990713233118.011fae88@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:31:18 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990714031856.00ac1e90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> References: <01becd87$30a2b080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:18 AM 7/14/99 +0200, Anton wrote: >The question is perhaps if this committee is governed by by 93B3 or 93C. >I am inclined to think that the latter is the case. We already have discussed >in the past, that the powers of the committee in 93C are the same as these >of the CTD, so they are certainly empowered to give PP'd or DP's if the CTD >failed to do so. It may well have been discussed, although I must have missed that particular day. May the AC also assign a PP/DP contrary to the expressed wishes of the TD? May it also overrule a PP/DP awarded by a TD? If so, then I am afraid that we have agreed that the caveat expressed in L93B is to be ignored: "...the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers." Were the Lawmakers really so dense as to intend that we should read this as "the committee may overrule the Director..." ? I don't think so. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 13:46:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:46:19 +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 NAA09620 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:46:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-237-186.s186.tnt9.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.237.186]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA11102; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01c501becdab$2dfcda80$baeda4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <03bf01beccf6$b7292260$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:44:29 -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 > John Probst wrote: > > > > > This is *hard* because it's not clear why I'm asking it :))) > > > > The auction proceeds 2N - 3C - 3D - 3H - 3S - 3N - 4D > > > > I don't care what your methods are: as long as you can explain what 4D > > MEANS > > > > Takers vote Aye, Non-takers Vote Nay > > > > Those who have forgotten their agreement (at the point you looked at > > this) are *required* to vote *Nay* > > > > Proddy gets 2 votes (since I know what I would rule playing with him!) > > Those voting *Nay* get a 1VP fine because *I said so* or perhaps because > > the AC is stupid > > The auction up to 3S shows a spade fit that is either 4-4 playing Puppet Stayman or 5-3 playing regular Stayman (with 3H showing 5 Spades and 4 Hearts). 3N is choice of games. 4D is cuebid on the way to 4S. Most of my partners would get it, so count me as .75 Aye. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 15:21:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:21:15 +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 PAA09896 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:21:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA05001 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 22:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <04b501becdb8$a4a054c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907140007.UAA04108@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> Subject: Re: AC's and PP's Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 22:13:22 -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 David Grabiner wrote: > Schoderb writes: > > > In a message dated 7/13/99 6:13:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu writes: > > >> I would say that an AC should be allowed to award a PP for an infraction > >> which was known only at the AC hearing (such as if a TD ruled no UI had > >> been transmitted, and the AC ruled that it had and that a PP was > >> appropriate for taking the suggested action), or for an infraction > >> committed at the appeal (not giving full disclosure, or frivoulous > >> appeals). > > > I can almost buy that. Except for the fact that UI infractions and > > their penalties are adequately covered in the Laws. It is, to me, a > > stretch of the Laws to also make them subject to PPs. I don't see > > that as the meaning of the Laws. Of course, ICBW. > > AC's tend to award these PP's for serious ethical infractions, when a > player who should know better tskes an action which is reasonable only > with the UI. In the example I gave before, a PP might be appropriate if > East had made a forcing pass, and then pulled West's slow double, > overriding the decision he had left to partner. A more natural example > is hesitation Blackwood. In both cases, the PP should be imposed > whether or not there is damage, as a deterrent. > As is well known by anyone who reads the NABC Appeals casebooks, PPs are issued as a sop to the losing appellants, when it is shown that MI or misuse of UI has caused no damage. Not satisfied with the Laws, which provide for action in such cases only when there is damage, and feeling that "justice" requires some punishment, the TD/AC wields the PP. A failure to Alert causes no damage? Sock them with a PP, without warning. Makes the losing side feel better, seeing the other side punished to some extent, and the guilty ones are relieved that they didn't get a zero on the board. If PPs are truly issued for "serious ethical infractions," how come they are hardly ever issued when the OS loses its case? The result of the case should make no difference. You often see a failure to Alert getting a PP when an AC rules no damage. Why are Alert infractions not routinely penalized, if that is right? Why can't I call the TD everytime someone makes an Alert error, and have them slapped with a PP? Pretty soon it becomes obvious: the PP is not assessed for the infraction itself, but for causing the AC to deal with it. And, to repeat, it provides the losing side with a sop for their hurt feelings. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 17:40:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:40:48 +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 RAA10171 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:40:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA15890; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:40:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JDJTABBGE0001CV2@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:39:22 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GSX0BN>; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:39:47 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:38:59 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Avg - (Please help) To: "'Sergey Kapustin'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1D0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All! Next week will be the Final of the mixt pair championship of Ukraine. They will play round Buttler; one pair against another plays 12 boards in one session. In whole will be played 19 sessions. IMPs are converted into VP according to the 25:0 scale. I One woman has very important reason to be late for the first and second sessions. She asks: Is it possible to be late for? How many VPs will be given to her pare in the first and the second sessions? If it is 40%, she will play, if less - she will not. The answer for the first question is "YES, but her artificial result must be with accordance to the Low". No more, but no less. But I don't know the answer for the second. Don't worry about the laws, they are that good and flexible that you can do what you want. So the following is not more than an advise. It sounds reasonable to give the pair that doesn't play the first two rounds 12VP's unless its average score in the other rounds is less than 12. It is more important to decide the score for their opponents. And giving them 18 VP's is too easy. In European and WBF CofC's we do the following: take the highest score from 18; the average of the scores against this pair of the 8 teams nearest to them in the final ranking (either nearest in VP's or in the positions); their own average in all the matches they played. The second one is quite complicated, but in my opinion better than taking the supplement of the average of their opponents in all their matches. And if a pair is ranked 3rd you should take the scores of the teams 4-7 and 1-2 giving the first ranked team a weight of 3 to get 8 results to work with. Making such a regulation is quite stimulating in my experience. A rule that complicated must be well thought about and certainly will be accepted (they are not BLML). I met Herman in Malta and we decided to start working on this book of calculations, artificial adjusted scores etc. Next time we decide when to start. ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 17:43:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:43:32 +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 RAA10190 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:43:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem8.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.8] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 114JhC-0001Nw-00; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:43:15 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , , Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:57:22 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ================================ ---------- > From: Schoderb@aol.com > To: lighton@idt.net; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? > Date: 13 July 1999 18:19 > > In a message dated 7/13/99 1:11:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lighton@idt.net > writes: > > > Agreed, but dogs (and teddy bears) should be added :-) > > > And ferocious alligators? +++ Pejorative. I can vouch for the fact that Schoder's alligators are shy, timorous creatures, quite the opposite of his strutting, cocky coots. ~ G ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 17:43:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:43:33 +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 RAA10191 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:43:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem8.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.8] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 114JhE-0001Nw-00; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:43:17 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: AC's and PP's Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:34:55 +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 o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ============================== ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: AC's and PP's > Date: 13 July 1999 23:50 > > > From: David Grabiner > ................................\x/......................... > I have always understood the "disciplinary powers" to refer to L91, not > L90. I think this understanding probably comes from the Bridge > World's, i.e. Kaplan's, "Appeals Committee" booklets, but I don't have > them at hand to check. For L90 PP's, I see nothing either illegal or > unwise about the AC exercising its L93B3 powers. > .......................... \x/ ............................ +++ I agree that Law 91 is the law that empowers the Director to deal with disciplinary matters. The laws do not clarify this directly, but reference to Law 90 penalties (see table of contents) describes them as 'procedural' and Law 91 penalties are termed 'disciplinary'. A distinction is made. Certainly this has been the custom and practice wherever I have gone, to the extent that I consider the definition established by usage if nothing else. . ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 18:18:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA10430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:18:45 +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 SAA10425 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:18:28 +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 LAA11306 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:19:43 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <002f01becdd0$d377fba0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: AVG - (PLEASE Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:13:55 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Do the CoC permit a substitute in the situation and is the contestant >willing and able to provide a suitable one? > >Roger Pewick > Yes, SO permits a substitute, but contestants needs to know CoC before to do a choice among her options. Now we are preparing CoC and want to do it without conflict with Lows. Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 18:31:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA10482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:31:49 +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 SAA10476 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:31:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem25.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.25] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 114KRx-0002yB-00; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:31:34 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: AC's and PP's Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:30:37 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ================================ ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: AC's and PP's > Date: 14 July 1999 06:13 > .................... \x/ .................... > > As is well known by anyone who reads the NABC Appeals casebooks, PPs are > issued as a sop to the losing appellants, when it is shown that MI or > misuse of UI has caused no damage. Not satisfied with the Laws, which > provide for action in such cases only when there is damage, and feeling > that "justice" requires some punishment, the TD/AC wields the PP. A > failure to Alert causes no damage? Sock them with a PP, without warning. > Makes the losing side feel better, seeing the other side punished to some > extent, and the guilty ones are relieved that they didn't get a zero on > the board. ...................... \x/ .................. +++ If this is really the chosen path of the ACBL it is a domestic matter. It is not true of tournament direction in the EBL where tendencies to want to penalize at every turn have not gained the upper hand, although we do meet them. What we need is some kind of balance that inhibits a careless approach to opponents' enjoyment of the game without making every peccadillo the subject of automatic penalty. Where persistent fault will impair the appropriate regard for the rights of opponents the first thought should be a warning not a penalty. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 19:26:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA10371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:10:19 +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 SAA10366 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:10:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA08073; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:08:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JDJUAEMJP0001DEU@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:07:41 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GSX0ZF>; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:08:06 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:07:18 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Malta Appeals To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , eajewm@globalnet.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1D1@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 -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Schoderb@aol.com [mailto:Schoderb@aol.com] Verzonden: woensdag 14 juli 1999 2:41 Aan: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: Malta Appeals In a message dated 7/13/99 8:22:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, eajewm@globalnet.co.uk writes: > I wouldn't think so. It is my opinion that an appeal to a comittee is > an appeal against the ruling of the TD. That ruling stands until > such time as the AC committee considers that it was flawed. > Anne > > Thank you. I guess you can see why I'm a bit scared when I read the Malta Appeals and see what role the author of that fact played. Quite an important issue, regaring procedural matters. It often happens that a team which doesn't accept the decision from the TD and appeals, is not willing to write the score down. 'Let us wait till after the appeal'. That is wrong and makes it impossible to get the results out. Furthermore the communication between the TD and the resultroom is involved. If there is no notice from the TD to the resultroom of a change in score after the appeal then the result including the TD decisions during the session stands (the resultroom shouldn't know anything about appeals, unless there are changes). The phrase: 'The TD decision is upheld' is clear in itself, that is the result on the board untill the AC changes it. This all is also true in EBL events, don't worry Bill. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 19:24:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:24:43 +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 TAA10674 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:24:31 +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 114LGx-000NKk-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:24:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:31:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? References: <1549e15a.24bccf0f@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <1549e15a.24bccf0f@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 7/13/99 1:11:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lighton@idt.net >writes: > >> Agreed, but dogs (and teddy bears) should be added :-) >> >And ferocious alligators? You have a pet ferocious alligator? Tell me, what is her name? -- 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 Jul 14 19:24:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:24:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10675 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:24:31 +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 114LGs-000NKL-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:24:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:34:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements References: <8a4141c2.24bd3702@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <8a4141c2.24bd3702@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >In a message dated 7/13/99 8:30:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > >> Is this the recommended procedure, David, Kojak, whoever? Can you improve >> on the TD instruction? > >Sounds right to me, David and I might even agree.....Kojak I concur. -- 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 Jul 14 19:43:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:43:21 +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 TAA10784 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:43:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:42:05 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990714114203.007b1180@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, 14 Jul 1999 11:42:03 +0200 To: Grattan , bridge-laws From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:56 14.07.99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >Grattan > o=o-o > >"Behind every successful man there is an >astonished woman" - unattributed. ><<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>> >---------- >> From: Steve Willner >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements >> Date: 13 July 1999 00:02 >> >---------------- \x/ ------------------------ > >> Of course the AC had no trouble adjusting the score. (I'm not sure >> why the case ended up on appeal. It seems simple enough.) >> >....................... \x/ ............................. > >++++ Whether to appeal is sometimes based on >a feeling of injustice done, but sophisticated sides >are more apt to calculate the potential advantage >to be gained and whether they can afford not to >appeal. There is more than one of these amongst >the 38 from Malta, in my opinion. A monetary >deposit does not deter them, and only serves to >create imbalance if any sides do not have the >money to appeal. Where appeal committees are >competent (only proven by performance) and >consistent I now list myself amongst those >who consider lack of merit in an appeal >should cost the appellant in the score for >the session. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > In principle I agree. But how shall the AC know that they are experienced enough? Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 20:17:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:17:20 +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 UAA10875 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:17:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA03256 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:16:29 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:16 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Malta Appeals 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: <2f64979d.24bca16f@aol.com> > > > After all, once the case gets to > > Committee, the Director's ruling is cancelled, isn't it ? > Is this true in EBL?.........Kojak Philosophically I believe that the TD ruling is cancelled to the same extent that Schrodinger's cat is dead (apologies to the sensitivities of our feline readers). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 20:17:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:17:23 +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 UAA10880 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:17:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA03263 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:16:30 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:16 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Malta Appeals To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Grattan wrote: > > > > It is my task, among others, to inform the AC, if I feel the > > need, of the Laws involved. Some members there are less > > informed than myself about the actual wording of the Laws. > > +++ When were you allotted that duty, Herman? It is > something you have arrogated to yourself and not your > duty at all. Who are you to judge other members of the > committee? +++ AIUI the scribe (unlike other members) is selected primarily on the basis of their legal knowledge. If the duty of "reminding" is not the scribe's then it seems to me that it should be (my experience in chairing business meetings tells me that the chairman is unlikely to be able to carry out this task in addition to all his other duties). It would be a rare committee indeed where *all* the other members are better informed of legal wording than Herman (I think he can be trusted not to present some of his minority interpretations as being mainstream). > > But I don't feel the need at all times to explicitely tell > > the AC what Laws they are using, expecially if I find that > > they are ruling in a manner that is consistent with the Law > > I have in mind. > > +++ This statement is arrogant and insulting to > a highly competent committee and a knowledgeable > chairman. +++ > A committee in a typical UI case quickly identifies that the crux of the matter is whether a LA was "suggested" by the UI. At some point Herman reminds them that the standard is now "demonstrably suggested" and the ruling is eventually made. L16 is not explicitly named in the proceedings. IMO it would be wrong for Herman not to have included a L16 reference in his write-up and that in so doing he had been neither arrogant nor insulting while doing his duty to both the committee and the reading public. However, I do think Herman is going too far in the "Not L74b1" case. I would prefer a statement that "The committee did not discuss the legal basis for this ruling nor was such a legal basis implicit in their discussions." (Best would be if he warned the chairman that this statement would be present before the appeal closed - then I sincerely hope that the PP would not have been issued or the committee would have found a law to support it). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 20:35:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:24:41 +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 TAA10676 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:24:31 +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 114LGs-000NKM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:24:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:41:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <1.5.4.32.19990710210607.006b5ce0@worldcom.ch> <16Dn4bAbxci3EwR$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <16Dn4bAbxci3EwR$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Yvan Calame wrote: >>Thanks to Herman, >>all 38 appeals from Malta are at: >> >>http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals.html > > > Two questions of detail, on which Herman and I did not see completely >in accord - but I shall try not to indicate who prefers which. > > >[1] > > If the heading says France v Norway, does this mean > >[a] France sat North/South >[b] France appealed I got a discussion about item [2], but little was said about [1]. Herman's view [and Jens Auken's, I believe] was that [b] is correct. My view is that [a] is correct. We also discovered that at Lille, where the majority of appeals were scribed by Herman or myself, I did it my way, and he did it his! Now my argument is that when it says France v Norway, it is unhelpful if this means that France appealed, because you then have difficulty finding out who sat which way. Of course, you may recognise the names, but if you don't it could be tricky. Is not the reverse true? When you do it my way, is it not difficult to find out who appealed? No, because in every one of the appeals written up by Herman or myself, there is a paragraph that says: Side appealing. N/S appealed. or some such, so there is never a difficulty. So I suggest in future that France v Norway should mean that France is N/S, and we always show who appealed in its own paragraph. Ah well, Rich Colker agreed with me! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 20:38:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:38:43 +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 UAA10934 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:38:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from pdas10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.219] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 114MQi-00035c-00; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:38:24 +0100 Message-ID: <001301becde4$775131c0$db8a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:12:58 +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: 12 July 1999 18:09 Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> The AC, however they may have phrased it, ruled that the partnership had >> committed "convention disruption" and penalized them for it> +++ Please let us be clear about it that (a) 'convention disruption' is not a recognized feature of the game in Europe; the phrase means nothing to one of our ACs and it offers no grounds for a penalty; (b) EBL Committees are required to remain within the laws and regulations when adjudicating appeals. The EBL stance is that an appeal committee has no power to act except in accordance with the laws and regulations. ~ G ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 21:01:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:01:56 +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 VAA11009 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:01:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id HAA04240 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:01:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:01:39 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Grattan wrote: > > > > In a message dated 7/13/99 1:11:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > lighton@idt.net > > writes: > > > > > Agreed, but dogs (and teddy bears) should be added :-) > > > > > And ferocious alligators? > > +++ Pejorative. I can vouch for the fact that Schoder's > alligators are shy, timorous creatures, quite the opposite > of his strutting, cocky coots. ~ G ~ +++ > The "ferocious" line came from Kojak, not me :-) -- Richard Lighton NJ (Far from the hazardous wild life of mountainous Florida) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 21:27:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:27:53 +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 VAA11061 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:27:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:27:04 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990714132703.007dc100@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, 14 Jul 1999 13:27:03 +0200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: References: <16Dn4bAbxci3EwR$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <1.5.4.32.19990710210607.006b5ce0@worldcom.ch> <16Dn4bAbxci3EwR$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Now my argument is that when it says France v Norway, it is unhelpful >if this means that France appealed, because you then have difficulty >finding out who sat which way. Of course, you may recognise the names, >but if you don't it could be tricky. > > Is not the reverse true? When you do it my way, is it not difficult >to find out who appealed? No, because in every one of the appeals >written up by Herman or myself, there is a paragraph that says: > >Side appealing. >N/S appealed. > >or some such, so there is never a difficulty. > > So I suggest in future that France v Norway should mean that France is >N/S, and we always show who appealed in its own paragraph. >From my point ov view it seems that you are right. (Oh, at least we find a controversial point where we agree ;-) Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 21:29:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:29:25 +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 VAA11069 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:29:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from pcfs10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.208] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 114NDd-0003w1-00; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:28:58 +0100 Message-ID: <005a01becdeb$87605a80$db8a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , Subject: Re: AC's and PP's Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:11:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: mfrench1@san.rr.com ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 14 July 1999 02:38 Subject: Re: AC's and PP's >In a message dated 7/13/99 8:37:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > >> Hooray! Where were you when I needed you??!! > >Probably out in the Keys killing Dolphin (el dorado for the uninitiated - not >Flipper) >which is where I'm going next Wednesday for three days with what I hope wil >be my newly acquired deep sea boat.....kojak > ++In no time at all he'll have a PC installed in it. A man can get bored with nothing but sea and sky. ++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 21:34:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:34:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2.mail.telepac.pt (mail2.telepac.pt [194.65.3.54]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA11095 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:34:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([194.65.243.114]) by mta2.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail v03.02.07 118-124-101) with SMTP id <19990714113317.BBJV6217@default> for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:33:17 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: RE: Malta Appeals Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:33:08 +0100 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Philosophically, the AC is not finding a new ruling on each case, which, by fortune, happens to match the TD´s ruling a reasonable percentage of the time, but rather deciding if the TD ruling is the right one, in the judgment of the AC. Even because, in some cases, the opinion of the AC may be at least slightly influenced by the ruling of the TD and by the TD opinion and assessment of the facts. That is why the "TD decision is upheld" and not "the AC decision matches the TD decision". Also, if the fact that a team / pair / individual appeals is to cancel the TD decision, then everybody would have to wait for the appeal to be held, in order to know the results of the match / session / stanza or whatever. Tim West-meads >Philosophically I believe that the TD ruling is cancelled to >the same extent that Schrodinger's cat is dead (apologies to > the sensitivities of > our feline readers). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 22:11:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:11:17 +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 WAA11218 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:11:09 +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 IAA14382 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990714081137.006907d0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:11:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI In-Reply-To: References: <036801becce5$b78b7660$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <37886D4A.9C8AB60B@village.uunet.be> <3788BD9D.4AD83846@elnet.msk.ru> <3789C807.96FDCF03@village.uunet.be> <036801becce5$b78b7660$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:20 PM 7/13/99 +0100, David wrote: > Let us take a simple situation. West is on lead against 6NT with > > KQxx > xx > Axxx > xxx > >and leads the SK. Thirteen tricks are made. > > Now, owing to an infraction, N/S are adjudged to have stayed out of a >grand slam unfairly [perhaps the wrong response to Blackwood was made, >and then the player said "Oh no: I haven't shown two aces, have I?", and >then his partner did not bid the grand]. > > So do we adjust to 7NT making? > > Or perhaps East/West committed the infraction, and without their >infraction, North/South might have bid 7NT. > > So do we adjust to 7NT making? > > Don't be ridiculous, people will tell me. Well, I am not the one >being ridiculous: I know that Bridge players who are not beginners play >and defend in different ways against different contracts. But there >seem to be some people on this thread who assume the same play at >different levels. > > Ok, you say, that's defence. Right, let's look at another case. > > Declarer is in 3NT, with > > > AQ > xx > KQJ10 > xxxxx > > xx > Ax > A9xxxx > Axx > >and goes several off by taking the spade finesse after a heart lead. >Tough. > > How would he have played it in 2NT? He would have taken his eight >tricks, of course. So if we adjust from 3NT-4 to 2NT, how many tricks >do we give him? 2NT-3? No, of course not: we give him 2NT making. > >> But always granting better play to the NOS leads to >>the most perfect play (where do you stop?) that was at all probable for >>the non-offender(s) involved. No revokes, no leads out of turn, queen >>locations guessed, etc. It's hard to believe that this sort of thing was >>envisioned by whoever wrote L12C2. > > Having accepted as a principle that we alter the number of tricks made >to the contract does not mean that we then act in a ridiculous fashion. >The lawmakers drafted a Law, which says nothing about keeping the number >of tricks the same in different contracts. Good. But it says nothing >about what to do with revokes and so on. It just gives a basis for >adjustment, and it is expected that TDs and ACs use that basis and >adjust as a result. I don't think there's any debate about either of the above examples. In both cases, the NO had a perfectly good "bridge reason" for taking the (losing) play he did in the contract at the table, and in both cases he'd have had a perfectly good bridge reason for taking the (winning) play in the adjusted contract. It is only when there is no possible bridge reason for the play to differ between the at-the-table and the adjusted contract that we find the alternative (winning) play to be not "likely" or "probable" for the purpose of applying L12C2. We assume that the NO would not have played differently *unless he might have had some (bridge-related) reason* to play differently. 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 Jul 14 23:06:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:06:35 +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 XAA11431 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:06:23 +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 114Ojl-000MpP-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:06:14 +0000 Message-ID: <$yfmecBNpIj3EwYe@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:02:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Avg - (Please help) In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1D0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1D0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> , "Kooijman, A." writes snip > In European and WBF CofC's we do the following: >take the highest score from >18; >the average of the scores against this pair of the 8 teams nearest to them >in the final ranking (either nearest in VP's or in the positions); >their own average in all the matches they played. >The second one is quite complicated, but in my opinion better than taking >the supplement of the average of their opponents in all their matches. And >if a pair is ranked 3rd you should take the scores of the teams 4-7 and 1-2 >giving the first ranked team a weight of 3 to get 8 results to work with. > >Making such a regulation is quite stimulating in my experience. A rule that >complicated must be well thought about and certainly will be accepted (they >are not BLML). > >I met Herman in Malta and we decided to start working on this book of >calculations, artificial adjusted scores etc. Next time we decide when to >start. > You could do worse than start with the EBU regulations, which are comprehensive, comprehensible, legal and fair. We call it the White Book "The EBU Supplement to the EBL TD Guide" -- 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 Jul 14 23:06:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:06:35 +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 XAA11430 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:06:23 +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 114Ojl-000PSK-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:06:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:58:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: AVG - (PLEASE In-Reply-To: <002f01becdd0$d377fba0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <002f01becdd0$d377fba0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua>, Sergey Kapustin writes > > >> >>Do the CoC permit a substitute in the situation and is the contestant >>willing and able to provide a suitable one? >> >>Roger Pewick >> >Yes, SO permits a substitute, but contestants needs to know CoC before to do >a choice among her options. Now we are preparing CoC and want to do it >without conflict with Lows. >Sergey > The UK Premier League CoC (April 98) contains the following: 2.6 Substitutes When a Team is reduced i) by the death or serious incapacity of one of its members or ii) by other exceptional circumstances the Selection Committee may authorise that a substitute player takes the place of the player who is not available. The Committee or referee on site may make conditions as to the player who may substitute, and as to the length of time for which the substituted player may not return to the team. (Snip comments regarding qualifications) In exercise of the above powers, should a representative of the Selection Committee not be available, his responsibility shall be discharged by the TD. -------- On two occasions I have exercised that power, once when a player had a heart attack the previous night, and on another when a player had a car crash on the way to the event. Provided that the reasons given by the player are sufficient I believe that this regulation would permit a substitute player to play the two sessions which the qualifier couldn't. chs 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 Jul 14 23:06:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:06:35 +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 XAA11429 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:06:22 +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 114Ojk-000PSF-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:06:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:35:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Kojak wrote: >>In a message dated 7/13/99 1:11:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lighton@idt.net >>writes: >> >>> Agreed, but dogs (and teddy bears) should be added :-) >>> >>And ferocious alligators? > > You have a pet ferocious alligator? Tell me, what is her name? > Mrs kojak. she runs a snappy midnight game :)) -- 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 Jul 14 23:27:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:28:33 +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 WAA11285 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:28:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-166.uunet.be [194.7.146.166]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20479 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:28:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378C6CE6.CA6ED2CF@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:56:38 +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: Malta Appeals References: <2f64979d.24bca16f@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 7/13/99 9:21:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > After all, once the case gets to > > Committee, the Director's ruling is cancelled, isn't it ? > Is this true in EBL?.........Kojak Isn't it ? Everywhere ? The Director's ruling is mentioned to the Committee, and if the Committee decides the ruling is correct, it is called "upheld", but doesn't the Committee start from scratch ? Perhaps I should not call that "cancelled", but isn't the concept true? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 23:48:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:48:02 +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 XAA11589 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:47:55 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id dTEFa25600 (4238); Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:45:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:45:46 EDT Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI 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 7/14/99 8:14:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com writes: > He would have taken his eight > >tricks, of course. I ain't such a good player like you'all, but seems to me I count to NINE. Alligators sound like barking dogs....no relationship......theo also relish chewing up dogs.....Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 14 23:50:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:50:13 +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 XAA11609 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:50:06 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id iYMZa23678 (4238); Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8355492a.24bdeecd@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:46:53 EDT Subject: Re: What is a normal order for playing the tricks? To: john@probst.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/14/99 9:09:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > Mrs kojak. she runs a snappy midnight game :)) Right On!!!!! ....kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 00:01:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:01:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11678 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:01:40 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id iBZSa14943 (4238); Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:50:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <396b7ac.24bdef8d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:50:05 EDT Subject: Re: Avg - (Please help) To: john@probst.demon.co.uk, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, bridge@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 In a message dated 7/14/99 9:09:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > You could do worse than start with the EBU regulations, which are > comprehensive, comprehensible, legal and fair. > > We call it the White Book "The EBU Supplement to the EBL TD Guide" I don't know if ACBL has a copy, but it sure might be a nice gesture to send them a complimentary one. Might be an important step in seeing things with a view toward standardization where possible. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 00:06:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:06:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11702 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:06:50 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id 5ONDa14195 (4238); Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:04:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:04:34 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals To: hermandw@village.uunet.be 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 7/14/99 9:29:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > Perhaps I should not call that "cancelled", but isn't the > concept true? > Yes, there are better words than cancelled. But you can't uphold something that no longer exists. The CONCEPT is that the AC is examing a ruling made by a TD to see if it was correct, adequate, wrong, etc.... Only in the case where the committee finds the ruling lacking does it then modify it to what the AC considers correct. Failing this step, the ruling STANDS. How's that sound to you, Herman? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 00:09:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:09:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11717 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:09:37 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id fFSQa24364 (4238); Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:07:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6053a45c.24bdf3b4@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:07:48 EDT Subject: Re: AC's and PP's To: gester@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 7/14/99 7:32:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gester@globalnet.co.uk writes: > A man > can get bored with nothing but sea and sky. ++ Not if he's hooked to a 50 lb Dolphin or Wahoo!!! From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 00:49:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:29:24 +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 WAA11317 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:29:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-166.uunet.be [194.7.146.166]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20581; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:28:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378C77E2.47139978@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:43:30 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Kooijman, A." , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Avg - (Please help) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1D0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > Hi All! > > > Don't worry about the laws, they are that good and flexible that you can do > what you want. indeed. > So the following is not more than an advise. > It sounds reasonable to give the pair that doesn't play the first two rounds > 12VP's unless its average score in the other rounds is less than 12. reasonable. 40% of 30. > It is more important to decide the score for their opponents. And giving > them 18 VP's is too easy. In European and WBF CofC's we do the following: > take the highest score from > 18; > the average of the scores against this pair of the 8 teams nearest to them > in the final ranking (either nearest in VP's or in the positions); > their own average in all the matches they played. > The second one is quite complicated, but in my opinion better than taking > the supplement of the average of their opponents in all their matches. And > if a pair is ranked 3rd you should take the scores of the teams 4-7 and 1-2 > giving the first ranked team a weight of 3 to get 8 results to work with. > That one I did not know yet ! Now with only 20 teams (pairs), it might be better to have just the 6 nearest. > Making such a regulation is quite stimulating in my experience. A rule that > complicated must be well thought about and certainly will be accepted (they > are not BLML). > > I met Herman in Malta and we decided to start working on this book of > calculations, artificial adjusted scores etc. Next time we decide when to > start. > Soon ! > ton > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 01:27:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:15:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11762 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:15:05 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id qIMFa14195 (4238); Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:13:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8555f631.24bdf510@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:13:36 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals 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 7/14/99 6:37:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > Herman's view [and Jens Auken's, I believe] was that [b] is correct. KKKKK Tain't just Herman's and Jen's view ....it says so in the "Foreword and Statistics" part of the CH listing. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 01:29:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:29:49 +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 BAA11982 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:29:35 +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 114QyL-000EUF-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:29:27 +0000 Message-ID: <86SkKzAgxGj3Ew4i@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:54:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <37886D4A.9C8AB60B@village.uunet.be> <3788BD9D.4AD83846@elnet.msk.ru> <3789C807.96FDCF03@village.uunet.be> <036801becce5$b78b7660$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <045101becd94$0d53c440$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <045101becd94$0d53c440$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> So do we adjust to 7NT making? >Of course not. The card play is directly linked to the situation (changed >level of contract) brought about by the infraction, and that completely >justifies an AC to change the supposed defense when assigning a result. > >But when the play of the cards by the NOS has no direct link to the >situation brought about by the infraction, the actual play should not be >changed. You have lost me. We have two situations. In one situation, we adjust to a different contract because of an infraction, and you agree we change the number of tricks because "The card play is directly linked to the situation (changed level of contract)". In the earlier situation, we adjust to a different contract because of an infraction, and you do not agree we change the number of tricks because "The play of the cards by the NOS has no direct link to the situation brought about by the infraction". I don't see the difference. In my view, when you adjust to a different contract you cannot assume the number of tricks will be the same. You seem to say it is the same or not the same based on a criterion I do not understand at all. -- 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 Jul 15 01:30:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:30:35 +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 BAA12014 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:30:19 +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 114QyS-000EUF-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:29:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:17:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>Clemens wrote: >> >>>What about the following interpretation: >> >> Reasonable enough: so John, some can explain it, some can't. > >and as far as I can see if you can't explain it (on your side of the >screen) there's an AC out there about to award you a PP of 1VP. That I >find surprising. Cr - err - rubbish. OK, this is all very jolly, but all the AC said was they expected a pair to know their agreements on the first two rounds of the auction, and no doubt they expected commonsense to apply to that remark. 1NT - 2C[Stayman] - 2D - 2H/3H It is this level of agreement that the AC expected, and they felt that a pair had no right to make a bid of this sort and not know its meaning. -- 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 Jul 15 01:31:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:31:10 +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 BAA12025 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:30:52 +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 SAA19136 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:32:07 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <00b501bece0d$38f91fe0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: Subject: Re: Avg - (Please help) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:26:18 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold writes: >Long time I was silent (working with my friends S.Kapustin from Kiev and >V.Zimnitsky from Saint-Petyerburg on translation the Laws) - might be it was the >only right thing I did... Ton writes: >I met Herman in Malta and we decided to start working on this book of >calculations, artificial adjusted scores etc. Next time we decide when to >start. ton OK! We will have the chance to do right thing once again. John writes: >You could do worse than start with the EBU regulations, which are > comprehensive, comprehensible, legal and fair. > > We call it the White Book "The EBU Supplement to the EBL TD Guide" I didn't find the White Book on the EBU homepage. Is it possible to have a copy? It may give us a chance to do right thing third time!:) Sergey From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 01:31:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:31:14 +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 BAA11990 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:29:44 +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 114QyL-000EUG-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:29:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:05:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <01becd87$30a2b080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.5.32.19990714031856.00ac1e90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990714031856.00ac1e90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton wrote: > Anne wrote >> Kojak wrote >>> Herman wrote >>>> After all, once the case gets to >>>> Committee, the Director's ruling is cancelled, isn't it ? >>>Is this true in EBL?.........Kojak >>I wouldn't think so. It is my opinion that an appeal to a comittee is >>an appeal against the ruling of the TD. That ruling stands until >>such time as the AC committee considers that it was flawed. >The question is perhaps if this committee is governed by by 93B3 or 93C. >I am inclined to think that the latter is the case. We already have discussed >in the past, that the powers of the committee in 93C are the same as these >of the CTD, so they are certainly empowered to give PP'd or DP's if the CTD >failed to do so. When you have a tournament, and a ruling is sought from a Director, and then there is an appeal against that ruling, the appeal is under L93B. It could hardly be otherwise, since the criterion for L93C has not been met "After the preceding remedies have been exhausted ...". Furthermore, why should we have a L93C appeal as the normal appeal at a tournament? However, the powers of a Committee under L93B include giving PPs and DPs: it says so in L93B3. "... may exercise all powers, except ... may not overrule ..." If they issue a PP or DP that is additional, and is not overruling a Director: what they cannot do is to take a DP away that a Director has given. [When I gave a DP in the final of our Spring Foursomes, England's premier teams weekend event, the captain was heard to say that they would appeal if necessary, and "No doubt it would be reversed". Max Bavin, who overheard this, was quietly confident of another 20 GBP for the EBU coffers. Before you ask, yes, I had told them it was not appealable.] -- 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 Jul 15 01:43:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:43:18 +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 BAA12091 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:43:07 +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 LAA01641 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA26870 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:43:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907141543.LAA26870@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Malta Appeals X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If [the AC] issue a PP or DP that is additional, and is > not overruling a Director: what they cannot do is to take a DP away > that a Director has given. May the AC issue a DP if the director has already decided not to issue one? This would seem to fall into the category of overruling, but the verb 'exercise' is ambiguous, I guess. Of course the AC can always achieve score penalties by using L90, but are they really empowered to suspend or disqualify a contestant if the TD hasn't done so? (I agree with all the rest of David's comments, FWIW.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 02:25:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:30:12 +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 BAA11993 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:29:53 +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 114QyT-000EUG-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:29:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:28:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: AC's and PP's References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >.....IMNSVHO.........Kojak >Of course, ICBW. You know, Kojak, you are beginning to use as many odd letter combinations as I do! -- 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 Jul 15 02:27:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:28:41 +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 WAA11293 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:28:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-166.uunet.be [194.7.146.166]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20497 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:28:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378C7152.434BE8EE@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:15:30 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > > ++++ Whether to appeal is sometimes based on > a feeling of injustice done, but sophisticated sides > are more apt to calculate the potential advantage > to be gained and whether they can afford not to > appeal. There is more than one of these amongst > the 38 from Malta, in my opinion. A monetary > deposit does not deter them, and only serves to > create imbalance if any sides do not have the > money to appeal. Where appeal committees are > competent (only proven by performance) and > consistent I now list myself amongst those > who consider lack of merit in an appeal > should cost the appellant in the score for > the session. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ I used to be of that opinion, but experience in Malta has shifted my opinion. More often than on the grounds of the case, our decisions were criticized on the manner of giving the money back. Apparently, we were too lenient. I don't mind this. Appealing is a right, and should not be too strongly discouraged. So you may risk a deposit, and that should deter you from appealing. A bit of random giving back should not alter that deterrent. So our decisions were not important, and we sometimes gave the money back on the simple request of one member. But when points are at stake, this becomes important again. I don't like that importance. And oh yes : the argument that points are the same for everyone, money isn't - is not true either. Some teams in Malta did not give a damn about their points. They would probably be more generous with points than with money. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 02:45:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:01:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11670 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:01:05 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id 8YVVa28265 (4238); Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:00:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1e0f58d2.24bdf1ea@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:00:10 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals To: a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/13/99 9:33:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl writes: > The question is perhaps if this committee is governed by by 93B3 or 93C. Kojak here.......?????.. Is your rule book differently headed (not being sarcastic) than mine? My 93C deals with what happens AFTER an appeal to an AC. Why would the TDs ruling be....... cancelled......... if 93C takes place? I believe a TDs ruling exists, and continues to exist until such time as it may be changed by an AC or higher level appeal authority. Just a nit picking point - if a TDs ruling is cancelled when an AC hears a case, then what is the appelant is appealing? Semantics...yeah I know.....Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 03:13:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 03:13:22 +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 DAA12753 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 03:13:16 +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 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:13:59 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:10:12 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 7:17 AM -0400 7/14/99, David Stevenson wrote: > 1NT - 2C[Stayman] - > 2D - 2H/3H > > It is this level of agreement that the AC expected, and they felt that >a pair had no right to make a bid of this sort and not know its meaning. Surely the player who made the bid knew what he meant. :-) Aside from that, where would an AC get the idea that a player "had no right" to make a particular bid? I see nothing in the Laws that would preclude it. Suppose a player thinks along the lines "we haven't discussed this particular bid, but it seems obvious to me that in this circumstance, it should mean thus-and-so. Surely my partner will come to the same conclusion." It may turn out that he's wrong, and his partner comes to some other conclusion, but so what? Is there a law that precludes such thinking? I don't 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/AwUBN4zFJr2UW3au93vOEQIkcQCgo2dp+Fai5u0hC+eqE26hkeaYn5IAn3V2 BNZPdm885AeGDgz9xdNZ23bP =3JTF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 03:38:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:30:12 +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 BAA11994 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:30:00 +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 114QyT-000EUH-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:29:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:21:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements References: <199907122250.SAA25343@cfa183.harvard.edu> <378B17C8.9887C177@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <378B17C8.9887C177@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >As long as you accept that they are using your tournament as >a laboratory, they are not yet expected to have full >agreements; but the European Championships are not a >laboratory. Why not? It seems to me that the only really satisfactory answer is that the organisers of the European Championship believe it should not be. That solves it: it should be a CoC, not a matter of Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 03:45:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:28:39 +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 WAA11290 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:28:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-166.uunet.be [194.7.146.166]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20485 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:28:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378C6E70.38A986D5@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:03:12 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > > Whereupon Herman said: > > I don't see it that way, Grattan. > > > > It is my task, among others, to inform the AC, if I feel the > > need, of the Laws involved. Some members there are less > > informed than myself about the actual wording of the Laws. > > +++ When were you allotted that duty, Herman? It is > something you have arrogated to yourself and not your > duty at all. Who are you to judge other members of the > committee? +++ > I saw this as my duty when I was sitting on Committee's with Steen. He told me as much. Jens also told me that this was my function. Sadly I don't have a written statement to this effect. If that means I have arrogated this, then I have just learnt another new word in the English language. > > But I don't feel the need at all times to explicitely tell > > the AC what Laws they are using, expecially if I find that > > they are ruling in a manner that is consistent with the Law > > I have in mind. > > +++ This statement is arrogant and insulting to > a highly competent committee and a knowledgeable > chairman. +++ Not at all. It demonstrates that the AC members knew the Law, if not the literal reference. I don't have to add this to their knowledge, when I see that they have things right. I may have been wrong with L74B1, but surely I don't need to read L16 aloud in Chambers in order to be allowed to add that Law reference to the report. > > > Yet, when telling the world about the ruling, it is deemed > > necessary to mention the specific Laws, and I do so whether > > or not the Law was actually read in Committee. Indeed, when > > I feel that a literal reading of the Law was necessary, not > > only did I read it in the Committee, but also I included it > > complete in the report. > > > > So in all, I feel it is my duty to mention Law numbers even > > if the AC did not specify them. > > > +++ But if you do you should make it known that it is > your opinion and not the Committee's agreed reference. The > world wants a report of what the committee did without bells > and bows added by a scribe. +++ ~ Grattan ~ As stated in another post, the reading of the report by all AC members, and the careful scrutiny by the Chairman, means that this is the Committee's report, not mine. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 03:45:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:28:20 +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 AAA11822 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:28:12 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id vYOSa11075 (4238); Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <274e7668.24bdf83c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:27:08 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals To: twm@cix.compulink.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 7/14/99 6:19:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk writes: > AIUI the scribe (unlike other members) is selected primarily on the basis > of their legal knowledge. If the duty of "reminding" is not the scribe's > then it seems to me that it should be (my experience in chairing business > meetings tells me that the chairman is unlikely to be able to carry out > this task in addition to all his other duties). It would be a rare > committee indeed where *all* the other members are better informed of > legal wording than Herman (I think he can be trusted not to present some > of his minority interpretations as being mainstream). KKKKK...probably a good reason why the Chief TD should be allowed to designate and provide a member of the AC (non voting, if desired) to inform the AC of the CTDs applicability, provisions , and interpretation of the Laws. Sure beats the idea that the AC is starting from scratch. Besides that scratch idea hurts a lot when you find that ACs disregard the TDs finding of facts that occurred at the table, and eagerly elicits and accept new facts that often only resemble what happened. Having a goodly number of hours and a goodly number of experts to consult the Appealing Side's case takes on a glamour that only heavy makeup and background music usually provide. Please don't tell me that this doesn't happen - I/ve seen it too often.....Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 03:51:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 03:51:43 +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 DAA13018 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 03:51:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id MAA27968 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:52:42 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199907141752.MAA27968@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:52:42 -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 > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >and as far as I can see if you can't explain it (on your side of the > >screen) there's an AC out there about to award you a PP of 1VP. That I > >find surprising. > > Cr - err - rubbish. > > OK, this is all very jolly, but all the AC said was they expected a > pair to know their agreements on the first two rounds of the auction, > and no doubt they expected commonsense to apply to that remark. I quite agree with you, David--there is abig difference between the auction that worried the committee and John's auction. I would not expect this committee to award a pp to a pair that messed up John's auction. > 1NT - 2C[Stayman] - > 2D - 2H/3H > > It is this level of agreement that the AC expected, and they felt that > a pair had no right to make a bid of this sort and not know its meaning. But here we part company. Herman's valiant efforts notwithstanding, I cannot find anywhere in the laws where it says that that I have no "right" to make bids that my partner doesn't understand, whether on the second round of the auction or the first, whether in a local novice game or the finals of the Bermuda Bowl. Of course I would be happy with a rule in the CoC mandating such understandings in a major event--but absent such a rule, I see no justification for a penalty. > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Sincerely, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 03:55:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 03:55:55 +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 DAA13041 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 03:55:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.90]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990714175521.CXLF16747.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:55:21 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:55:21 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <378fce9c.12942580@post12.tele.dk> References: <01becd87$30a2b080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.5.32.19990714031856.00ac1e90@cable.mail.a2000.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 DAA13042 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:05:58 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > [When I gave a DP in the final of our Spring Foursomes, England's >premier teams weekend event, the captain was heard to say that they >would appeal if necessary, and "No doubt it would be reversed". Max >Bavin, who overheard this, was quietly confident of another 20 GBP for >the EBU coffers. Before you ask, yes, I had told them it was not >appealable.] Is it not appealable? L91A does say that your decision is "final". But L92A says that any ruling is appealable. So those laws seem to contradict each other. In that situation I would give the benefit of the doubt to the players and allow them to have the committee review the ruling and possibly recommend that you change it (L93B3) (though they would probably keep the deposit more often). Though it is fine that a DP cannot be overruled, it is reasonable that the TD can be forced to at least listen to advice from a committee. I would also hope that the word "final" does not prohibit the TD from changing his mind and the ruling within the correction period. A TD should always have the right to realize that he has done something stupid :-) But I do believe that the word "final" must mean that not even the NA can overrule the TD's DP. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 04:20:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 03:18:37 +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 DAA12823 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 03:18:23 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id qNGa000129 (14408); Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:15:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:15:07 EDT Subject: Re: AC's and PP's 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 7/14/99 12:31:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > You know, Kojak, you are beginning to use as many odd letter > combinations as I do! Yeah, but mine are more obvious. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 04:49:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:28:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA11310 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:28:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-166.uunet.be [194.7.146.166]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20512 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:28:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378C74DB.AB95B86E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:30:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements 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 7/13/99 11:35:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > In any case, the reports have been read by the chairman and > > several other members. None of them have questioned my > > insert of L74B1. > > Even if they had, they would probably simply have believed > > me that L74B1 applies. > > >From the tone of your post it is evident to me that you feel yourself > righteously correct. > I do. > Have you ever thought about the fact that the Laws provide a Law covering > Procedural Penalties? You couldn't even have used Law 90A as a catch-all? Yes, maybe that would have caused less of a storm. But I have never included L90 in the references, even if several other PP's were handed out. Maybe I should have. But please read that L90 talks of "offense". So that does not get the Committee off the hook. What offense did this pair commit ? > Have you ever thought about the fact that if you can't find a reason under > this Law, then you (the AC) have no basis for awarding PPs? Indeed ! I have never stated that this AC was absolutely correct in awarding this PP. Maybe this pair did not commit an offense, and our PP was wrong. But I concur with the PP, and I personally believe L74B1 is the correct reference. Argue that as much as you like, but that is my position. Maybe if I had realized the doubtful position at the time, I could have informed the Committee about it, and we could have been more firm in the decision. As it stands, maybe some other members simply did what they thought what was right. If that is the case, then I am to blame for that one. > Are your (EBL) > regulations (established under Law) lacking enforcement provisions for those > things they probably should mandate to players, i.e. knowing what your > agreements are? Are you continuing to maintain that each Law of the Laws > stands separately? Do you still not see the forest for the trees? > On one hand you agree that the Laws do not provide that players must have > agreements , and then you wish to penalize the failure to have agreements by > reference to a Law which deals with Etiquette? am I crazzzzzy? (Mexican > gringo please note) I agree that the Laws do not provide for pairs to be obliged to have full agreements. I feel that at some level of play, over some basic points, it is not correct not to have agreements. The Committee was unanimous in this feeling. I think many of you may agree with this feeling. If the Laws do not provide for any way this feeling can be translated into a PP, then the Laws need changing. Personally I think 74B1 fits nicely, provided we interpret "the game" in the way we would interpret "The Game". Is it illegal for a TD or an AC to award PP's over a breach of Conduct or Etiquette ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 05:04:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA13302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 05:04:28 +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 FAA13297 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 05:04:21 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id fBDa016557 (14436); Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:52:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <404cce78.24be367a@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:52:42 EDT Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) To: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.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 7/14/99 2:00:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu writes: > But here we part company. Herman's valiant efforts > notwithstanding, I cannot find anywhere in the laws where it says that > that I have no "right" to make bids that my partner doesn't understand, > whether on the second round of the auction or the first, whether in a > local novice game or the finals of the Bermuda Bowl. Of course I would be > happy with a rule in the CoC mandating such understandings in a major > event--but absent such a rule, I see no justification for a penalty. > KKKKK/\.. even I get the right to say. I concur. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 05:20:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:53:47 +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 CAA12612 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:53:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([212.140.113.122]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAB54FC for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:52:54 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01bece19$fea6c880$7a718cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:56:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John wrote: >marv, I write this response after over 2 bottles of exceedingly good >french wine. ######## And it shows! ######### > >Even tables can't be balanced perfectly ####### There is always a perfect *Howell* available for an even number of tables but never for an odd number of tables. Odd table Howells can still have pretty good balance though. ######### > >You play 1 pair, and ... by definition there are 0.5N ######## 0.5N-1 surely? ####### pairs to compare >with, and 0.5N - 1 pairs who are indirect helpers. > >Odd tables on the other hand ... if you can arrange that all pairs are >stting opposite half the time and otherwise in the same line (eg 7 table >26 board Howell) give equal comparisons. > ####### 7 table does not give equal comparisons but 6 and 8 tables will! ####### ######### On a related topic, one should be extremely careful of using complex simulated events to measure balance as matchpointing can produce distortions that can mask the real balance of the movement. Events with an average field except for one expert pair are fine but putting in many different strength pairs produces complex results that require careful analysis. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 05:33:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:53:37 +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 CAA12607 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:53:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([212.140.113.122]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA54FC; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:52:51 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01bece19$fd78a8c0$7a718cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "Stephen Barnfield" Subject: Fw: Avg - (Please help) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:46:33 +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 John wrote: > >You could do worse than start with the EBU regulations, which are >comprehensive, comprehensible, legal and fair. > >We call it the White Book "The EBU Supplement to the EBL TD Guide" ########### Although the White Book is getting a little out of date, it does contain much useful information including the EBU's method of calculating non-balancing adjusted scores. These are basically treated as artificial scores when the matchpoints for those players with real scores (or balancing adjusted scores) are calculated. The frequency table so derived is then used to calculate the matchpoints for the non-balancing adjusted scores. On a different topic, I find it odd that players with artificial scores, ie. Av+ and Av- etc, get 60% or 40% respectively of the *theoretical* top on the board when this is a score that is not available to anyone who actually played the board. It also seems to be at odds with L12 which uses the phrase "available matchpoints". It seems to me that a better way of calculating artificial scores is to base them on the *actual* top that was available on the board and then factor them like all of the other scores using the Neuberg formulae. This has the benefit over the current system of preventing Av+ becoming too generous and Av- becoming too harsh as the proportion of artificial scores increases on a board and the real scores collapse towards average. Also, it means that a pair who are awarded Av+ or Av- receive *exactly* the same number of matchpoints as pairs who really played the board and beat 60% or 40% respectively of their real opponents. ############ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 05:47:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:28:44 +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 WAA11301 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:28:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-166.uunet.be [194.7.146.166]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20504; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:28:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378C717E.3AB45630@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:16:14 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , Jens Auken Subject: Re: Malta Appeals 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 7/13/99 7:45:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > It is my task, among others, to inform the AC, if I feel the > > need, of the Laws involved. Some members there are less > > informed than myself about the actual wording of the Laws. > > But I don't feel the need at all times to explicitely tell > > the AC what Laws they are using, expecially if I find that > > they are ruling in a manner that is consistent with the Law > > I have in mind. > > Kojak here....... IMO.......Reading the Laws to the AC is fine, I get nervous > when you state the last few words of the above. > OK, let's rephrase it. When the AC decides to act on a Law, and I know we are correctly applying that Law, do I really have to tell my fellow committee members that we are applying Law xx ? And when the AC, through my typing (and the Chairman's reading and changing), decides to tell the world what they are doing, is it wrong to include the Law reference ? Even when this was not actually said in the room ? I don't believe that this is the case. I believe that I am doing the right thing. Of course sometimes I can make a mistake. Which does not get noticed by the other members of the AC, since they are less informed about Law numbers than I am. So that same mistake would be made if I would in fact tell the AC in chambers which law I think we are using. > > Yet, when telling the world about the ruling, it is deemed > > necessary to mention the specific Laws, and I do so whether > > or not the Law was actually read in Committee. > > You certainly are free to expres your opinion during the AC as a committee > member, but not as part of what I would think your post meeting duties as a > scribe are if this was not part of the committee's deliberations/actions. > See the answer above. The Laws are part of the Committee's actions, whether stated or not. My understanding with Jens was that I would look after the Legality of our decisions. When I don't speak up, the rest of the AC members assume they are on the right track, legally speaking. I don't think you should instruct an AC as to how they organise themselves in chambers, behind closed doors. > > Indeed, when > > I feel that a literal reading of the Law was necessary, not > > only did I read it in the Committee, but also I included it > > complete in the report. > > > > So in all, I feel it is my duty to mention Law numbers even > > if the AC did not specify them. > > I'm very happy with the extensive reporting you have done as Scribe. I'm > nervous as to what you consider the scribe's job to be. According to Law 81 > C 5 the Chief TD is the person who interprets the Law. I would hope you are > not indicating that the Scribe has this right, unless the Chief TD in > accordance with Law 81D has specifically authorized it. According to Law 93 > B 3, the AC has this same right when in session. Of even greater importance > is that the Committee has no choice to depart from the Law. In WBF > tournaments where I am the Chief TD I DO NOT delegate this duty. In ACBL > there is a special group of TDs assigned at NABCs who are delegated by the > Chief TD to do this - called the Screeners.) > In EBL events, especially lately, the TD's see me sitting in the AC and assume I will instruct the other AC members as to the real wording of the Laws. I have in Lille had the good fortune of sitting in on one or two appeals where you were the CTD, and I have listened with fondness to your explanations as to the text of the Laws to the Committee. I did not need the explanations, but some other AC members may have. It is one way of doing things. Jens and Steen have chosen another way. I don't think either one is wrong. > Making the AC clearly aware that they are bound by Law, just like the TD, > tends to limit the flights of fancy on parts of committee members who feel > they are empowered to "do what's right." > I know. In the very first appeal I assisted in, I had the good fortune of being able to tell to a very distinguished player that although it "felt right" it was not in conformity with the Laws, and subsequently, the AC decided in another manner. > Maybe I have the wrong impression of "Scribe" as the EBL sees it. I think, > though, that in your words.......among others.......should give you pause to > see that as Scribe you have a different task than as an active AC member - to > report as accurately as possible what actually took place. > I did not see my task like that. Very early in the tournament, I asked Jens what the purpose of the reports should be. Should it be a word-for-word account, with juridicial (sp?) value, or more a report, with journalistic and educational purposes. According to him (a lawyer), the juridicial purpose would prove far too difficult to realize. That is why I saw my task as quite different: I was a full member of the Appeals Committee, with the added responsability of insuring that a report of the Committee's finding would be produced. Although I wrote the report, it was not my report, but the Committee's one. All reports were read by all members of the AC, and they were _very_ thoroughly checked by the Chairman, who changed more words and sentences than I dare to admit. As such, my adding words or Law references, over and above what was actually said in chambers, should not matter. Quite often, things were said that would not look good on paper. Sometimes, a case was dismissed far swifter than the report would reflect. And every so often, the report includes things not actually said at all. But in every case, the report reflects the Committee's view, not my own. > By the way, you deserve much credit for doing the onerous job as well as you > have. > Now I should need to take my dictionary. Doesn't onerous imply some remuneration ? I wish ! Anyway, I thank you (and many others) for your kind words of appreciation. I was only doing a job to the best of my abilities. It is nice to see that these were sufficient. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 06:06:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 06:06:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.gte.net (smtp1.gte.net [207.115.153.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA13500 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 06:06:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from phillipm (covad2-143.mminternet.com [209.241.122.143] (may be forged)) by smtp1.gte.net with SMTP for ; id PAA19863 Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:05:32 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <003d01bece34$3285bfc0$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> From: "Phillip Mendelsohn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Should Dummy's UI After Lead Out of Turn Breed Vigilante Justice? Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:05:18 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello all: This is my first post on the BLML. A word of introduction: I am one of the ACBL's most newly-minted tournament directors in the Southern California area; I also direct a few days a week at a well-known local club. Although I do not have any cats per se, I do have two miniature schnauzers, Visa and Mr. Peabody. They like cats just fine. . . . And now for the "good" stuff: At the club yesterday afternoon, the wrong opening leader led out of turn face up after an unremarkable and unknown auction. I happened to be standing right near the table at the time, and N was to become the dummy. Opponents turned to me and said "lead out of turn." Before I could give declarer his litany of Law 54 options, N (dummy) chose this moment to pipe up, "I'll play it!" N's comment clearly conveyed UI that it might be more advantageous for him to become declarer. I warned declarer that he "did not hear" N's comment, and that he must not pay any attention to N's commentary when making a choice from among the five options of Law 54 I was about to give him. I then gave him the "five options," and of course, declarer chose to put his hand down and become dummy. I then told the defenders they should call me back after the play of the hand if they felt they had been damaged by the change in declarer most likely prompted by the UI (difficult to ascertain, I know). I also gave N a one MP PP for his outrageous attempt to influence the play of the hand by giving blatant UI. N has been playing bridge as a pro for umpteen years and should certainly know better (and I even may have been a little conservative in not giving him a full quarter-board PP). Know here's where it gets interesting: after the game, I discussed the hand with B, a nationally-recognized expert on the Laws who plays at our club. B said that after the UI, if he had been making the ruling, he would have excluded from among declarer's Law 54 options the choice that dummy could play the hand. He felt that it would be too difficult to figure out whether the change in declarer presumably caused by the UI might cause any damage to the non-offenders, and therefore it was proper (and legal) for the Director to make a "preemptive strike" when giving declarer his options, by excluding the 54(A) choice. I disagreed; I feel this would be like vigilante justice. This action does not appear to be authorized by the Laws, and seems tantamount to telling a bidder in a live auction with UI, "You can't now bid three spades" (or 2 NT or pass or whatever--which of course we all know the Director can NEVER do). BTW, the opponents never called me back after the play of the hand was over. Your thoughts? Phillip Mendelsohn From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 06:32:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:53:16 +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 CAA12596 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:53:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb6s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.183] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 114SH4-0001e9-00; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:52:50 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bece18$c6544120$b78993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: with pride Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:21:20 +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: 08 July 1999 22:18 Subject: Re: with pride >On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 09:45:48 +0200, "Kooijman, A." > wrote: >Jesper wrote: >I still don't understand how is it consistent with the wording of >the laws to not adjust for the NOS when there is damage - the >words "subsequent" and "consequent" do not appear in the laws, so >the distinction is IMO not legal according to the letter of the >laws. ++ True they do not appear. In writings about the subject they have become frequent expressions. Consequent damage is damage that ensues directly from the infraction; subsequent damage is damage that occurs in the aftermath of the infraction but which is not caused by the infraction. Instead it is self-inflicted by an irrational, wild or gambling action on the part of the non-offending side. What the WBFLC has done is to affirm that in the case of consequent damage the scores of both sides are adjusted whilst in the case of subsequent damage the non-offending side must take the score but the offending side is not entitled to gain from the self-inflicted damage of its opponents and will have an adjusted score. There is no doubt in my mind, although it is not the Committee's position (yet!), that this ruling needs to be incorporated explicitly in the laws at the earliest possible opportunity. It is unrealistic to think that mere 'advices' will accomplish what we want universally; fresh policiy in respect of law requires to be incorporated in the law. If only to keep Jesper in line :-)) ++ Grattan ++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 06:46:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:30:38 +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 BAA11992 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:29:48 +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 114QyP-000Ie6-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:29:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:10:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <01becd87$30a2b080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.5.32.19990714031856.00ac1e90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <3.0.1.32.19990713233118.011fae88@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990713233118.011fae88@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 03:18 AM 7/14/99 +0200, Anton wrote: >>The question is perhaps if this committee is governed by by 93B3 or 93C. >>I am inclined to think that the latter is the case. We already have >discussed >>in the past, that the powers of the committee in 93C are the same as these >>of the CTD, so they are certainly empowered to give PP'd or DP's if the CTD >>failed to do so. > >It may well have been discussed, although I must have missed that >particular day. May the AC also assign a PP/DP contrary to the expressed >wishes of the TD? May it also overrule a PP/DP awarded by a TD? If so, then >I am afraid that we have agreed that the caveat expressed in L93B is to be >ignored: > >"...the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law or >regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers." > >Were the Lawmakers really so dense as to intend that we should read this as >"the committee may overrule the Director..." ? I don't think so. No, Mike, I don't think that was Anton's point. He suggested that the Malta appeals were L93C ones, not normal appeals. I am sure he is wrong, but in fact a National authority can overrule the TD even on things that an ordinary appeals committee cannot. Furthermore, there is a big difference between a DP and a PP. An ordinary AC, constituted under L93B, may overrule a TD over a PP. It is a DP that they may not overrule. Exercise of disciplinary powers is a DP, not a PP. it is quite important as a TD, when issuing a penalty, to make it clear whether it is a PP or a DP. -- 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 Jul 15 07:32:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:53:15 +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 CAA12595 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:53:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb6s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.183] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 114SH2-0001e9-00; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:52:48 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bece18$c56944e0$b78993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:55:23 +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: 14 July 1999 11:39 Subject: Re: Malta Appeals >In-Reply-To: t> >Grattan wrote: >> > >> > It is my task, among others, to inform the AC, if I feel the >> > need, of the Laws involved. Some members there are less >> > informed than myself about the actual wording of the Laws. >> >> +++ When were you allotted that duty, Herman? It is >> something you have arrogated to yourself and not your >> duty at all. Who are you to judge other members of the >> committee? +++ > >AIUI the scribe (unlike other members) is selected primarily on the basis >of their legal knowledge ### I do not know where you got that from. The scribe's chief skill is in being able to write up a case. Herman's knowledge of the law is not exceptional in that committee.### > >> > But I don't feel the need at all times to explicitly tell >> > the AC what Laws they are using, especially if I find that >> > they are ruling in a manner that is consistent with the Law >> > I have in mind. >> >> +++ This statement is arrogant and insulting to >> a highly competent committee and a knowledgeable >> chairman. +++ >> > >A committee in a typical UI case quickly identifies that the crux of the >matter is whether a LA was "suggested" by the UI. At some point Herman >reminds them that the standard is now "demonstrably suggested" and the >ruling is eventually made. L16 is not explicitly named in the proceedings. >IMO it would be wrong for Herman not to have included a L16 reference in >his write-up and that in so doing he had been neither arrogant nor >insulting while doing his duty to both the committee and the reading >public. > >However, I do think Herman is going too far in the "Not L74b1" case. >I would prefer a statement that "The committee did not discuss the legal >basis for this ruling nor was such a legal basis implicit in their >discussions." (Best would be if he warned the chairman that this statement >would be present before the appeal closed - then I sincerely hope that the >PP would not have been issued or the committee would have found a law to >support it). > ### Herman has no responsibility for advising the Committee on the law. In fact as a member of both WBF and EBL Laws Committees the AC chairman is a notably stronger authority than Herman, who is on neither. Plus one expects the Chief TD to have the normal responsibility for advising if a need arises. In fact there was one case where the Chairman wished to hear a statement on the law; he summoned Ton and myself to express our understanding of the law on behalf of the EBL LC. ~ Grattan ~ ### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 07:35:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 07:35:52 +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 HAA13800 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 07:35:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei34.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.100]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA08121 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990714173335.011f9da8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:33:35 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: AC's and PP's In-Reply-To: <043401becd92$225270a0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> References: <199907132208.SAA18076@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:45 PM 7/13/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >PPs are not disciplinary, they are slaps on the wrist for violating some >procedure associated with duplicate bridge procedures, as per the examples >given in L90B. They are not meant to augment the lower-number Laws in the >belief that they are not sufficiently harsh. They can be appealed, and can >be overturned on appeal. > >From my edition of the Random House Dictionary: "discipline...3. punishment inflicted by way of correction and training" When a TD assigns a PP for inappropriate behavior, that is an act of discipline, by definition. As a completely separate matter from any issues of redress of grievance, the PP is given for the precise purpose of discouraging a repeat of undesirable behavior, which is to say "correction and training". That they may be relatively insignificant (i.e., "slaps on the wrist") in no way compromises their essentially disciplinary character. >L91 is disciplinary. And so is L90. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 07:39:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 07:39:52 +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 HAA13819 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 07:39:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei34.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.100]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA30888 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:39:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990714173734.011f9020@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:37:34 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: AC's and PP's In-Reply-To: <04b501becdb8$a4a054c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> References: <199907140007.UAA04108@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:13 PM 7/13/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >As is well known by anyone who reads the NABC Appeals casebooks, PPs are >issued as a sop to the losing appellants, when it is shown that MI or >misuse of UI has caused no damage. Not satisfied with the Laws, which >provide for action in such cases only when there is damage, and feeling >that "justice" requires some punishment, the TD/AC wields the PP. A >failure to Alert causes no damage? Sock them with a PP, without warning. >Makes the losing side feel better, seeing the other side punished to some >extent, and the guilty ones are relieved that they didn't get a zero on >the board. > >If PPs are truly issued for "serious ethical infractions," how come they >are hardly ever issued when the OS loses its case? The result of the case >should make no difference. > >You often see a failure to Alert getting a PP when an AC rules no damage. >Why are Alert infractions not routinely penalized, if that is right? Why >can't I call the TD everytime someone makes an Alert error, and have them >slapped with a PP? Pretty soon it becomes obvious: the PP is not assessed >for the infraction itself, but for causing the AC to deal with it. And, to >repeat, it provides the losing side with a sop for their hurt feelings. > Your earlier remarks notwithstanding, this seems like a pretty cogent case against the use of PP's by AC's ;) . In fact, it is in part the consistent abuse and misuse of PP's by AC's that is one of my principal objections to their application within that forum. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 07:45:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 07:45:07 +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 HAA13847 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 07:45:00 +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 RAA00457 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990714174532.0071c1ec@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:45:32 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990714031856.00ac1e90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <01becd87$30a2b080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.5.32.19990714031856.00ac1e90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 7/14/99 +0100, David wrote: > However, the powers of a Committee under L93B include giving PPs and >DPs: it says so in L93B3. "... may exercise all powers, except ... may >not overrule ..." If they issue a PP or DP that is additional, and is >not overruling a Director: what they cannot do is to take a DP away >that a Director has given. I don't see a rationale for the asymmetry David suggests in L93B3. It would mean that, when the TD is called to rule on a disciplinary infraction, if he decides that it warrants a penalty he may not be overruled by the AC, but if he decides that it does not warrant a penalty he may be overruled by the AC. By extention, that would mean that if he does give a PP, the AC may increase it (in the form of an additional penalty) but not decrease it. IMO, if the writers intended to allow the AC to overrule in one direction only, they would have said so. PPs are a different kettle of fish, not, IMO, covered by the exclusionary language of L93B3, so the AC has full authority to impose, retract or adjust a PP (as opposed to a DP) given by the TD. FWIW, I agree with the several others who have interpreted a "DP" as a penalty imposed by the TD under his L91 authority, and a "PP" as imposed under L90. I can't speak for the lawmakers, but L91 seems very straightforward and simple: The TD has the authority to impose whatever penalties, in his judgment, are required to maintain the order and discipline of the game. Such penalties have nothing to do with technical or procedural infractions. They are *not* designed to restore equity, but to punish unacceptable personal behavior that disrupts the game, summarily and as forcefully (or unforcefully) as the TD deems necessary. In other words, L91 gives the TD the authority he needs to control his game by punishing the players if their behavior steps over the line of acceptability. The situations in which he might use this authority are typically ugly and involve express antagonism between conflicting parties, leaving little doubt that if appeals are permitted, one side or the other will appeal. Allowing appeals -- in either direction -- would undermine that authority. Like a baseball umpire, if the TD throws you out, you're out, with no recourse for your team, and if he doesn't, you keep playing, with no recourse for the other team. Telling the director what he may or may not do to maintain order is a job for the SO, not the AC. It is true, however, that L93B3 does not prohibit the AC from exercising disciplinary authority, only from overruling the TD on such matters. I read that as meaning that the AC is free to impose a DP for a breach of discipline when the matter has not come to the attention of a TD, such as for unacceptable behavior in the committee room. IOW, L93B3 gives them the authority to rule under L91, provided that in doing so they do not overrule a decision (such as to give a DP, or not to give a DP, for a particular breach of discipline) already made by a director. 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 Jul 15 07:50:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 07:50:48 +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 HAA13881 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 07:50:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei34.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.100]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA22467 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:50:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990714174831.01203f70@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:48:31 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990714031856.00ac1e90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <01becd87$30a2b080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.5.32.19990714031856.00ac1e90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 7/14/99 +0100, David S wrote: > However, the powers of a Committee under L93B include giving PPs and >DPs: it says so in L93B3. "... may exercise all powers, except ... may >not overrule ..." If they issue a PP or DP that is additional, and is >not overruling a Director: what they cannot do is to take a DP away >that a Director has given. > And if the TD explicitly states that a DP is inappropriate? Would an AC decision to award one anyway not constitute an (illegal) overrule of the director's powers in this regard? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 07:54:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 07:54:38 +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 HAA13898 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 07:54:31 +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 SAA02023 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990714175504.007216dc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:55:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <199907141543.LAA26870@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:43 AM 7/14/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> If [the AC] issue a PP or DP that is additional, and is >> not overruling a Director: what they cannot do is to take a DP away >> that a Director has given. > >May the AC issue a DP if the director has already decided not to issue >one? This would seem to fall into the category of overruling, but the >verb 'exercise' is ambiguous, I guess. Of course the AC can always >achieve score penalties by using L90, but are they really empowered to >suspend or disqualify a contestant if the TD hasn't done so? In the ACBL, an AC clearly does not have the power to suspend or disqualify. They do, however, have the explicitly granted power to refer matters that come before them to a Conduct & Ethics Committee, which does. 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 Jul 15 08:16:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:16:38 +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 IAA13970 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:16:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei34.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.100]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA31027 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:16:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990714181419.01205ab4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:14:19 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Should Dummy's UI After Lead Out of Turn Breed Vigilante Justice? In-Reply-To: <003d01bece34$3285bfc0$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:05 PM 7/14/99 -0700, you wrote: >Hello all: > > This is my first post on the BLML. A word of introduction: I am one of >the ACBL's most newly-minted tournament directors in the Southern California >area; I also direct a few days a week at a well-known local club. Although >I do not have any cats per se, I do have two miniature schnauzers, Visa and >Mr. Peabody. They like cats just fine. . . . > > And now for the "good" stuff: > > At the club yesterday afternoon, the wrong opening leader led out of >turn face up after an unremarkable and unknown auction. I happened to be >standing right near the table at the time, and N was to become the dummy. >Opponents turned to me and said "lead out of turn." Before I could give >declarer his litany of Law 54 options, N (dummy) chose this moment to pipe >up, "I'll play it!" > > N's comment clearly conveyed UI that it might be more advantageous for >him to become declarer. I warned declarer that he "did not hear" N's >comment, and that he must not pay any attention to N's commentary when >making a choice from among the five options of Law 54 I was about to give >him. I then gave him the "five options," and of course, declarer chose to >put his hand down and become dummy. I then told the defenders they should >call me back after the play of the hand if they felt they had been damaged >by the change in declarer most likely prompted by the UI (difficult to >ascertain, I know). I also gave N a one MP PP for his outrageous attempt to >influence the play of the hand by giving blatant UI. N has been playing >bridge as a pro for umpteen years and should certainly know better (and I >even may have been a little conservative in not giving him a full >quarter-board PP). > > Know here's where it gets interesting: after the game, I discussed the >hand with B, a nationally-recognized expert on the Laws who plays at our >club. B said that after the UI, if he had been making the ruling, he would >have excluded from among declarer's Law 54 options the choice that dummy >could play the hand. He felt that it would be too difficult to figure out >whether the change in declarer presumably caused by the UI might cause any >damage to the non-offenders, and therefore it was proper (and legal) for the >Director to make a "preemptive strike" when giving declarer his options, by >excluding the 54(A) choice. I disagreed; I feel this would be like >vigilante justice. This action does not appear to be authorized by the >Laws, and seems tantamount to telling a bidder in a live auction with UI, >"You can't now bid three spades" (or 2 NT or pass or whatever--which of >course we all know the Director can NEVER do). BTW, the opponents never >called me back after the play of the hand was over. > Hi, Phillip, and welcome to BLML. It is not at all clear that North's comments are a legal infraction, nor under which law you might choose to restrict South's legal options. When the TD arrives at the table, often all players contribute a variety of comments, and these are not generally covered by the Laws. L16 doesn't apply since it only restricts a player's choice of bids or plays, and the decision about which option to exercise is neither. L73 might arguably apply, since it is somewhat more vague, referring only to "actions" that could be restricted by UI. But the vagueness of L73 is two-edged in this example, since we are referred back to the non-applicable L16 for the specifics of enforcement and adjudication. My own view is that there is no percentage in making up Laws in these situations. I can't find any Law restricting consultation between the partners about the best option, and so even though it "feels" wrong, I am unwilling to bend the Laws to back up my feelings. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 08:33:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:33:37 +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 IAA14023 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:33:26 +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 SAA27925 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:33:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA27414 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:33:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:33:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907142233.SAA27414@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Should Dummy's UI After Lead Out of Turn Breed Vigilante Justice? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > I can't find any Law restricting consultation between the > partners L10C2. I'll let others comment on the rest of Michael's post, but I have no doubt that L73F1 applies. This is much more stringent than merely requiring the player to act as if he did not hear partner's comment. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 08:37:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:37:12 +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 IAA14039 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:37:02 +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 SAA28011 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA27427 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:36:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:36:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907142236.SAA27427@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > What the WBFLC has done is to affirm that in the > case of consequent damage the scores of both sides > are adjusted whilst in the case of subsequent damage > the non-offending side must take the score but the > offending side is not entitled to gain from the > self-inflicted damage of its opponents and will have > an adjusted score. If I understand you, I think this answers one of my questions about the "5Hx-2 case." (Recall that after an illegal 5C bid, the NOS play 5Hx which is cold, but declarer goes down two on irrational play.) You are saying that the NOS *keep the table score* and *do not* benefit from any adjustment in the contract (say to 4H or 4Hx). This is simple, understandable, and unambiguous. I like it, and I hope I've understood correctly. What of the OS? Do you give -990 in 4Hx+1, -850 in 5Hx=, -500 in 5Cx-3 by OS, or -140 in 3H=? I think your last sentence rules out the last score. Is that what you meant to say? If so, I think we are left with -990 because bidding 4H was "at all probable" (in fact likely), and it will be doubled and (absent irrational play) make eleven tricks. What if 4H would play undoubled? Would -850 be allowable, or would it have to be -650 in 4H+1? For reference, the Lille text from David's Laws page is: 3: Procedures for awarding assigned adjusted scores. There was a discussion of the procedure in awarding assigned adjusted scores following an irregularity. A change was made by the Committee in the interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is to be applied so that advantage gained by an offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the offenders, shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. The Committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot') > From: David Stevenson > In my view, when you adjust to a different contract you cannot assume > the number of tricks will be the same. > > You seem to say it is the same or not the same based on a criterion I > do not understand at all. What about "case C," where somebody revokes? Do you assume he would equally have revoked in the same denomination at a different level? I think most of us do. Many people want to extend whatever principle applies to a revoke to play that is irrational, wild, or gambling. If a player takes ridiculous action (not just a normal bridge mistake), isn't it likely he will do so in a different contract? If you follow Grattan, none of this applies to the 5Hx case above. We are told not to adjust the (NOS) score, i.e. to let the table result stand, so the question of play in a different contract doesn't arise. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 09:11:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:11:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe010.worldonline.dk (fe010.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA14168 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:10:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 31502 invoked by uid 0); 14 Jul 1999 23:10:45 -0000 Received: from 6.ppp1-24.image.dk (212.54.68.6) by mail030.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 14 Jul 1999 23:10:45 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Should Dummy's UI After Lead Out of Turn Breed Vigilante Justice? Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:10:44 GMT Message-ID: <379915fa.3943251@mail.image.dk> References: <003d01bece34$3285bfc0$8f7af1d1@mminternet.com> In-Reply-To: <003d01bece34$3285bfc0$8f7af1d1@mminternet.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 Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:05:18 -0700 skrev Phillip Mendelsohn: >damage to the non-offenders, and therefore it was proper (and legal) for the >Director to make a "preemptive strike" when giving declarer his options, by >excluding the 54(A) choice. I disagreed; I feel this would be like >vigilante justice. This action does not appear to be authorized by the >Laws, I heartily agree with you. I recently took a beginners course as a TD. We were given some live cases and had to act as TD's. In one of them there was a normal bidding sequence where S became "captain" (N must just "obey" his commands). There was some UI (I don't remember how they set it up) that suggested to N that S had some extra strength. S bid the "final" contract 6H, but N raised to 7H. Our ruling was naturally that this was illegal and we started to find the relevant law - and then we were lectured: Did you ask N why he bid 7H? Oops no, we hadn't; and N could give a foolproof explanation that made it clear from the information in the legal bidding that there were 14+ tricks all in all on the two hands. Conclusion: Of course he could raise. Just to show that it is not legal to make an automatic ruling in these matters, just as you yourself say. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 09:23:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:23:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14219 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:23:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA31314 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:22:53 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:22:52 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl Reply-To: Michael Schmahl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Declarer's lead OOT from dummy Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A simple question, really, but I am not sure of the correct interpretation of the laws. At what time is declarer deemed to have played a card from dummy? Is it when the card is called for, or when (as declarer's agent) dummy detaches the card to indicate that it has been played? A sample scenario: Declarer calls for the S2 from dummy. Dummy pauses for a moment, trying to remember whether pard is leading from the correct hand. Declarer's RHO then says "I'll accept the lead." (Or worse -- righty plays to the trick) Which of the following applies? 1. Declarer has led from the wrong hand; 2. Dummy still has the opportunity to prevent declarer's irregularity. My personal opinion is that, unless dummy has waived hir rights, the card is not played until dummy plays it. Relevant laws: 42A3, 42B2, 43A1(b)?, 45B, 45C4, 55 signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ "Is life so dear as to be bought at the price of chains and slavery?" ] From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 09:50:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:58:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.nwnexus.com (smtp10.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14124 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:58:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from coho.halcyon.com (bbo@coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by smtp10.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA28100 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by coho.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA10279; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:58:02 -0700 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:58:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Malta Appeal #1 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990710210607.006b5ce0@worldcom.ch> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After reading this one, I had just three questions: 1. There was a jump bid right before North's turn. When using screens, is the requirement to hesitate while studying the hand withdrawn? That could easily have been 12-15 seconds of the 30-second estimate, and wouldn't the pause still be in order after he had spent 7-or-so seconds writing down the response to East's request for explanation of the 2H call, which itself may have taken 3-4 seconds. 2. From the South and West standpoint, isn't it equally likely that East may have been hesitating, thinking of a slam move instead of a penalty perhaps? 3. From this ruling, one wonders why they bother with screens any more! When it is quite possible either of the players on the other side may have been hesitating, how can the Director or a Committee come up with this kind of ruling? -------------- Appeal No 1. Hesitation Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Open Teams Round 1 Poland v Switzerland Board 2 N/S Game Dealer East NORTH K J 8 5 K 9 6 5 4 2 10 9 7 WEST EAST 5 4 A 9 Q 10 8 7 3 K J 6 4 2 Q 8 3 A J 10 7 K J 2 5 4 SOUTH 10 7 6 4 3 2 A 9 - A Q 8 6 3 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Yalcin Pszczola Duong Kwiecien - - 1H 2H 4H Pass Pass Dble Pass 4S Pass Pass 5H Dble All Pass Contract: Five Hearts Doubled, played by East Lead: S7 Result: 10 tricks, -100 to East/West The Facts: Two Hearts was Spades and another. The Director was called by West when the tray came back after Four Hearts after some delay. According to the Polish pair, the delay had been minimal, according to the Swiss, it was at least half a minute. The Director: Included the nature of North's hand in his establishment that there had in fact been a hesitation, and decided there had been unauthorised information. Ruling: Table result changed to Four Hearts making, +420 to East/West. North/South appealed. The players: North showed the Committee how he had written the explanation (5 and 5+C/D), which had apparently taken him 7 seconds. He stated he had passed in tempo. East told the Committee that north had clearly hesitated and even touched the Pass card for some time before taking it out of the Bidding Box. The Swiss captain, who had sat behind East, stated the same. West stated that the tray had remained on the other side for at least 30 seconds. South said he had not noticed the hesitation. Two Hearts could have been made on very strong or on weak hands. The Polish captain added that Four Hearts is not necessarily made. The Committee: Agreed with the Director that north did indeed have a problem, and chose to believe that there had been a hesitation. When East notices a delay, South may well have noticed it as well. The Committee's Decision: Director's decision upheld. +420 to East/West. Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2 Deposit: Returned -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal No 2. Misinformation, Equity Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Open Teams Round 2 Portugal v France From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 09:58:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:58:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14349 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:57:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA19407 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:57:39 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:57:38 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl Reply-To: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Explaining with no agreement (was: 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, 14 Jul 1999, Ed Reppert wrote: : Aside from that, where would an AC get the idea that a player "had no : right" to make a particular bid? I see nothing in the Laws that would : preclude it. Suppose a player thinks along the lines "we haven't discussed : this particular bid, but it seems obvious to me that in this circumstance, : it should mean thus-and-so. Surely my partner will come to the same : conclusion." It may turn out that he's wrong, and his partner comes to some : other conclusion, but so what? Is there a law that precludes such thinking? : I don't see it. On a related note, when asked to explain a bid that the partnership has not discussed, and when making a statement in accordance with L75C (describing partnership experience) would it be inappropriate to summon the director? signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ The status of a person has no bearing on the arguments made. ] From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 10:10:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:10:53 +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 KAA14414 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:10:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 114Z6h-0003uY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:10:35 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990715020905.00ada710@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:09:05 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <1e0f58d2.24bdf1ea@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:00 14-07-99 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 7/13/99 9:33:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl writes: > >> The question is perhaps if this committee is governed by by 93B3 or 93C. > Kojak here.......?????.. Is your rule book differently headed (not being >sarcastic) than mine? My 93C deals with what happens AFTER an appeal to an >AC. Indeed, thats the problem. After this AC there is no higher appeal possible (if i am right), so isnt this committee in fact replacing the NA body, mentioned in 93C? That was what i wanted to state. If there IS in fact another body where you can go to after the decision of this AC then i have said nothing of course. Why would the TDs ruling be....... cancelled......... if 93C takes place? >I believe a TDs ruling exists, and continues to exist until such time as it >may be changed by an AC or higher level appeal authority. Just a nit picking >point - if a TDs ruling is cancelled when an AC hears a case, then what is >the appelant is appealing? I agree, but the point was (if i am not mistaken), if the AC was restricted by 93B3. And if the committee is working under 93C then thats not the case i think. regards, anton >Semantics...yeah I know.....Kojak > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 10:17:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:17:43 +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 KAA14455 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:17:34 +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 TAA14173 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:17:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0R2XM01S Wed, 14 Jul 99 19:16:39 Message-ID: <9907141916.0R2XM01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 99 19:16:39 Subject: Should Dummy's UI After L To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While later actions without a ruling may make mute options that would have been provided had everyone waited for the director, imo, the laws in this case do not provide the director the power choose to not give particular options out of several. To do so would probably be a violation of L10C2, which btw is what dummy has infracted besides L73.. In this case the extraneous info demonstrably suggested, in addition that the pro become declarer, that the lead be accepted over another penalty option. It would seem that a ruling should include in no uncertain terms the affect that UI has on selecting a penalty. In particular, that to pick that the lead be accepted will be an infraction if there is any LA available, and if the NOS is damaged by the infraction, the score will be adjusted. Because of the nature of the infraction, it seems appropriate to require that you be called at the conclusion of the hand before the score is agreed to consider if damage was incurred. I think the actual ruling [the admonition to ignore the comment] did not adequately address the consequences of the UI and may have discouraged the NOS from calling you back. Roger Pewick B>Subject: Should Dummy's UI After Lead Out of Turn Breed Vigilante B>Justice? Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:05:18 -0700 B>Hello all: B>This is my first post on the BLML. Welcome!! B>And now for the "good" stuff: B>At the club yesterday afternoon, the wrong opening leader led out of B>turn face up after an unremarkable and unknown auction. I happened to B>be standing right near the table at the time, and N was to become the B>dummy. B>Opponents turned to me and said "lead out of turn." Before I could give B>declarer his litany of Law 54 options, N (dummy) chose this moment to B>pipe up, "I'll play it!" B>N's comment clearly conveyed UI that it might be more advantageous B>for him to become declarer. I warned declarer that he "did not hear" B>N's comment, and that he must not pay any attention to N's commentary B>when making a choice from among the five options of Law 54 I was about B>to give him. I then gave him the "five options," and of course, B>declarer chose to put his hand down and become dummy. I then told the B>defenders they should call me back after the play of the hand if they B>felt they had been damaged by the change in declarer most likely B>prompted by the UI (difficult to ascertain, I know). I also gave N a B>one MP PP for his outrageous attempt to influence the play of the hand B>by giving blatant UI. N has been playing bridge as a pro for umpteen B>years and should certainly know better (and I even may have been a B>little conservative in not giving him a full quarter-board PP). B>Know here's where it gets interesting: after the game, I discussed B>the hand with B, a nationally-recognized expert on the Laws who plays at B>our club. B said that after the UI, if he had been making the ruling, B>he would have excluded from among declarer's Law 54 options the choice B>that dummy could play the hand. He felt that it would be too difficult B>to figure out whether the change in declarer presumably caused by the UI B>might cause any damage to the non-offenders, and therefore it was proper B>(and legal) for the Director to make a "preemptive strike" when giving B>declarer his options, by excluding the 54(A) choice. I disagreed; I B>feel this would be like vigilante justice. This action does not appear B>to be authorized by the Laws, and seems tantamount to telling a bidder B>in a live auction with UI, "You can't now bid three spades" (or 2 NT or B>pass or whatever--which of course we all know the Director can NEVER B>do). BTW, the opponents never called me back after the play of the hand B>was over. B>Your thoughts? B>Phillip Mendelsohn B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 10:31:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:31:00 +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 KAA14540 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:30:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-156-226.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.226]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA11606 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <378D2C5F.A17E44C3@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:33:35 -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: Malta Appeal #1 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" wrote: > > After reading this one, I had just three questions: > > 1. There was a jump bid right before North's turn. When using screens, > is the requirement to hesitate while studying the hand withdrawn? That > could easily have been 12-15 seconds of the 30-second estimate, and > wouldn't the pause still be in order after he had spent 7-or-so seconds > writing down the response to East's request for explanation of the 2H > call, which itself may have taken 3-4 seconds. I will leave the screen questions to someone better suited to it. The rules continue to evolve in ACBL-land, despite their presence for what seems like (to 32-year-old me) forever. > > 2. From the South and West standpoint, isn't it equally likely that East > may have been hesitating, thinking of a slam move instead of a penalty > perhaps? No. I read this report and -- without knowing any of the parties involved, and with the understanding that I could be wrong -- I don't believe N-S at all. The red vs. white double by south is non-standard. Whatever your agreements, double seems to be asking for it, unless partner has a problem hand. If double, as it does with most high-level pairs, shows a hand of the very strong variety, well, our definitions of "very strong" differ. Now, it's also obvious that the hands are wrong, but I'm guessing that they aren't way wrong. (There is no spade queen.) > > 3. From this ruling, one wonders why they bother with screens any more! > When it is quite possible either of the players on the other side may have > been hesitating, how can the Director or a Committee come up with this > kind of ruling? Screens are also good to avoid eye contact and other problems. I think that with this fact pattern, the committee got it right. It's certainly *possible* that this isn't case, but it isn't particularly likely. With the evidence they had, the committee had to make a decision. I believe it to be the right one. --JRM > > -------------- > > Appeal No 1. > Hesitation > Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, > Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). > > Open Teams Round 1 Poland v Switzerland > > > Board 2 > N/S Game > Dealer East > NORTH > K J 8 > 5 > K 9 6 5 4 2 > 10 9 7 > > > WEST EAST > 5 4 A 9 > Q 10 8 7 3 K J 6 4 2 > Q 8 3 A J 10 7 > K J 2 5 4 > > SOUTH > 10 7 6 4 3 2 > A 9 > - > A Q 8 6 3 > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Yalcin Pszczola Duong Kwiecien > - - 1H 2H > 4H Pass Pass Dble > Pass 4S Pass Pass > 5H Dble All Pass > > Contract: Five Hearts Doubled, played by East Lead: S7 > Result: 10 tricks, -100 to East/West > > The Facts: Two Hearts was Spades and another. > > The Director was called by West when the tray came back after Four Hearts > after some delay. According to the Polish pair, the delay had been > minimal, according to the Swiss, it was at least half a minute. > > The Director: Included the nature of North's hand in his establishment > that there had in fact been a hesitation, and decided there had been > unauthorised information. > > Ruling: Table result changed to Four Hearts making, +420 to East/West. > > North/South appealed. > > The players: North showed the Committee how he had written the explanation > (5 and 5+C/D), which had apparently taken him 7 seconds. He stated he had > passed in tempo. East told the Committee that north had clearly hesitated > and even touched the Pass card for some time before taking it out of the > Bidding Box. The Swiss captain, who had sat behind East, stated the same. > West stated that the tray had remained on the other side for at least 30 > seconds. South said he had not noticed the hesitation. Two Hearts could > have been made on very strong or on weak hands. The Polish captain added > that Four Hearts is not necessarily made. > > The Committee: Agreed with the Director that north did indeed have a > problem, and chose to believe that there had been a hesitation. When East > notices a delay, South may well have noticed it as well. > > The Committee's Decision: Director's decision upheld. +420 to East/West. > > Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2 > > Deposit: Returned > > -------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Appeal No 2. > Misinformation, Equity > Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, > Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the > Netherlands). > > Open Teams Round 2 Portugal v France > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 11:20:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:23:41 +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 KAA14494 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:23:27 +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 114ZIq-000EVA-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:23:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:02:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >In a message dated 7/14/99 8:14:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com >writes: > >> He would have taken his eight >> >tricks, of course. > > >I ain't such a good player like you'all, but seems to me I count to NINE. Ok, I never claimed to be able to count. Thanks to Robin for pointing this out as well. >Alligators sound like barking dogs....no relationship......theo also relish >chewing up dogs.....Kojak The only thing I have ever seen an alligator chew is a marshmallow. -- 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 Jul 15 11:26:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:26:45 +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 LAA14665 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:26:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg4m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.150]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA28515 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:25:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990714212346.011fd6d4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:23:46 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Should Dummy's UI After Lead Out of Turn Breed Vigilante Justice? In-Reply-To: <199907142233.SAA27414@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:33 PM 7/14/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> I can't find any Law restricting consultation between the >> partners > >L10C2. Thanks, I missed that. Mike From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 11:29:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:29:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.nwnexus.com (smtp10.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14689 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:29:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from coho.halcyon.com (bbo@coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by smtp10.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA25771 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by coho.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA14835; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:29:15 -0700 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:29:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Malta Appeal #1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk West's Spade holding is Q6 not 54 I had to do some shuffling after a paste job; don't know where the 54 came from :( R B Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 11:32:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:32:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail110.worldonline.dk (mail110.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA14709 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:32:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 823 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jul 1999 01:32:16 -0000 Received: from 57.ppp1-21.image.dk (212.54.67.121) by mail010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 15 Jul 1999 01:32:16 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Declarer's lead OOT from dummy Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 01:31:54 GMT Message-ID: <379d39fd.13164097@mail.image.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 Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:22:52 -0800 (AKDT) skrev Michael Schmahl: >At what time is declarer deemed to have played a card from dummy? Law 45B: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card ... Law 45C4a: (a) Play of Named Card A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposed to play. Law 45C4b is about a possible change of a named card, but that must happen "without pause for thought", and that is not relevant here. >Is it when the card is called for Yes. >A sample scenario: Declarer calls for the S2 from dummy. It's played. >Dummy pauses for a moment, trying to remember whether pard is leading from the correct >hand. There's no reason to do that. The card is played, the (possible) irregularity has happened, and dummy must *NOT* do anything about it now. He may *prevent*, but that is too late. This is a very common error in my club - not the pause and the thinking, but reacting too late. >Declarer's RHO then says "I'll accept the lead." (Or worse -- >righty plays to the trick) No difference here. >1. Declarer has led from the wrong hand; Yes. >2. Dummy still has the opportunity to prevent declarer's irregularity. Prevent? It has happened. >My personal opinion is that, unless dummy has waived hir rights, the card >is not played until dummy plays it. That's wrong. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 11:51:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:51:31 +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 LAA14755 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:51:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA27456 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <053e01bece64$7d97bba0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907122302.TAA25363@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Partnership Agreements Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:45:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > As long as we stick to the rule of disclosing agreements, not hands, > the principles are simple. Departing from that rule leads to > trouble. > Which seems to be a near-consensus, judging from the comments on this matter. Now, does anyone know how to get the ACBL LC to retract or revise its statement of spring 1997, since hardly anyone agrees with it? The statement was: > > When a player's explanation has correctly described his partner's hand > > but not the pair's agreement, and even though the partner is required to > > correct the explanation before the defenders make the opening lead, ACBL > > policy is that the player should make a disclaimer statement before > > giving the corrected explanation. This may also be true when there has > > been there has been a failure to alert during the auction. If no > > disclaimer is given, the director may treat the original offense as the > > one doing the damage and adjust the board to protect the non-offenders. I don't know how other LCs manage these things, but this statement came to me as a complete surprise, unseen before I came across it in the ACBLScor's tech files. I'm guessing it was distributed to all ACBL TDs at the time (Mr. Beye?), and that was its only promulgation. If it was in *The Bridge Bulletin*, I missed it. Sometimes LC decisions are made off-the-cuff, someone like Rich Colker asking an LC member or two, whom he sees at an NABC perhaps, for an interpretation of some aspect of the Laws that is needed by an AC. The interpretation is given, and that becomes part of the NABC AC guidelines, but is never published. That is how the PP idea arose for penalizing an infraction when the NOS redress is annulled. A prominent AC person told me they had to do it that way because an LC member (maybe two) said so. (but now they go by the WBF LC interpretation, which makes clear that a one-sided assignment is okay). Here's how I think these things should work: Off-the-cuff LC interpretations are given and implemented, but are subject to approval at the next LC meeting. The results are published, along with any other LC interpretations. These are zone-official until rejected or revised by the WBFLC, perhaps after discussions with the local LC's representative(s), who provide supporting arguments. After appropriate discussions, and maybe some compromising, the LC and WBF LC come to an agreement about the interpretations, and those results are published. The final versions are then universally effective. This doesn't mean that SO-peculiar implementations (e.g., convention cards, Alert regulations) cannot exist. Distinction must be made between Laws, their interpretations, and implementations of the Laws. Interpretations must not consitute new law, and implementations must not constitute either new law or an unauthorized interpretation of a law. Within that guideline, I see little harm in permitting implementation differences. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 12:20:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:23:42 +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 KAA14492 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:23:26 +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 114ZIq-0007oc-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:23:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:00:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <036801becce5$b78b7660$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <37886D4A.9C8AB60B@village.uunet.be> <3788BD9D.4AD83846@elnet.msk.ru> <3789C807.96FDCF03@village.uunet.be> <036801becce5$b78b7660$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990714081137.006907d0@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990714081137.006907d0@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >We assume that the NO would >not have played differently *unless he might have had some (bridge-related) >reason* to play differently. I totally agree, but that is *not* what has been said here. -- 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 Jul 15 12:31:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA14860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:31:52 +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 MAA14854 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:31:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA02116 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <056a01bece6a$1dad3b60$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: NABC Casebook News Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:27:06 -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 For those interested, the following motion was passed at the Vancouver meeting of the BoD: ######## An Appeals Administrator shall be appointed annually by the president subject to the approval of the Board of Directors. The Administrator will have the responsibility of working with the Chief Tournament Director to compile an Appeals Casebook to be printed following each NABC. The book shall include selected cases from the three NABC's and any other significant cases from other events. It shall be the decision of the Appeals Administrator in conjunction with the Director of Appeals, the Chief Tournament Director and the President as to how many Appeals will be included in the book. The Administrator will be on-site for each NABC. If unable to attend, a substitute will be appointed by the president. The Administrator will work with the Daily Bulletin and the Chief Tournament Director at each NABC to produce write-ups of the results of bridge appeals committees including those heard by the Player Committees and the Tournament Director committees. The Commentators for the Appeals Casebook shall be selected by the Appeals Administrator, the Director of National Appeals and the Chief Tournament Director. Both player commentators and Tournament Directors will be included on the panel. Appeals in the Casebook will include those heard by the Tournament Director committees and those heard by the Player committees. Before publication, the Casebooks shall be reviewed by League Counsel and the Director of National Appeals. Compensation for Appeals Administrator, non-ACBL-employee: Round-trip airfare and transportation to and from airports for NABCs or mileage and parking. The maximum reimbursement for mileage and parking shall not exceedthe sum of airfare and transportation to and from the airport. Per diem at the same rate that members of the ACBL Board of Directors receive not to exceed eleven (11) days. Lodging at a host hotel not to exceed eleven (11) nights. $1,750 per NABC for completed casebook. Free plays at NABCs. Carried. (6 votes against) The 1998 Reno Casebook is to be reviewed by the current Appeals Adminstrator, Alan LeBendig and Val Covalcuic and will be printed as soon as they approve. The 1998 Chicago Casebook is to be printed as soon as possible. The 1998 Orlando Casebook is to be printed as soon as the material becomes available. ############ Comments: -- I suppose the current Appeals Administrator is Rich Colker. He's okay, but political appointments in general leave me cold. -- I am surprised at the important role to be played by the Chief Tournament Director (Gary Blaiss). -- The Director of Appeals is Alan Le Bendig. -- If a casebook is to be printed following each NABC, how can it be reporting on three NABCs? -- The Chicago casebook is out, but I haven't seen the other two yet. -- I'm glad to see that TDs will be included on the casebook panels. Or is that only David Stevenson? -- Evidently we will never get to see cases that don't get into the casebooks. We cannot therefore judge the overall performance of the TDs/ACs, since we won't have the necessary data. Linda Trent, please comment! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 12:52:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:23:41 +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 KAA14491 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:23:25 +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 114ZIq-000EVD-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:23:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:18:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Avg - (Please help) References: <396b7ac.24bdef8d@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <396b7ac.24bdef8d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >In a message dated 7/14/99 9:09:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > >> You could do worse than start with the EBU regulations, which are >> comprehensive, comprehensible, legal and fair. >> >> We call it the White Book "The EBU Supplement to the EBL TD Guide" > >I don't know if ACBL has a copy, but it sure might be a nice gesture to send >them a complimentary one. Might be an important step in seeing things with a >view toward standardization where possible. Perhaps we might find one, but it is out of print. The forthcoming EBU L&EC minutes will show that they have taken the first step along the road to producing a new edition. I wonder which mug will edit it? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 13:03:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:03:39 +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 NAA14963 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:03:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA05549 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <05b501bece6e$9081c260$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <37886D4A.9C8AB60B@village.uunet.be><3788BD9D.4AD83846@elnet.msk.ru> <3789C807.96FDCF03@village.uunet.be><036801becce5$b78b7660$f5075e18@san.rr.com><045101becd94$0d53c440$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <86SkKzAgxGj3Ew4i@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:03:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > You have lost me. > > We have two situations. > > In one situation, we adjust to a different contract because of an > infraction, and you agree we change the number of tricks because "The > card play is directly linked to the situation (changed level of > contract)". > > In the earlier situation, we adjust to a different contract because of > an infraction, and you do not agree we change the number of tricks > because "The play of the cards by the NOS has no direct link to the > situation brought about by the infraction". > > I don't see the difference. > > In my view, when you adjust to a different contract you cannot assume > the number of tricks will be the same. > > You seem to say it is the same or not the same based on a criterion I > do not understand at all. > As usual, Eric explains my view better than I could myself, so I'll let his answer speak for me. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 13:38:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:23:43 +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 KAA14497 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:23:28 +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 114ZIq-000EVC-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:23:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:13:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 7/14/99 9:29:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > >> Perhaps I should not call that "cancelled", but isn't the >> concept true? >> > > >Yes, there are better words than cancelled. But you can't uphold something >that no longer exists. The CONCEPT is that the AC is examing a ruling made >by a TD to see if it was correct, adequate, wrong, etc.... Only in the case >where the committee finds the ruling lacking does it then modify it to what >the AC considers correct. Failing this step, the ruling STANDS. How's that >sound to you, Herman? Apart from the practical merits as mentioned in other posts of having a ruling in existence so that results may be known, there is another reason why rulings are not cancelled. There are cases where an AC decides that they have no reason to disagree with the TD's ruling. That does not mean in certain cases that they would reach the same ruling if they had decided separately. Thus it is not their ruling: they have upheld the TD's ruling. Let me give you an example. A pair contends that there was a hesitation. The AC, TD, and all the players agree that the adjustment is obvious if there was a hesitation. So the only thing to decide is whether there was a hesitation. Now the AC investigates, and they might decide any of the three following: [1] In the AC's view, there was a hesitation [2] In the AC's view, there was no hesitation [3] The AC will take the TD's decision as to whether there was a hesitation In effect, if they decide [3], then they are not saying either that there was or there wasn't a hesitation: they merely uphold the Director's ruling. If they had to decide without knowing the TD's ruling then they might have come to a different conclusion. -- 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 Jul 15 14:17:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:17:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15190 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:17:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.78.131]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19990715041631.ILEM2808@default> for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 04:16:31 +0000 Message-ID: <020a01bece78$c27fb7e0$602b4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <404cce78.24be367a@aol.com> Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:14:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 1:52 PM Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) > In a message dated 7/14/99 2:00:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu writes: > > > But here we part company. Herman's valiant efforts > > notwithstanding, I cannot find anywhere in the laws where it says that > > that I have no "right" to make bids that my partner doesn't understand, > > whether on the second round of the auction or the first, whether in a > > local novice game or the finals of the Bermuda Bowl. Of course I would be > > happy with a rule in the CoC mandating such understandings in a major > > event--but absent such a rule, I see no justification for a penalty. > > > KKKKK/\.. even I get the right to say. I concur. HELLOOOOOOO. Anyone reading Law 40A lately. > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 14:31:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:31:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15222 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:31:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA17085 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <05f401bece7a$e0bbf960$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <001f01bece19$fea6c880$7a718cd4@cmartin> Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:23:16 -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 David Martin wrote; > ######### On a related topic, one should be extremely careful of using > complex simulated events to measure balance as matchpointing can produce > distortions that can mask the real balance of the movement. Events with an > average field except for one expert pair are fine but putting in many > different strength pairs produces complex results that require careful > analysis. ######### As I found out, with three expert pairs and three weak pairs, but poorly designed score and seating inputs. I think this Monte Carlo approach might be useful: Let 2/3 of the pairs be of equal strength, always scoring 200 when the board is their way. 1/6 of the pairs are weak, with average scores quite a bit under 200 when the board is their way, but a few good ones. Flip a die for each score (0, 90, 120, 200, 300, 400?) 1/6 of the pairs are strong, with average scores quite a bit over 200 when the board is their way, but a few bad ones. Flip a die for each score (0, 120, 200, 300, 400, 500?) Flip a coin for every board to decide whether N/S or E/W gets the plus score if it's non-zero. Play 27 boards in a straight Mitchell with 9 tables, 18 pairs (nicely divisible by 6) Seat all pairs randomly Now, switch the arrow on the last round (Probst), and then on the last two rounds (Hanner) Repeat until satisfied that the results are meaningful, with one method or the other clearly dominating, as measured by the variance of the average pairs' scores. Would this be worth the effort involved? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 14:53:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:53:41 +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 OAA15276 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:53:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA21219 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <061d01bece7d$ee8ceec0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:50:07 -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 From: Michael Schmahl > > On a related note, when asked to explain a bid that the partnership has > not discussed, and when making a statement in accordance with L75C > (describing partnership experience) would it be inappropriate to summon > the director? No need for that. Just say, "We have no special partnership agreement concerning that call." If they persist, as they usually will, then call the TD. Who, in these parts, will rule incorrectly, insisting that you must explain the bid. Tell him (politely) that L75C does not say you should describe "partnership experience," it says you should describe "special partnership agreements." The word "special" is there for a reason. You may know from partnership experience that he/she has a weak hand with a good seven-card suit when he/she opens the bidding with 3x. There is nothing "special" about that inference, which accords with "general knowledge and experience," hence need not be disclosed. If on the other hand, you have some *special* agreement about the opening (e.g., it denies an ace), that agreement must be disclosed. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 15:08:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:08:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15320 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:08:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA21851 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:08:37 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:08:37 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Should Dummy's UI After Lead Out of Turn Breed Vigilante Justice? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990714181419.01205ab4@pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Michael S. Dennis wrote: : My own view is that there is no percentage in making up Laws in these : situations. I can't find any Law restricting consultation between the : partners about the best option, and so even though it "feels" wrong, I am : unwilling to bend the Laws to back up my feelings. Law 10C2 is pretty clear on this one. signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ "Just hoping I get more ups than downs." ] From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 19:35:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:35:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17542 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:34:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-86.uunet.be [194.7.145.86]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA14518 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:34:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378CAF7B.9ACCA3DD@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:40:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <1.5.4.32.19990710210607.006b5ce0@worldcom.ch> <16Dn4bAbxci3EwR$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >[1] > > > > If the heading says France v Norway, does this mean > > > >[a] France sat North/South > >[b] France appealed > > I got a discussion about item [2], but little was said about [1]. > > Herman's view [and Jens Auken's, I believe] was that [b] is correct. > My view is that [a] is correct. We also discovered that at Lille, where > the majority of appeals were scribed by Herman or myself, I did it my > way, and he did it his! > > Now my argument is that when it says France v Norway, it is unhelpful > if this means that France appealed, because you then have difficulty > finding out who sat which way. Of course, you may recognise the names, > but if you don't it could be tricky. > > Is not the reverse true? When you do it my way, is it not difficult > to find out who appealed? No, because in every one of the appeals > written up by Herman or myself, there is a paragraph that says: > > Side appealing. > N/S appealed. > > or some such, so there is never a difficulty. > > So I suggest in future that France v Norway should mean that France is > N/S, and we always show who appealed in its own paragraph. > > Ah well, Rich Colker agreed with me! > And, just to prove that I am not a stubborn a**, I will do it like that in future. Don't ask me to change them all in this list, please ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 19:35:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:35:10 +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 TAA17544 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:35:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-86.uunet.be [194.7.145.86]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA14532 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:34:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378CB084.586DA24A@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:45:08 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Avg - (Please help) References: <$yfmecBNpIj3EwYe@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: > > > You could do worse than start with the EBU regulations, which are > comprehensive, comprehensible, legal and fair. > > We call it the White Book "The EBU Supplement to the EBL TD Guide" > -- Is this on-line ? Or does anyone have a text they can mail ? Or could the EBU be persuaded to send Ton and myself a copy ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 20:22:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:22:54 +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 UAA18221 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:22:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([212.140.84.23]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA62C3 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:22:12 +0100 Message-ID: <008401beceac$98497400$17548cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:26:20 +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 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: >David Martin wrote; > > >> ##### OLD #### On a related topic, one should be extremely careful of using >> complex simulated events to measure balance as matchpointing can produce >> distortions that can mask the real balance of the movement. Events with >an >> average field except for one expert pair are fine but putting in many >> different strength pairs produces complex results that require careful >> analysis. #### OLD ##### > >As I found out, with three expert pairs and three weak pairs, but poorly >designed score and seating inputs. > > I think this Monte Carlo approach might be useful: > >Let 2/3 of the pairs be of equal strength, always scoring 200 when the >board is their way. > >1/6 of the pairs are weak, with average scores quite a bit under 200 when >the board is their way, but a few good ones. Flip a die for each score (0, >90, 120, 200, 300, 400?) > >1/6 of the pairs are strong, with average scores quite a bit over 200 when >the board is their way, but a few bad ones. Flip a die for each score (0, >120, 200, 300, 400, 500?) > >Flip a coin for every board to decide whether N/S or E/W gets the plus >score if it's non-zero. > >Play 27 boards in a straight Mitchell with 9 tables, 18 pairs (nicely >divisible by 6) > >Seat all pairs randomly > >Now, switch the arrow on the last round (Probst), and then on the last two >rounds (Hanner) > >Repeat until satisfied that the results are meaningful, with one method or >the other clearly dominating, as measured by the variance of the average >pairs' scores. > >Would this be worth the effort involved? > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com ########## I have done quite a lot of simulations over the last three or four years to try and understand balance in bridge movements and the technique that I have found works best is to have three grades of player: Strong (S), Medium (M) and Weak (W). I then use the following rules for the scores between pairs: S Vs S = +80 S Vs M = +90 S Vs W = +120 M Vs S = +50 M Vs M = +80 M Vs W = +90 W Vs S = 0 (passed out) W Vs M = +50 W Vs W = +80 Whilst these simulations can shed some light on what is going on, they are usually complex and simple examples are almost always the most helpful (hence my comment above in the original posting). You can, however, produce some interesting situations, eg. by getting a medium player to beat the entire field when half of the field is strong, the rest is weak *and* the movement is properly balanced. To reiterate the point of my original posting though, the difficulty with complex simulations is in separating out the effects of movement imbalance from distortions caused by matchpointing (such as competition truncation). In many ways, it is like studying gravitational fields. That is, the gravitational field around a single spherical body is fairly easy to understand (eg, F=GMm/r**2) but the field produced by a combination of gravitational bodies acting on each other is far more difficult to understand and can only really be analysed by using much more complex and sophisticated vector/tensor mathematics. ############ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 21:28:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:28:24 +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 VAA18964 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:28:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA23702; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:27:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JDLFIIEVQ4001PD5@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:26:42 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GSYXJA>; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:26:41 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:26:38 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: NABC Casebook News To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1D3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Interesting this emphasis on appeals and the presentation. The Chicago-book has been printed already, I received a copy last month ('Looping in Chicago' probably a name created by Richard Colker, who edited this booklet and did a wonderful job; he would be my choice for the next 5 years of yearly appointments; I wait for the 'shut up' from Gary Blaiss). This case-book is especially interesting because it shows how AC's and even more some commentators tend to deviate from the laws; they seem to be guided more by intuition and feelings towards equity than by knowledge of the laws. That is why I have two suggestions: I fully support Kojak's idea to have a law-competent TD added to an AC (we told each other this everytime we met, for almost 20 years now; you remember that ambitious junior-TD in Valkenburg '80 in the teams-Olympiad?) The ACBL should open its windows towards the rest of the world and invite some almost-experts to join the group of commentators, a law expert and a senior member of the EBL-AC for example. Just a modest suggestion. It could be a contribution towards integration. It is my plan to use some of the Chicago-cases as examples in our Lausanne discussions. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Marvin L. French [mailto:mfrench1@san.rr.com] Verzonden: donderdag 15 juli 1999 4:27 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: NABC Casebook News For those interested, the following motion was passed at the Vancouver meeting of the BoD: ######## An Appeals Administrator shall be appointed annually by the president subject to the approval of the Board of Directors. The Administrator will have the responsibility of working with the Chief Tournament Director to compile an Appeals Casebook to be printed following each NABC. The book shall include selected cases from the three NABC's and any other significant cases from other events. It shall be the decision of the Appeals Administrator in conjunction with the Director of Appeals, the Chief Tournament Director and the President as to how many Appeals will be included in the book. The Administrator will be on-site for each NABC. If unable to attend, a substitute will be appointed by the president. The Administrator will work with the Daily Bulletin and the Chief Tournament Director at each NABC to produce write-ups of the results of bridge appeals committees including those heard by the Player Committees and the Tournament Director committees. The Commentators for the Appeals Casebook shall be selected by the Appeals Administrator, the Director of National Appeals and the Chief Tournament Director. Both player commentators and Tournament Directors will be included on the panel. Appeals in the Casebook will include those heard by the Tournament Director committees and those heard by the Player committees. Before publication, the Casebooks shall be reviewed by League Counsel and the Director of National Appeals. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 21:40:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:40:29 +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 VAA19089 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:40:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-149-195.uunet.be [194.7.149.195]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA19653 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:40:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378DB51B.AD3A8F71@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:16:59 +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: Fw: Avg - (Please help) References: <001e01bece19$fd78a8c0$7a718cd4@cmartin> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > Although the White Book is getting a little out of date, it does contain > much useful information including the EBU's method of calculating > non-balancing adjusted scores. These are basically treated as artificial > scores when the matchpoints for those players with real scores (or balancing > adjusted scores) are calculated. The frequency table so derived is then > used to calculate the matchpoints for the non-balancing > adjusted scores. > That method won't (always) work. What if one of the adjusted scores does not exist as a real score ? What result is then given to the adjusted score ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 22:11:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:11:43 +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 WAA19423 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:11:36 +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 IAA21006 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:24:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990715081212.0072944c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:12:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) In-Reply-To: <199907141752.MAA27968@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:52 PM 7/14/99 -0500, cfgcs wrote: > But here we part company. Herman's valiant efforts >notwithstanding, I cannot find anywhere in the laws where it says that >that I have no "right" to make bids that my partner doesn't understand, >whether on the second round of the auction or the first, whether in a >local novice game or the finals of the Bermuda Bowl. Of course I would be >happy with a rule in the CoC mandating such understandings in a major >event--but absent such a rule, I see no justification for a penalty. I would not be happy with such a rule for a "major event" unless it were confined solely to those events which require players to pre-qualify as set pairs or teams. For an ACBL player, that would mean the World Championship level. I have on many occasions played in the ACBL's top-level events, including the Vanderbilt, Spingold and Reisinger, in partnerships arranged within hours, sometimes minutes, before the game started. A rule "mandating such understandings" would have the practical effect of outlawing such partnerships. Even worse, it might make these events, which are nominally open or close to open, effectively closed even to non-pickup but non-expert partnerships. These are not effects to be desired. If the ACBL's NABC+ events were to require partnership agreements at a level beyond that which would be expected in a last-minute casual pickup partnership between players who have never played together before, I would no longer have any reason to attend NABCs, and I know a number of others who would feel the same way. 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 Jul 15 22:20:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:17:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from perkunas.omnitel.net (root@perkunas.omnitel.net [205.244.196.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19508 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:17:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from p2 (vl253-a4.ot.lt [195.22.176.163]) by perkunas.omnitel.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA09312 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:17:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by p2 with Microsoft Mail id <01BECECD.0B99D100@p2>; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:19:27 +-200 Message-ID: <01BECECD.0B99D100@p2> From: Vytautas Rekus To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: L45B (was Declarer's lead OOT from dummy) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:19:21 +-200 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 WAA19510 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, At first, L45B again (sentences numbered for later references): (1) Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. (2) In playing from dummy's hand declarer may, _if necessary_, pick up the desired card himself. Both (1) and (2) are correct procedures. Now, let's imagine, there's declarer's turn to play. If he names dummy's card, it's played (L45C4A). OOT. Dummy is helpless trying to avoid irregularity (even without pause). If declarer starts the "pick up by himself" process, moving his hand toward dummy, the dummy can prevent irregularity. Questions: 1. Does it mean, it's allways better for declarer use (2), to have some kind of insurance against OOT? 2. How should be interpreted "if necessary" from (2)? 3. Did I miss something? Rgds, Vy From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 15 23:07:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:07:21 +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 XAA19878 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:07:13 +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 JAA27597 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:19:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990715090750.006d07e0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:07:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <061d01bece7d$ee8ceec0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:50 PM 7/14/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >No need for that. Just say, "We have no special partnership agreement >concerning that call." If they persist, as they usually will, then call >the TD. > >Who, in these parts, will rule incorrectly, insisting that you must >explain the bid. > >Tell him (politely) that L75C does not say you should describe >"partnership experience," it says you should describe "special partnership >agreements." The word "special" is there for a reason. You may know from >partnership experience that he/she has a weak hand with a good seven-card >suit when he/she opens the bidding with 3x. There is nothing "special" >about that inference, which accords with "general knowledge and >experience," hence need not be disclosed. If on the other hand, you have >some *special* agreement about the opening (e.g., it denies an ace), that >agreement must be disclosed. But the doctrine of "implicit understandings" makes the distinction between "partnership experience" and "special partnership agreements" fuzzy enough to create an obligation to be forthcoming in these situations -- indeed, this is exactly the point of having such a thing. Rather than tell the TD anything, just tell your opponents what you know without worrying about some legalistic line between what you must divulge and what you can shelter behind "general bridge knowledge and experience". What harm will come from saying "we have no special agreement, but he usually has a good seven-card suit"? Granted, this probably can't be enforced (more's the pity); that's why it's come to fall under the rubric of "active ethics", but IMO it's simply proper full disclosure. It used to be commonplace for experienced partnerships who knew exactly what they were doing to reply to inquiries with "we have no agreement" or "it's just bridge, mister" when they could call partner's hand virtually card for card. Today we are supposed to understand that such behavior is ethically inappropriate. When someone says (or writes) "we may know from partnership experience that partner holds xxx, but the rules don't require us to tell this to our opponents" we learn again why "bridge lawyer" has come to have such pejorative connotations. 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 Jul 16 00:20:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:20:05 +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 AAA20066 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:19:56 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id cGPEa01259 (4397); Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:17:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8edf1181.24bf4791@aol.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:17:53 EDT Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) 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 7/15/99 12:18:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rbeye@worldnet.att.net writes: > HELLOOOOOOO. Anyone reading Law 40A lately. KKKKK......Yep. The problem being addressed in many circles is that players tend to play partial conventions. They know the first few calls, but wing it from there on, or expect their partner to work-it-out. With the partnership understandings that then are implicitly formed, they assign these to general bridge knowledge, and don't let the opponents in on it. I know a very highly rated player whose favorite words are "Not discussed." I see nothing wrong with Conditions of Contest using Law 40D to insist that part of using a convention is to know what a call means in that sequence. Had a cute one the other day. Lady said she was playing transfers, 1NT - P - 2D explained as transfer - P - 2NT - all pass. Seems that their bidding is simply that 2D shows a 5 card heart suit, and partner is free to do whatever she wishes. Would have been nice to know by the opponents that 2NT wasn't a part of the transfer convention. Bad players, but they were LMs. We've often discussed that the privilege of playing conventions carries with it the responsibility to know what they are. I fully agree that Law 40A gives me the right to get it wrong, psyche, make a mistake, etc., or just lay one on the table that isn't a part of our convention. How about 1NT-P-2D(transfer)-P-2H-P-3D Not discussed (truthfully)? I don't think this belongs in the Laws, remember clearly Edgar's warnings that this is properly in the realm of regulation by the SO and would open a Pandora's box. Notice I never used the words Convention Disruption........ Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 01:12:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 01:12:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f186.hotmail.com [207.82.251.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA20206 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 01:12:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 81599 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jul 1999 15:11:36 -0000 Message-ID: <19990715151136.81598.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:11:36 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: AC's and PP's (now Acronyms)ýY?¤*-ü¹?µ??ü·???³ü³???¸ü¦?f?® Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:11:36 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Schoderb@aol.com >In a message dated 7/14/99 12:31:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > > > You know, Kojak, you are beginning to use as many odd letter > > combinations as I do! > >Yeah, but mine are more obvious. YANSOA[1]? IGSO[2], M[3] [1] Yet Another Not So Obvious Acronym [2] In Great Silliness Only [3] Not going to expand this one. Sorry. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 01:32:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 01:32:06 +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 BAA20256 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 01:31:59 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id dZYGa14072 (8016); Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:30:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:30:01 EDT Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) 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 7/15/99 9:10:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com writes: > It used to be commonplace for experienced partnerships who knew exactly > what they were doing to reply to inquiries with "we have no agreement" or > "it's just bridge, mister" when they could call partner's hand virtually > card for card. Today we are supposed to understand that such behavior is > ethically inappropriate. When someone says (or writes) "we may know from > partnership experience that partner holds xxx, but the rules don't require > us to tell this to our opponents" we learn again why "bridge lawyer" has > come to have such pejorative connotations. KKKKK.....Wish I could write that well!.....Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 01:50:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 01:50:16 +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 BAA20297 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 01:50:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from bidule2 (portmp129.worldcom.ch [195.119.116.129]) by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA17280 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:48:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990715155051.006cf040@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:50:51 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:09 15.07.99 +0200, Anton wrote: >At 10:00 14-07-99 EDT, you wrote: >>In a message dated 7/13/99 9:33:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl writes: >> >>> The question is perhaps if this committee is governed by by 93B3 or 93C. >> Kojak here.......?????.. Is your rule book differently headed (not being >>sarcastic) than mine? My 93C deals with what happens AFTER an appeal to an >>AC. > > >Indeed, thats the problem. After this AC there is no higher appeal >possible (if i am right), so isnt this committee in fact replacing the NA >body, mentioned in 93C? That was what i wanted to state. If there IS in >fact another body where you can go to after the decision of this AC then i >have said nothing of course. > > Why would the TDs ruling be....... cancelled......... if 93C takes place? >>I believe a TDs ruling exists, and continues to exist until such time as it >>may be changed by an AC or higher level appeal authority. Just a nit picking >>point - if a TDs ruling is cancelled when an AC hears a case, then what is >>the appelant is appealing? > >I agree, but the point was (if i am not mistaken), if the AC was restricted >by 93B3. And if the committee is working under 93C then thats not the case >i think. The committee was working under 93C: "THE 44th GENERALI EUROPEAN BRIDGE CHAMPIONSHIPS 1999 RULES AND REGULATIONS" [...] "2.3 Judgement The Appeals Committee, also acting as the national authority as meant in Law 93.c. shall have the power [...]" (http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/BiB/static/files/Conditions%20of%20Contest/1999%2 0Generali%20Open%20and%20Womens%20Teams.pdf) Yvan Calame From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 03:18:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:18:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from rjintra1.rjf.com (rjintra1.rjf.com [170.12.99.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA20642 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:18:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from host (har-pa5-112.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.112]) by rjintra1.rjf.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id 38DPM73A; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:17:53 -0400 Message-ID: <008301becee6$58a104a0$7084d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:02:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While it is good to see that the ACBL is acting to ensure future casebooks, I have to question why they will not be publishing ALL of the NABC cases. Even if cost constraints might limit the printed version as to size (and I tend to doubt this) it costs little or nothing but keypunch time to at least place all the cases on the website. Of course the Appeals Administrator could elect to print ALL cases...perhaps the language is there to ward off lawsuit primarily, since I note that clearance by counsel is included in the pre-publication process. Can any knowledgeable parties comment on why we may be getting watered down casebooks in the future? I would think the ACBL could ill afford even the appearance of further star chamber proceedings, and publication is a good way to avoid this appearance. -- Craig Senior Marv wrote: >For those interested, the following motion was passed at the Vancouver meeting of the BoD: >An Appeals Administrator shall be appointed annually by the president >subject to the approval of the Board of Directors. >The Administrator will have the responsibility of working with the Chief >Tournament Director to compile an Appeals Casebook to be printed following >each NABC. >The book shall include selected cases from the three NABC's and any other >significant cases from other events. >It shall be the decision of the Appeals Administrator in conjunction with >the Director of Appeals, the Chief Tournament Director and the President >as to how many Appeals will be included in the book. >The Administrator will be on-site for each NABC. If unable to attend, a >substitute will be appointed by the president. >The Administrator will work with the Daily Bulletin and the Chief >Tournament Director at each NABC to produce write-ups of the results of >bridge appeals committees including those heard by the Player Committees >and the Tournament Director committees. >The Commentators for the Appeals Casebook shall be selected by the Appeals >Administrator, the Director of National Appeals and the Chief Tournament >Director. Both player commentators and Tournament Directors will be >included on the panel. >Appeals in the Casebook will include those heard by the Tournament >Director committees and those heard by the Player committees. >Before publication, the Casebooks shall be reviewed by League Counsel and >the Director of National Appeals. >Compensation for Appeals Administrator, non-ACBL-employee: >Round-trip airfare and transportation to and from airports for NABCs or >mileage and parking. The maximum reimbursement for mileage and parking >shall not exceedthe sum of airfare and transportation to and from the >airport. >Per diem at the same rate that members of the ACBL Board of Directors >receive not to exceed eleven (11) days. >Lodging at a host hotel not to exceed eleven (11) nights. >$1,750 per NABC for completed casebook. >Free plays at NABCs. >Carried. (6 votes against) > >The 1998 Reno Casebook is to be reviewed by the current Appeals >Adminstrator, Alan LeBendig and Val Covalcuic and will be printed as soon >as they approve. >The 1998 Chicago Casebook is to be printed as soon as possible. >The 1998 Orlando Casebook is to be printed as soon as the material becomes >available. >############ > >Comments:(BY MLF) > >-- I suppose the current Appeals Administrator is Rich Colker. He's okay, >but political appointments in general leave me cold. >-- I am surprised at the important role to be played by the Chief >Tournament Director (Gary Blaiss). >-- The Director of Appeals is Alan Le Bendig. >-- If a casebook is to be printed following each NABC, how can it be >reporting on three NABCs? >-- The Chicago casebook is out, but I haven't seen the other two yet. >-- I'm glad to see that TDs will be included on the casebook panels. Or is >that only David Stevenson? >-- Evidently we will never get to see cases that don't get into the >casebooks. We cannot therefore judge the overall performance of the >TDs/ACs, since we won't have the necessary data. > >Linda Trent, please comment! > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 04:26:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:26:01 +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 EAA20824 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:25:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([212.140.157.250]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAB7F1 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:25:19 +0100 Message-ID: <003b01becef0$170db600$fa9d8cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Fw: Avg - (Please help) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:25:34 +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 Herman wrote: >David Martin wrote: >> >> >> Although the White Book is getting a little out of date, it does contain >> much useful information including the EBU's method of calculating >> non-balancing adjusted scores. These are basically treated as artificial >> scores when the matchpoints for those players with real scores (or balancing >> adjusted scores) are calculated. The frequency table so derived is then >> used to calculate the matchpoints for the non-balancing >> adjusted scores. >> > >That method won't (always) work. > >What if one of the adjusted scores does not exist as a real >score ? > >What result is then given to the adjusted score ? > ######### When it lies between two real scores then the frequency of the lower score is added to the matchpoints for that score. The example quoted in the book is for a score of +430 when there are no +430s but FIVE +420s getting 4 mps each and TWO +450s getting 11 mps each. The +430 gets 9 mps, ie. FIVE + 4 or, alternatively, 11 - TWO. No score is allowed to be greater than a top or less than zero. ######## From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 05:21:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:21:19 +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 FAA20998 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:21:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.106]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990715192058.IPWC16747.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:20:58 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Avg - (Please help) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:20:56 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37983425.3446235@post12.tele.dk> References: <396b7ac.24bdef8d@aol.com> 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 FAA21002 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:18:46 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > The forthcoming EBU L&EC minutes will show that they have taken the >first step along the road to producing a new edition. I wonder which >mug will edit it? I hope and expect that it will be a person who can be relied upon to ensure that the result will be available on WWW and that BLML is informed when it is there :-) We're looking forward to it, David! -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 05:21:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:21:18 +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 FAA20997 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:21:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.106]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990715192103.IPWG16747.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:21:03 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: AC's and PP's Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:21:01 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <379b345d.3502135@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 FAA20999 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:49:56 EDT, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >I can almost buy that. Except for the fact that UI infractions and their >penalties are adequately covered in the Laws. It is, to me, a stretch of the >Laws to also make them subject to PPs. I don't see that as the meaning of >the Laws. Of course, ICBW. I agree completely. Several years ago, I had the experience of receiving UI from my partner in a situation where the UI clearly meant that I could not now lead a heart. I was a fairly experienced TD who knew L16 perfectly well. Nevertheless, I somehow got the situation reversed in my mind and believed that I _had_ to lead a heart. Fortunately, the lead made no difference at all, but I did feel very silly, and it taught me how easily players who "should know better" can get confused and do the wrong thing in a UI situation. I believe that abuse of UI is best reduced by consistent score adjustments and no PPs. Those who use UI deliberately will then hopefully realize that it is after all better to bid and play the legal contract than to receive the L12C2 score, and those who just do the wrong thing because they are confused or do not know the law will not feel accused of cheating. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 05:54:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:54:31 +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 FAA21138 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:54:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-25.pinehurst.net [12.20.137.231]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA07626; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:54:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <378E3CF3.AA9876F8@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:56:35 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News References: <056a01bece6a$1dad3b60$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It might take Linda a bit of time to reply to this message. She left Pinehurst yesterday on her way to her new home in Los Angeles. She will be enroute to San Antonio (driving) and then the Nationals. How often she will have a chance to check her email is at this time unknown. Of course, she never travels without her trusty computer. She's been a busy gal, packing, etc. to make this major move across the country!! Linda's Mom "Marvin L. French" wrote: > For those interested, the following motion was passed at the Vancouver > meeting of the BoD: > > ######## > An Appeals Administrator shall be appointed annually by the president > subject to the approval of the Board of Directors. > The Administrator will have the responsibility of working with the Chief > Tournament Director to compile an Appeals Casebook to be printed following > each NABC. > The book shall include selected cases from the three NABC's and any other > significant cases from other events. > It shall be the decision of the Appeals Administrator in conjunction with > the Director of Appeals, the Chief Tournament Director and the President > as to how many Appeals will be included in the book. > The Administrator will be on-site for each NABC. If unable to attend, a > substitute will be appointed by the president. > The Administrator will work with the Daily Bulletin and the Chief > Tournament Director at each NABC to produce write-ups of the results of > bridge appeals committees including those heard by the Player Committees > and the Tournament Director committees. > The Commentators for the Appeals Casebook shall be selected by the Appeals > Administrator, the Director of National Appeals and the Chief Tournament > Director. Both player commentators and Tournament Directors will be > included on the panel. > Appeals in the Casebook will include those heard by the Tournament > Director committees and those heard by the Player committees. > Before publication, the Casebooks shall be reviewed by League Counsel and > the Director of National Appeals. > Compensation for Appeals Administrator, non-ACBL-employee: > Round-trip airfare and transportation to and from airports for NABCs or > mileage and parking. The maximum reimbursement for mileage and parking > shall not exceedthe sum of airfare and transportation to and from the > airport. > Per diem at the same rate that members of the ACBL Board of Directors > receive not to exceed eleven (11) days. > Lodging at a host hotel not to exceed eleven (11) nights. > $1,750 per NABC for completed casebook. > Free plays at NABCs. > Carried. (6 votes against) > > The 1998 Reno Casebook is to be reviewed by the current Appeals > Adminstrator, Alan LeBendig and Val Covalcuic and will be printed as soon > as they approve. > The 1998 Chicago Casebook is to be printed as soon as possible. > The 1998 Orlando Casebook is to be printed as soon as the material becomes > available. > ############ > > Comments: > > -- I suppose the current Appeals Administrator is Rich Colker. He's okay, > but political appointments in general leave me cold. > -- I am surprised at the important role to be played by the Chief > Tournament Director (Gary Blaiss). > -- The Director of Appeals is Alan Le Bendig. > -- If a casebook is to be printed following each NABC, how can it be > reporting on three NABCs? > -- The Chicago casebook is out, but I haven't seen the other two yet. > -- I'm glad to see that TDs will be included on the casebook panels. Or is > that only David Stevenson? > -- Evidently we will never get to see cases that don't get into the > casebooks. We cannot therefore judge the overall performance of the > TDs/ACs, since we won't have the necessary data. > > Linda Trent, please comment! > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 06:24:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:31:50 +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 FAA21074 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:31:40 +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 114rDs-000BKS-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:31:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:28:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <1e0f58d2.24bdf1ea@aol.com> <3.0.5.32.19990715020905.00ada710@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990715020905.00ada710@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >At 10:00 14-07-99 EDT, you wrote: >>In a message dated 7/13/99 9:33:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl writes: >> >>> The question is perhaps if this committee is governed by by 93B3 or 93C. >> Kojak here.......?????.. Is your rule book differently headed (not being >>sarcastic) than mine? My 93C deals with what happens AFTER an appeal to an >>AC. > > >Indeed, thats the problem. After this AC there is no higher appeal >possible (if i am right), so isnt this committee in fact replacing the NA >body, mentioned in 93C? That was what i wanted to state. If there IS in >fact another body where you can go to after the decision of this AC then i >have said nothing of course. Sorry, that is not logical. The Law book allows for a ruling, then an appeal, and after that an appeal to the NA. If there is no normal appeal then there can be no appeal to the NA. You say that there is no appeal to the NA available. I am surprised over this, but assuming you are right, so what? That does not alter the Law book, which still requires an ordinary appeal before an appeal to the NA. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 07:25:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:31:36 +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 FAA21062 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:31:25 +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 114rDp-0006Sa-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:31:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:24:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <378C6E70.38A986D5@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <378C6E70.38A986D5@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Grattan wrote: >> >> > Whereupon Herman said: >> > I don't see it that way, Grattan. >> > >> > It is my task, among others, to inform the AC, if I feel the >> > need, of the Laws involved. Some members there are less >> > informed than myself about the actual wording of the Laws. >> >> +++ When were you allotted that duty, Herman? It is >> something you have arrogated to yourself and not your >> duty at all. Who are you to judge other members of the >> committee? +++ >> > >I saw this as my duty when I was sitting on Committee's with >Steen. >He told me as much. So, Herman is totally right to do so. He has been given an authority to do so. >Jens also told me that this was my function. ... and again. >Sadly I don't have a written statement to this effect. >If that means I have arrogated this, then I have just learnt >another new word in the English language. So have the rest of us, Herman. In the EBU there is a feeling that the main abilities that AC members need are judgement, bridge ability, fairness, and perhaps a few other qualities - but not knowledge of the Laws. If one member has a greater knowledge of the Laws than others it seems not unreasonable for his knowledge to be used. -- 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 Jul 16 07:30:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:31:28 +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 FAA21055 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:31:20 +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 114rDn-0006SZ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:31:08 +0000 Message-ID: <3RuWA0AT7dj3EwK+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:14:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <37886D4A.9C8AB60B@village.uunet.be> <3788BD9D.4AD83846@elnet.msk.ru> <3789C807.96FDCF03@village.uunet.be> <036801becce5$b78b7660$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <045101becd94$0d53c440$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <86SkKzAgxGj3Ew4i@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <05b501bece6e$9081c260$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <05b501bece6e$9081c260$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> You have lost me. >> >> We have two situations. >> >> In one situation, we adjust to a different contract because of an >> infraction, and you agree we change the number of tricks because "The >> card play is directly linked to the situation (changed level of >> contract)". >> >> In the earlier situation, we adjust to a different contract because of >> an infraction, and you do not agree we change the number of tricks >> because "The play of the cards by the NOS has no direct link to the >> situation brought about by the infraction". >> >> I don't see the difference. >> >> In my view, when you adjust to a different contract you cannot assume >> the number of tricks will be the same. >> >> You seem to say it is the same or not the same based on a criterion I >> do not understand at all. >> >As usual, Eric explains my view better than I could myself, so I'll let >his answer speak for me. Eric is talking about a different position. -- 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 Jul 16 08:10:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:10:24 +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 IAA21557 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:10:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA03760 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <066201becf0e$bbcb30a0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000701bece18$c6544120$b78993c3@pacific> Subject: Re: with pride Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:06:38 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote > What the WBFLC has done is to affirm that in the > case of consequent damage the scores of both sides > are adjusted whilst in the case of subsequent damage > the non-offending side must take the score but the > offending side is not entitled to gain from the > self-inflicted damage of its opponents and will have > an adjusted score. > There is no doubt in my mind, although it is not the > Committee's position (yet!), that this ruling needs to be > incorporated explicitly in the laws at the earliest > possible opportunity. It is unrealistic to think that > mere 'advices' will accomplish what we want universally; > fresh policiy in respect of law requires to be incorporated > in the law. If only to keep Jesper in line :-)) ++ Grattan ++ It's a shame that the interpretations of the WBF LC must be incorporated into the Laws in order to get them implemented everywhere. There ought to be an easier way. Since the ACBL Appeals Administrator (I think he is) Rich Colker has accepted this particular interpretation and will implement it henceforth, that is a surely an important step toward its universal adoption. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 08:20:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:51:26 +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 HAA21470 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:51:17 +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 114tPG-0008Ud-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:51:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:14:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L45B (was Declarer's lead OOT from dummy) References: <01BECECD.0B99D100@p2> In-Reply-To: <01BECECD.0B99D100@p2> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vytautas Rekus wrote: >At first, L45B again (sentences numbered for later references): > >(1) Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks >up the card and faces it on the table. > >(2) In playing from dummy's hand declarer may, _if necessary_, pick up the >desired card himself. > >Both (1) and (2) are correct procedures. Now, let's imagine, there's declarer's >turn to play. If he names dummy's card, it's played (L45C4A). OOT. Dummy is >helpless trying to avoid irregularity (even without pause). If declarer starts >the "pick up by himself" process, moving his hand toward dummy, the dummy can >prevent irregularity. > >Questions: > >1. Does it mean, it's allways better for declarer use (2), to have some kind of >insurance against OOT? Only if declarer is a Bridge Lawyer. We have no wish to have people using the Laws for their benefit. Fortunately, this would not qualify as "if necessary". >2. How should be interpreted "if necessary" from (2)? My understanding is the "if necessary" really applies in one of two cases only. Either because dummy is not present [Burn's rule: dummy goes to the bar] or because of some medical-type problem [eg, dummy is deaf]. "If necessary" does not mean the same as if declarer feels like it. >3. Did I miss something? I think you have missed the import of the wording. It used to be fairly standard practice at one time, and the WBFLC brought in a wording to disallow it except in commonsense situations. Presumable that meant they thought it was undesirable. -- 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 Jul 16 08:25:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:31:36 +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 FAA21061 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:31:25 +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 114rDs-0006SZ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:31:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:57:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <199907141543.LAA26870@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990714175504.007216dc@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990714175504.007216dc@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 11:43 AM 7/14/99 -0400, Steve wrote: > >>> From: David Stevenson >>> If [the AC] issue a PP or DP that is additional, and is >>> not overruling a Director: what they cannot do is to take a DP away >>> that a Director has given. >> >>May the AC issue a DP if the director has already decided not to issue >>one? This would seem to fall into the category of overruling, but the >>verb 'exercise' is ambiguous, I guess. Of course the AC can always >>achieve score penalties by using L90, but are they really empowered to >>suspend or disqualify a contestant if the TD hasn't done so? > >In the ACBL, an AC clearly does not have the power to suspend or >disqualify. They do, however, have the explicitly granted power to refer >matters that come before them to a Conduct & Ethics Committee, which does. Perhaps it is time we opened the Law book. In my view, the AC does have the powers of the TD. The Law book says so, and I do not believe that the ACBL say otherwise. Thus an ACBL AC [or any other AC] may: [1] Suspend the contestant for the current session or part thereof [2] Disqualify the contestant for cause, subject to approval by the Tournament Committee or SO. However, while the may suspend a contestant for the *current* session, in practice they do not hold appeals until the relevant session is over. So no such suspension is possible in practice. If a TD had a problem with a player, and managed to get an AC to meet during a session, then the AC could suspend the contestant if necessary. Could I imagine this ever happening? Yes, if the TD has a situation where he knows that one of two people has created an untenable situation, but does not know which side is at fault, perhaps he could get an AC to assist him. Very rare, but possible, and legal. In the ACBL he would probably try to convene a C&E committee rather than an AC. Disqualification, however, requires further approval, so an AC could not do that without further approval. It is up to the SO to decide how such approval would be sought [or granted]. EBU TDs in EBU events have approval given them in advance, so I can disqualify a player *in an EBU event* without requiring further approval. In a WBU event, or a County event, I need further approval. Clearly the ACBL has told their ACs to refer to a C&E committee, which is in effect the SO as defined in [2]. -- 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 Jul 16 08:32:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:32:54 +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 IAA21608 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:32:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-239-15.s269.tnt2.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.239.15]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA16252 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:39:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00db01becf11$b8c0f680$0fef7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <01BECECD.0B99D100@p2> Subject: Re: L45B (was Declarer's lead OOT from dummy) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:30:56 -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: Vytautas Rekus To: 'Bridge Laws' Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 12:19 PM Subject: L45B (was Declarer's lead OOT from dummy) > Hi all, > > At first, L45B again (sentences numbered for later references): > > (1) Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. > > (2) In playing from dummy's hand declarer may, _if necessary_, pick up the desired card himself. > > Both (1) and (2) are correct procedures. Now, let's imagine, there's declarer's turn to play. If he names dummy's card, it's played (L45C4A). OOT. Dummy is helpless trying to avoid irregularity (even without pause). If declarer starts the "pick up by himself" process, moving his hand toward dummy, the dummy can prevent irregularity. > > Questions: > > 1. Does it mean, it's allways better for declarer use (2), to have some kind of insurance against OOT? Declarer can always ask "Where is the lead?" Of course, if this happens enough times, we may actually have a legitimate use for L74B1. IMO Declarer should not reach for a card from Dummy if Dummy is at the table, since it is not necessary unless a physical handicap prevents Dummy from doing so. > 2. How should be interpreted "if necessary" from (2)? "If necessary" would apply if Dummy were not at the table. While it is highly desireable for Dummy to stay at the table througout the hand, sometimes Dummy's bladder or a table requirement for a round of drinks creates a higher urgency. Particularly in games where the TD cleans up afterwards, I tend to be extremely lenient about letting Dummy leave the table, especially when Dummy's knees are held together tightly. > 3. Did I miss something? > IMO (1) is the correct procedure when Dummy is at the table, and (2) is the correct procedure when Dummy is not (with some exceptions in both cases). Since reaching for Dummy's card with Dummy at the table is not necessary, Declarer cannot take OOT insurance by doing this (again IMO). However, Dummy's right to prevent an irregularity does not necessarily mean that he has to see Declarer about to commit an irregularity before he can act. IMO L42B2 makes it legal for Dummy to tell Declarer which hand he is in on a routine basis. Such a statement by Dummy ("The lead is in your hand" or "The lead is in Dummy") has no purpose other than to prevent a lead from the wrong hand by Declarer. Perfectly legal OOT insurance. > Rgds, > Vy Best wishes, Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 09:06:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:06:31 +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 JAA21766 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:06:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-2-15.ac.net [205.138.47.74]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id TAA19738 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:06:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:20:22 -0700 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <01becd87$30a2b080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is my understanding that when a hand goes to appeal, it is a hand without a result until the Committee assigns one. There is no such thing as either "upholding" or "overturning" a Director's ruling. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 09:06:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:06:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21765 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:06:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-2-15.ac.net [205.138.47.74]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id TAA19734 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:06:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:17:38 -0700 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When I scribe an ACBL NAC case, it's as if I was a court reporter that simply records what has happened. Of course the report is reviewed with the Committee Chairman, but I have personally preempted (well-intentioned, of course) any attempt to "add" something after the fact. If Laws aren't quoted and mentioned, then they aren't reported. Period. If Law references are added to help the reading public, then we annotate them as an editorial addition. After all, shouldn't any good Chair review the laws, in every case, no matter how mundane? We have had a problem with scribes (and sometimes Committee Chairs) who know a little to much and try to fix sloppy things after the fact. The only way we get better is to live with egg that sometimes gets on our faces. I think it is very, very wrong for any scribe (Committee member or not) to put anything in any report that was not specifically mentioned in the hearing. How else can we know how well the Chair and committee is doing their job? Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 09:14:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:14:48 +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 JAA21809 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:14:41 +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 TAA24914 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA28380 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:14:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:14:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907152314.TAA28380@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L45B (was Declarer's lead OOT from dummy) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > "If necessary" does not mean the same as if declarer feels like it. In fact, the text was changed in 1987. Before that, the wording in L45B was "if he prefers." I think it's fair to guess :-) that the change was intentional and that (as David says) the new language means something different from the old. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 09:34:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:51:27 +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 HAA21471 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:51:18 +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 114tPJ-0008Um-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:51:10 +0000 Message-ID: <8Pf0XEAV8jj3EwLM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:05:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <061d01bece7d$ee8ceec0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990715090750.006d07e0@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990715090750.006d07e0@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:50 PM 7/14/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: > >>No need for that. Just say, "We have no special partnership agreement >>concerning that call." If they persist, as they usually will, then call >>the TD. >> >>Who, in these parts, will rule incorrectly, insisting that you must >>explain the bid. >> >>Tell him (politely) that L75C does not say you should describe >>"partnership experience," it says you should describe "special partnership >>agreements." The word "special" is there for a reason. You may know from >>partnership experience that he/she has a weak hand with a good seven-card >>suit when he/she opens the bidding with 3x. There is nothing "special" >>about that inference, which accords with "general knowledge and >>experience," hence need not be disclosed. If on the other hand, you have >>some *special* agreement about the opening (e.g., it denies an ace), that >>agreement must be disclosed. > >But the doctrine of "implicit understandings" makes the distinction between >"partnership experience" and "special partnership agreements" fuzzy enough >to create an obligation to be forthcoming in these situations -- indeed, >this is exactly the point of having such a thing. Rather than tell the TD >anything, just tell your opponents what you know without worrying about >some legalistic line between what you must divulge and what you can shelter >behind "general bridge knowledge and experience". What harm will come from >saying "we have no special agreement, but he usually has a good seven-card >suit"? > >Granted, this probably can't be enforced (more's the pity); that's why it's >come to fall under the rubric of "active ethics", but IMO it's simply >proper full disclosure. Actually, Marvin's example is interesting. My general experience is that with many players a good seven-card suit is unusual for a three- level opening. There is no doubt that if Marvin has an agreement that a three-opening shows a good seven-card suit, that is a special agreement, not a matter of general bridge knowledge. -- 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 Jul 16 09:34:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:34:31 +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 JAA21885 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:34:24 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id qMOTa26563 (4262); Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <47100d87.24bfc9b8@aol.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:33:12 EDT Subject: Re: L45B (was Declarer's lead OOT from dummy) 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 7/15/99 6:22:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > think you have missed the import of the wording. It used to be > fairly standard practice at one time, and the WBFLC brought in a wording > to disallow it except in commonsense situations. Presumable that meant > they thought it was undesirable. > KKKKK...... It was also included by request of the Portland Club, who had a major role in the development of the Laws, unsupported by their use, understanding, or knowledge of them. Ther was a long time effort to get the Rubber (Portland Club) and Duplicate (the rest of humanity) as close to the same as possible. ....Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 09:40:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:40:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21947 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:39:52 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id 3RCKa29192 (4262); Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:36:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <78140b89.24bfca62@aol.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:36:02 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals To: lobo@ac.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 7/15/99 7:07:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lobo@ac.net writes: > I think it is very, very wrong for any scribe (Committee member or not) to > put anything in any report that was not specifically mentioned in the > hearing. How else can we know how well the Chair and committee is doing > their job? > > Linda > KKKKK.....HEAR, HEAR!!!!!!!!! Also a good argument for putting ALL the appeals into the book........Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 10:28:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:37:05 +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 JAA21921 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:36:55 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id qAIDa22617 (4262); Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:31:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <11f47e80.24bfc940@aol.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:31:12 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals 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 7/15/99 5:27:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > If one member has a greater > knowledge of the Laws than others it seems not unreasonable for his > knowledge to be used. >From recent events, this doesn't seem to be the quality that Herman possesses. With the persons in attendance at Malta, the EBL would be much better served by using their expertise. IMO. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 10:41:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:41:53 +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 KAA22110 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:41:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (ptp239.ac.net [205.138.55.148]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id UAA28943 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907160041.UAA28943@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:40:30 -0700 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News In-Reply-To: <056a01bece6a$1dad3b60$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >-- I suppose the current Appeals Administrator is Rich Colker. He's okay, >but political appointments in general leave me cold. The Appeals Administrator function was assumed by management. Rich Colker was hired for this position last May. >-- I am surprised at the important role to be played by the Chief >Tournament Director (Gary Blaiss). speaking of politics.... >-- The Director of Appeals is Alan Le Bendig. Wrong. This year it is Ray Raskin. President appoints this position every year. LeBendig is reviewing Reno because he was the Director in 1998. OUr current director would probably vote to get rid of appeals completely if he were given the chance. >-- If a casebook is to be printed following each NABC, how can it be >reporting on three NABCs? There will be three books - printed before each NABC from TWO NABC's ago. ie: "Mickey Mouse (and Goofy) Happenings in Orlando" should be ready to hand out in San Antonio. >-- The Chicago casebook is out, but I haven't seen the other two yet. >-- I'm glad to see that TDs will be included on the casebook panels. Or is >that only David Stevenson? There have been more invited for Vancouver. We'll see if we hear from them. >-- Evidently we will never get to see cases that don't get into the >casebooks. We cannot therefore judge the overall performance of the >TDs/ACs, since we won't have the necessary data. As far as Rich and I are concerned SELECTED CASES = ALL THE CASES and every casebook I have been involved with has included all the cases - There has long been "political" discussion that to cut down cost, only the "interesting" cases be included in the case book. My counter has always been: 1. Who gets appointed king to decided what "interesting" means? 2. There have not been more than 1 or 2 cases that have scored 100 with the panel, so that means there must be something "interesting" to someone in each case. 3. If we happen to get a 100 score from the panel, then that is a case that for sure should be published because it must be a sterling performance that should be read by all. 4. How can the casebooks have any integrity if there is any hint of political tampering? You can trust me on this - if there is ever a case that is heard by an NABC that is politically removed from a casebook, then I will no longer participate in the process. Rich would have big problems, too - And - all the cases will never be in the Daily Bulletins at NABC's. For one, it is physically impossible and for another when we hit 40 appeals at an NABC the average bridge player isn't interested. It's also dangerous to publish them without the commentary because those that aren't knowledgeable may think that these are statements of correct findings by committees and directors. The ones that are published are just the ones that get done in time. Occasionaly (but not often - I can only think of three right now) we will push a little harder to get one done and in the Bulletin if we think we need to - (the oh, sh** case comes to mind). I even object to that somewhat, because I think it should be random - when they get through the system, the get published. I hate the feeding frenzies that seem to start themselves before all the facts are known and would prefer to not be "shark driven" to have to answer. Linda >Linda Trent, please comment! > Live from Gulfport, Mississippi (planning to be in San Antonio in a couple days - 750 miles down, about 600 to go!) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 10:43:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:43:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22124 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:43:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (ptp239.ac.net [205.138.55.148]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id UAA29041 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907160042.UAA29041@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:49:50 -0700 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >[1] In the AC's view, there was a hesitation >[2] In the AC's view, there was no hesitation >[3] The AC will take the TD's decision as to whether there was a >hesitation > > In effect, if they decide [3], then they are not saying either that >there was or there wasn't a hesitation: they merely uphold the >Director's ruling. If they had to decide without knowing the TD's >ruling then they might have come to a different conclusion. > Well, the TD's ruling are part of the facts. My experience has been that usually (make that *almost always*) the Committee has no reason to believe the facts are other than as the table director found them to be. That doesn't have anything to do with the director's ruling. A Committee can completly agree with the facts as found by the table director but make a completly different decision based on the same fact set. I also think that when a committee does take (3) they ARE saying that there was (or wasn't) a hesitation. They are not "upholding" anything - they are accepting the directors fact finding as proper, accurate, and correct due to lack of evidence to the contrary. You will notice that in any ACBL appeals reports that the committees decision is never stated in relation to the directors ruling. There is no result on the hand until the Committee decides one. We use terms like "the contract was changed" even if it is changed to the same contract the director changed the board to, or "the table result is was allowed to stand" even if the director did the same thing. Does the Chief TD notify the scoring room that a board has no result? No, because there is a chance that the change that has been already been made may indeed be the same as what the Committee will decide (that is sort of our goal, isn't it?) so why create extra work erasing results and then replacing them with the same thing? It is also clearly stated that results are not official until all appeals are heard. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 10:45:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:45:46 +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 KAA22144 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:45:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (ptp239.ac.net [205.138.55.148]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id UAA29239 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:45:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907160045.UAA29239@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:52:20 -0700 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: with pride Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >It's a shame that the interpretations of the WBF LC must be incorporated >into the Laws in order to get them implemented everywhere. There ought to >be an easier way. Since the ACBL Appeals Administrator (I think he is) >Rich Colker has accepted this particular interpretation and will implement >it henceforth, that is a surely an important step toward its universal >adoption. Well, actually, the ACBL Laws Commission agreed with the WBF interpretation which is why Rich has advised the NAC that this is how damage adjustments should be handled. Of course, this had been one of Rich's pet peeves for years and I know he was pleased when the WBF issued this interpretation. Rich doesn't accept anything until the ACBL Laws Commission approves. Linda > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 10:52:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:00:59 +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 JAA21722 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:00:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA13140 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <069901becf15$caef5d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <008301becee6$58a104a0$7084d9ce@host> Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:54:35 -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: > While it is good to see that the ACBL is acting to ensure future > casebooks, I have to question why they will not be publishing ALL of the > NABC cases. Even if cost constraints might limit the printed version as to > size (and I tend to doubt this) it costs little or nothing but keypunch time > to at least place all the cases on the website. I think Linda Trent and Rich Colker would tell you that preparing a scribe's scribblings into a decent write-up suitable for publishing is quite a large job. There is language to be checked, inconsistencies and omissions to be resolved, etc. This problem could be alleviated if a "professional scribe" could be included on all ACs and do a decent job right off. From what I see, an AC meets, the chair asks "Who wants to be scribe?" (or he does it himself) and off they go. The pro scribe could ensure that accurate law references are included, among other things. The appeals from senior games are not published, except for major championships, as not being worthy of attention. Who cares about those old geeks? Their appeals are heard by ad hoc committees (maybe TDs now, I don't know), not by the ACBL AC organization. I seem to remember that the TD appeal committees will not have their decisions published. The Chicago casebook included 8 cases from the World Bridge Championships. With all the discussions BLML had on those, I would have preferred that the space and effort be taken up by more ACBL decisions. > > Of course the Appeals Administrator could elect to print ALL > cases...perhaps the language is there to ward off lawsuit primarily, since I > note that clearance by counsel is included in the pre-publication > process. > > Can any knowledgeable parties comment on why we may be getting watered > down casebooks in the future? I would think the ACBL could ill afford even > the appearance of further star chamber proceedings, and publication is a > good way to avoid this appearance. > I would like to see all cases of interest published, but not the no-brainers (which should be screened, anyway) in unimportant games. The fear is that decisions that would look bad in print, or would embarass some influential person, won't get published. With Rich Colker at the helm I doubt that will happen, and I hope he has the final say. Surely every AC decision in an NABC+ event should get published. As to the makeup of the commenting panel, while it is good to have at a member of the AC staff included, I don't think he should vote on the suitability of a decision if he was on the AC in question. Maybe that's a ground rule, I dunno. Those rating votes are pretty meaningless anyway, once you see how they're done. Maybe David Stevenson will evaluate that aspect of the casebook for us. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 11:30:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:37:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21920 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:36:54 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id 3RWJa29192 (4262); Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7a51d008.24bfca3c@aol.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:35:24 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals To: lobo@ac.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 7/15/99 7:07:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lobo@ac.net writes: > It is my understanding that when a hand goes to appeal, it is a hand > without a result until the Committee assigns one. > > There is no such thing as either "upholding" or "overturning" a Director's > ruling. > KKKKK........... I can't agree any longer. When TDs were book carrying caddies that made sense. But with the advent of imtelligent rulings by TDs that is no longer true. Further, in order to get the AC's off their collective butts and get them to study the problem, we came up with the idea that their work is separate from the TDs. I believe that is no longer true. TD rulings, at least in WBF, are made using the collective wisdom of the staff, players, and experts in systems., etc.... so when they are appealed the AC is faced not with some nice guy's opinion, but with a decision arrived at through lots of insight and work by people just as knowledgeable tas they are. It is true that the Committee may decide to discard the ruling of the TD and substitute one of a different nature, but the TDs ruling "lives" until the AC finds otherwise. I would hope ACBL has matured to this concept.........Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 11:41:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:41:39 +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 LAA22281 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:41:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.22]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA03336 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907160141.VAA23876@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <8Pf0XEAV8jj3EwLM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> (message from David Stevenson on Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:05:41 +0100) Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenon writes: >> At 09:50 PM 7/14/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >>> Tell him (politely) that L75C does not say you should describe >>> "partnership experience," it says you should describe "special partnership >>> agreements." The word "special" is there for a reason. You may know from >>> partnership experience that he/she has a weak hand with a good seven-card >>> suit when he/she opens the bidding with 3x. There is nothing "special" >>> about that inference, which accords with "general knowledge and >>> experience," hence need not be disclosed. If on the other hand, you have >>> some *special* agreement about the opening (e.g., it denies an ace), that >>> agreement must be disclosed. > Actually, Marvin's example is interesting. My general experience is > that with many players a good seven-card suit is unusual for a three- > level opening. There is no doubt that if Marvin has an agreement that > a three-opening shows a good seven-card suit, that is a special > agreement, not a matter of general bridge knowledge. And, in fact, this is prescribed on the ACBL convention card itself. If your three-level preempt usually shows a good seven-card suit, even not vulnerable, then you check the box "sound preempts" on your convention card. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 11:42:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:45:46 +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 JAA21995 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:45:34 +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 TAA27347 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:45:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA28443 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:45:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:45:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907152345.TAA28443@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Malta Appeals X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A useful juxtaposition here. From: David Stevenson > In my view, the AC does have the powers of the TD. The Law book says > so, and I do not believe that the ACBL say otherwise. > > Thus an ACBL AC [or any other AC] may: > > [1] Suspend the contestant for the current session or part thereof > [2] Disqualify the contestant for cause, subject to approval by the > Tournament Committee or SO. From: Linda Trent > It is my understanding that when a hand goes to appeal, it is a hand > without a result until the Committee assigns one. > > There is no such thing as either "upholding" or "overturning" a Director's > ruling. [Hope you are doing OK on the road, Linda. It's a long trip.] If we adopt Linda's interpretation, a TD who has not fined (DP), suspended, or disqualified a contestant has made no ruling on a disciplinary matter. In that case, as David says, the AC is free to make its own ruling under L93B3 and L91. If we adopt the alternate approach that some have recommended, where the TD's ruling is in effect unless and until an AC changes it, the TD _has_ ruled on disciplinary matters. (He has ruled that no DP/ suspension/disqualification is warranted.) In that case, because the AC cannot overrule him, it cannot exercise L91 powers. The difference in the two interpretations of what the AC does to the TD's ruling is thus a little more than semantic. I suspect the _practical_ difference is nil. An AC can always give a fine in points under L90. And would a TD ever refuse to suspend or disqualify a contestant if an AC recommended that he do so? Still, I think Linda's interpretation makes more sense, aside from giving the AC the authority David says it has. Another example is an ACBL rule in Swiss team games, where if there is an appeal, each team is paired for future rounds on the basis that it will win the appeal, not on the basis of the TD ruling. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 12:46:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:46:12 +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 MAA22389 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:46:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.144.193]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19990716024828.NLPX956294.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:48:28 +1200 Message-ID: <378E9C36.41A046F@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:43:02 +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: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <061d01bece7d$ee8ceec0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990715090750.006d07e0@pop.cais.com> <8Pf0XEAV8jj3EwLM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Eric Landau wrote: > >At 09:50 PM 7/14/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: > > > >>No need for that. Just say, "We have no special partnership agreement > >>concerning that call." If they persist, as they usually will, then call > >>the TD. > >> > >>Who, in these parts, will rule incorrectly, insisting that you must > >>explain the bid. > >> > >>Tell him (politely) that L75C does not say you should describe > >>"partnership experience," it says you should describe "special partnership > >>agreements." The word "special" is there for a reason. You may know from > >>partnership experience that he/she has a weak hand with a good seven-card > >>suit when he/she opens the bidding with 3x. There is nothing "special" > >>about that inference, which accords with "general knowledge and > >>experience," hence need not be disclosed. If on the other hand, you have > >>some *special* agreement about the opening (e.g., it denies an ace), that > >>agreement must be disclosed. > > > >But the doctrine of "implicit understandings" makes the distinction between > >"partnership experience" and "special partnership agreements" fuzzy enough > >to create an obligation to be forthcoming in these situations -- indeed, > >this is exactly the point of having such a thing. Rather than tell the TD > >anything, just tell your opponents what you know without worrying about > >some legalistic line between what you must divulge and what you can shelter > >behind "general bridge knowledge and experience". What harm will come from > >saying "we have no special agreement, but he usually has a good seven-card > >suit"? > > > >Granted, this probably can't be enforced (more's the pity); that's why it's > >come to fall under the rubric of "active ethics", but IMO it's simply > >proper full disclosure. > > Actually, Marvin's example is interesting. My general experience is > that with many players a good seven-card suit is unusual for a three- > level opening. There is no doubt that if Marvin has an agreement that > a three-opening shows a good seven-card suit, that is a special > agreement, not a matter of general bridge knowledge. > > -- > 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 ~ Right. Partner opens 3C. RHO: "Can that be a six card suit?" Me: "Sometimes he has as many as six" Wayne mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 13:11:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:11:18 +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 NAA22446 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:11:10 +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 114yOp-000OOn-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:11:01 +0000 Message-ID: <3vi3tzAZ5pj3EwJc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:52:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <01becd87$30a2b080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: >It is my understanding that when a hand goes to appeal, it is a hand >without a result until the Committee assigns one. > >There is no such thing as either "upholding" or "overturning" a Director's >ruling. As you will see from other posts, you are in a minority. I think that commonsense requires there to be a ruling so that results can be calculated and various other procedures followed. I do not see any advantage in a sort of void occurring after an appeal. Furthermore, there is no legal justification for this. The Laws say that there may be an appeal against a Director's ruling, not there is an appeal against a sort of non-event, so the Laws clearly envision that the ruling is in existence. Furthermore, some appeals do decide to uphold the Director's ruling: there were some at Orlando, and some at Vancouver: how can they uphold something that does not exist? PWD [just to keep Kojak happy] -- 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 Jul 16 13:11:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:11:35 +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 NAA22453 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:11:28 +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 114yOt-000OOm-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:11:17 +0000 Message-ID: <0PR3V3AX7pj3EwKj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:54:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <11f47e80.24bfc940@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <11f47e80.24bfc940@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 7/15/99 5:27:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > >> If one member has a greater >> knowledge of the Laws than others it seems not unreasonable for his >> knowledge to be used. > >From recent events, this doesn't seem to be the quality that Herman >possesses. With the persons in attendance at Malta, the EBL would be much >better served by using their expertise. IMO. It was a theoretical comment. I would hate anyone to read into it that I was actually commenting on the personnel in Malta: I did not intend to say 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 Fri Jul 16 16:16:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:16:32 +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 QAA22730 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:16:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA28499 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:16:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <06c001becf52$9c483b80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990715090750.006d07e0@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:12:36 -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: > > But the doctrine of "implicit understandings" makes the distinction between > "partnership experience" and "special partnership agreements" fuzzy enough > to create an obligation to be forthcoming in these situations -- indeed, > this is exactly the point of having such a thing. Rather than tell the TD > anything, just tell your opponents what you know without worrying about > some legalistic line between what you must divulge and what you can shelter > behind "general bridge knowledge and experience". What harm will come from > saying "we have no special agreement, but he usually has a good seven-card > suit"? Ah, I'm ready for that one! I am glad to explain my partner's bids, whether or not they are subject to a special partnership agreement, if the questioner is a novice or someone from a foreign land who may have different bidding methods than ours. But when a life master asks, "What does that bid mean?" after I open 1D and it goes 1D-1H-3S-P; Pass by me, I reply that we have no special partnership agreement about the bid. This happened some years ago, and was the occasion for a big brouhaha with the TD (I'm milder now, with ZT and all), who said I must explain the 3S bid. I refused, considering the instruction illegal, per L75C. "You explain it, I'm not going to." I forget what happened, but I never did explain that 3S was a weak preemptive response. No, my partner had never made that bid before with me, and we had never discussed it. I don't think that matters, when you read L75C. I treasure a little postcard from Edgar Kaplan agreeing with me on this. Last year, same preemptive response. TD Max Hardy called to table. He asks the opponents, "Did Marvin Alert?" "No." "Then it must be weak, preemptive," and he walks away. Not a bad solution, Max, if a little illegal. I had discussed this situation with him a while back, so he knew I was in the right and came up with a pragmatic way of handling it. Good PR. So why don't I just explain what bids mean? What's the problem? This: My partner often doesn't have a clear knowledge of what a bid means or the strength it implies. If I explain a bid unnecessarily, that is UI which can tie partner's hands in the remaining auction or play. For instance, if he/she had made a 3S bid with seven spades AKQ, confusing that with an opening 3S bid, my explanation would expose the mistake. He/she might want to bid 4S over an opposing 4H. If I have not explained the 3S bid, he/she is free to bid 4S. But if I have said it is very weak, preemptive, passing 4H is an LA that partner must take. Not a good example, maybe, but don't quibble. Given time, I could come up with a better one. Similarly, I tell such partners not to answer a question about a call of mine that is not the subject of a partnership agreement. Why? Because the explanation is inevitably a little off, sometimes a lot off, from what I understand about the bid (from general knowledge and experience) and it becomes UI that restrains my subsequent actions. Why should we have to produce UI when it is not required that we do so???? It only leads to problems. And then there is the "pro question." The bidding goes 1H by pro on my right, I double, 1NT by client, pass by partner, 2H-P-P-2NT by partner. Now, the whole world knows, and pro knows, that this is unusual notrump, probably with a weak 4-4 in the minors. However, pro, who has no intention of bidding further but is afraid client might be intimidated by the 2NT bid, asks what the bid means. I respond that we have no agreement concerning that call, but she insists. So I call the TD, and he says I must explain what 2NT means. The rest is ugly, but you get my drift. > Granted, this probably can't be enforced (more's the pity); that's why it's > come to fall under the rubric of "active ethics", but IMO it's simply > proper full disclosure. It is not "active ethics" to explain a call that the Laws say need not be explained. It is foolishness. I could also bring up L20F1, which says that individual calls should not be questioned. Since that has been confirmed by the WBFLC (in timid fashion), I say no more. > > It used to be commonplace for experienced partnerships who knew exactly > what they were doing to reply to inquiries with "we have no agreement" or > "it's just bridge, mister" when they could call partner's hand virtually > card for card. Today we are supposed to understand that such behavior is > ethically inappropriate. "Virtually card for card," "supposed to understand"? It's hard to formulate a reply to expressions like this. If there is a special partnership agreement, it must be disclosed. My partner's 3S bid mentioned above was with S-QJ10xxxx H-xx D-xx C-xx, "card for card" what I would expect, literally, not virtually. And not disclosable. >When someone says (or writes) "we may know from > partnership experience that partner holds xxx, but the rules don't require > us to tell this to our opponents" we learn again why "bridge lawyer" has > come to have such pejorative connotations. > Get the Laws changed if you don't like them, Eric. How about a new Law: "If an opponent wants a bridge lesson, it must be given." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 16:46:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:46:51 +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 QAA22786 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:46:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA01500 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:46:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <06f801becf56$dbfa3ea0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <061d01bece7d$ee8ceec0$f5075e18@san.rr.com><3.0.1.32.19990715090750.006d07e0@pop.cais.com> <8Pf0XEAV8jj3EwLM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:36:31 -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 > Actually, Marvin's example is interesting. My general experience is > that with many players a good seven-card suit is unusual for a three- > level opening. There is no doubt that if Marvin has an agreement that > a three-opening shows a good seven-card suit, that is a special > agreement, not a matter of general bridge knowledge. > > It is usual in these parts, where the majority of players still bid according to the rule of 2 and 3, which has been a matter of general bridge knowledge for about 60 years. It is an agreement of sorts, but there is nothing special about it. Playing in an individual, I would assume partner had that sort of hand when he/she opens 3x (unless he/she is a pro, of course, or I am playing in Wales). What is intended by L75D2, "he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience" if every call my partner makes must be explained? Why is this language there, if it is meaningless? Why does L75 use the word "special" if every agreement is special? Get Grattan et al to strike it out on the next go-round. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 17:17:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:17:06 +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 RAA22849 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:16:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA04140 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <072801becf5b$14ecf640$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907160141.VAA23876@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:09:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > David Stevenon writes: > > >> At 09:50 PM 7/14/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: > > >>> Tell him (politely) that L75C does not say you should describe > >>> "partnership experience," it says you should describe "special partnership > >>> agreements." The word "special" is there for a reason. You may know from > >>> partnership experience that he/she has a weak hand with a good seven-card > >>> suit when he/she opens the bidding with 3x. There is nothing "special" > >>> about that inference, which accords with "general knowledge and > >>> experience," hence need not be disclosed. If on the other hand, you have > >>> some *special* agreement about the opening (e.g., it denies an ace), that > >>> agreement must be disclosed. > > > Actually, Marvin's example is interesting. My general experience is > > that with many players a good seven-card suit is unusual for a three- > > level opening. There is no doubt that if Marvin has an agreement that > > a three-opening shows a good seven-card suit, that is a special > > agreement, not a matter of general bridge knowledge. > > And, in fact, this is prescribed on the ACBL convention card itself. If > your three-level preempt usually shows a good seven-card suit, even not > vulnerable, then you check the box "sound preempts" on your convention > card. > Of course, and this is all the disclosure required unless there is some "special partnership agreement." Not every partnership agreement shown on the card is a *special* partnership agreement. That's SPECIAL, S-P-E-C-I-A-L, it is not a meaningless word. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 17:34:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:34:28 +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 RAA22883 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:34:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA02829; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:34:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JDMLO13SN0001VO1@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:33:44 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GSZB5V>; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:33:44 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:33:42 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Malta Appeals To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1D6@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 -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Verzonden: donderdag 15 juli 1999 15:25 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: Malta Appeals Herman De Wael wrote: >Grattan wrote: >> >> > Whereupon Herman said: >> > I don't see it that way, Grattan. >> > >> > It is my task, among others, to inform the AC, if I feel the >> > need, of the Laws involved. Some members there are less >> > informed than myself about the actual wording of the Laws. >> >> +++ When were you allotted that duty, Herman? It is >> something you have arrogated to yourself and not your >> duty at all. Who are you to judge other members of the >> committee? +++ >> > >I saw this as my duty when I was sitting on Committee's with >Steen. >He told me as much. So, Herman is totally right to do so. He has been given an authority to do so. Grattan must have misunderstood Herman's statement. It is everybody's duty to bring in all his qualities acting as a member of an AC (it certainly needs it). If Herman is there we don't need another competent TD where I pleaded for anymore. So, don't look for a written statement from the chairman, and make it a natural habit or authority. The problem arises when this expert wants to insist on following the laws. That sometimes is taken as being arrogant, while ignorance from the others might be a better description. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 17:39:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:39:52 +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 RAA22902 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:39:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA12977 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:39:07 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:38 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Malta Appeals 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: <000601bece18$c56944e0$b78993c3@pacific> Grattan wrote: > >AIUI the scribe (unlike other members) is selected primarily on the > >basis of their legal knowledge > > ### I do not know where you got that from. The scribe's > chief skill is in being able to write up a case. Herman's > knowledge of the law is not exceptional in that committee.### I sort of assumed it from what I read combined with my own opinions of how an appeals panel should be constructed ie: Primary Requirement Secondary Requirement Chair: Ability to manage a meeting Decent Legal Knowledge Adviser: Excellent Legal Knowledge Good oral communication Scribe: Good written communication Excellent Legal Knowledge Members: Good bridge judgement Fair/Open-minded Obviously it is nice if the CTD or other "expert witnesses" are available as required. I feel that combining the role of Chair with one of the other specialist roles would make the task too onerous but combining the role of adviser/scribe is likely to be efficient (though still hard work for the person concerned). Sometimes you will get an AC where all the members have excellent legal knowledge - no problem if it happens but I don't believe it should be expected. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 18:05:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:05:04 +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 SAA22950 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:04:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA05581; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:04:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JDMMR5QM58001VE5@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:04:30 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GSZCSQ>; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:04:29 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:04:26 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Malta Appeals To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , lobo@ac.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1D7@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 -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Schoderb@aol.com [mailto:Schoderb@aol.com] Verzonden: vrijdag 16 juli 1999 1:36 Aan: lobo@ac.net; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: Malta Appeals In a message dated 7/15/99 7:07:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lobo@ac.net writes: > I think it is very, very wrong for any scribe (Committee member or not) to > put anything in any report that was not specifically mentioned in the > hearing. How else can we know how well the Chair and committee is doing > their job? > > Linda > KKKKK.....HEAR, HEAR!!!!!!!!! Also a good argument for putting ALL the appeals into the book........Kojak I am not so sure about that. We are not publishing these casebooks to judge the TD and AC, are we? The purpose should be, in my opinion, to educate and teach. Giving the TD 58.4 should not be the most interesting part of the description. Certainly not when some of the commentators are completely wrong themselves, which happens now and then. But to be honest: we publish the decisions of the National AC in the Netherlands for many years already (sorry, in Dutch), and despite regular discussions, still take them all. Sometimes the publisher (the technical committee of the federation) considers a decision to bring more confusion than knowledge, in which case an editorial commentary is added. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 18:49:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA23047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:49:51 +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 SAA23042 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:49:44 +1000 (EST) 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 DAA28103 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:48:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.4 (830.2 3-23-1999)) id 862567B0.0030B45C ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:51:59 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AC_TELEKOM@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING From: "Christian Farwig" To: "bridge-laws" Message-ID: <862567B0.0030AB38.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:41:44 +0200 Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda wrote: >> I think it is very, very wrong for any scribe (Committee member or not) to put anything in any report that was not specifically mentioned in the hearing. How else can we know how well the Chair and committee is doing their job? << As long as the casebooks cannot be used as evidence (as e.g. a court protocol), I guess the main point of a casebook is not to judge the AC, but to be used as an instructive material for other TDs or players. I applaud Herman for including law references, because this makes it much more easier for students to follow the point and for teachers to prepare a session. Christian From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 20:13:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:13:54 +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 UAA23240 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:13:44 +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 1154zl-000PCL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:13:34 +0000 Message-ID: <7MtEVUBnsqj3Ewam@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:46:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <061d01bece7d$ee8ceec0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990715090750.006d07e0@pop.cais.com> <8Pf0XEAV8jj3EwLM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <378E9C36.41A046F@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <378E9C36.41A046F@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wayne wrote: >Right. > >Partner opens 3C. > >RHO: "Can that be a six card suit?" > >Me: "Sometimes he has as many as six" Hello? Do I see a future partner? Let me tell you all one of my worst boards ever! Pass, pass from me, 3D from LHO, John Holland, a good English player. Partner has expressed his dislike of playing the new-fangled "Double for takeout" over pre-empts. He has a 17-count, with five good diamonds, and now he feels his worries are justified. He passes. 3D is passed out. The defence drops a trick or two [or three] and my partner and I do not get a good result. We can make 630 or so, and our 100 does not help. Why did I not protect? Too much in diamonds, of course! John Holland has pre-empted with a trump suit of 10xxx, and his partner [both in bridge and otherwise] has furnished the singleton queen. Not one of our better boards, was it, Grattan? 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 Fri Jul 16 20:13:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:13:58 +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 UAA23246 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:13:48 +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 1154zm-00057t-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:13:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:00:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News References: <008301becee6$58a104a0$7084d9ce@host> <069901becf15$caef5d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <069901becf15$caef5d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Craig Senior wrote: > >> While it is good to see that the ACBL is acting to ensure future >> casebooks, I have to question why they will not be publishing ALL of the >> NABC cases. Even if cost constraints might limit the printed version as >to >> size (and I tend to doubt this) it costs little or nothing but keypunch >time >> to at least place all the cases on the website. > >I think Linda Trent and Rich Colker would tell you that preparing a >scribe's scribblings into a decent write-up suitable for publishing is >quite a large job. There is language to be checked, inconsistencies and >omissions to be resolved, etc. This problem could be alleviated if a >"professional scribe" could be included on all ACs and do a decent job >right off. From what I see, an AC meets, the chair asks "Who wants to be >scribe?" (or he does it himself) and off they go. The pro scribe could >ensure that accurate law references are included, among other things. > >The appeals from senior games are not published, except for major >championships, as not being worthy of attention. Who cares about those old >geeks? Their appeals are heard by ad hoc committees (maybe TDs now, I >don't know), not by the ACBL AC organization. I seem to remember that the >TD appeal committees will not have their decisions published. > >The Chicago casebook included 8 cases from the World Bridge Championships. >With all the discussions BLML had on those, I would have preferred that >the space and effort be taken up by more ACBL decisions. >> >> Of course the Appeals Administrator could elect to print ALL >> cases...perhaps the language is there to ward off lawsuit primarily, >since I >> note that clearance by counsel is included in the pre-publication >> process. >> >> Can any knowledgeable parties comment on why we may be getting >watered >> down casebooks in the future? I would think the ACBL could ill afford >even >> the appearance of further star chamber proceedings, and publication is a >> good way to avoid this appearance. >> >I would like to see all cases of interest published, but not the >no-brainers (which should be screened, anyway) in unimportant games. Pardon me? I think that we have a long-term ongoing problem on BLML which may be caused by ACBL attitudes, namely that the Laws need only be applied properly at top-level. In England, and I hope the rest of Europe and the RoW, we take a lot of trouble with rulings at all levels. If you play in Flight C, I believe that you have a *right* to competent tournament direction. I think you will find that very few appeals qualify as no-brainers, but the type of game is unimportant anyway. > The >fear is that decisions that would look bad in print, or would embarass >some influential person, won't get published. With Rich Colker at the helm >I doubt that will happen, and I hope he has the final say. Surely every AC >decision in an NABC+ event should get published. > >As to the makeup of the commenting panel, while it is good to have at a >member of the AC staff included, I don't think he should vote on the >suitability of a decision if he was on the AC in question. Maybe that's a >ground rule, I dunno. Those rating votes are pretty meaningless anyway, >once you see how they're done. Maybe David Stevenson will evaluate that >aspect of the casebook for us. I am interested in the rating votes. They are on a scale of 1.0 to 3.0, which I find very strange, and I am curious to know how they are translated. After all, if everyone voted 1.0, presumably the rating would be 0%: I wonder if this is so? I take trouble over the rating votes, but I wonder ..... 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 Fri Jul 16 20:13:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:13:54 +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 UAA23239 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:13:44 +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 1154zm-0008wU-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:13:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:51:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <199907152345.TAA28443@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907152345.TAA28443@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Still, I think Linda's interpretation makes more sense, aside from >giving the AC the authority David says it has. Another example is >an ACBL rule in Swiss team games, where if there is an appeal, each >team is paired for future rounds on the basis that it will win the >appeal, not on the basis of the TD ruling. Excuse me! Are you really saying that your definition of whether a ruling exists is based on ACBL scoring practices, despite them not being followed in the RoW? The ACBL has a perfect right to run its tournaments in this way, but it does not define the Laws! 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 Fri Jul 16 22:30:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:30:35 +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 WAA23758 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:30:28 +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 IAA20589 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:43:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990716082956.0072d73c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:29:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <199907160141.VAA23876@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <8Pf0XEAV8jj3EwLM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:41 PM 7/15/99 -0400, David wrote: >David Stevenon writes: > >>> At 09:50 PM 7/14/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: > >>>> Tell him (politely) that L75C does not say you should describe >>>> "partnership experience," it says you should describe "special partnership >>>> agreements." The word "special" is there for a reason. You may know from >>>> partnership experience that he/she has a weak hand with a good seven-card >>>> suit when he/she opens the bidding with 3x. There is nothing "special" >>>> about that inference, which accords with "general knowledge and >>>> experience," hence need not be disclosed. If on the other hand, you have >>>> some *special* agreement about the opening (e.g., it denies an ace), that >>>> agreement must be disclosed. > >> Actually, Marvin's example is interesting. My general experience is >> that with many players a good seven-card suit is unusual for a three- >> level opening. There is no doubt that if Marvin has an agreement that >> a three-opening shows a good seven-card suit, that is a special >> agreement, not a matter of general bridge knowledge. > >And, in fact, this is prescribed on the ACBL convention card itself. If >your three-level preempt usually shows a good seven-card suit, even not >vulnerable, then you check the box "sound preempts" on your convention >card. I think we're missing the more important point here, which is that if you know that partner's bid shows a good seven-card suit, you should leave it to the bridge lawyers to argue about whether that's a "special agreement" or not, while you simply tell your opponents what you know without worrying about whether it might be technically legal to refuse to do so. 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 Jul 16 22:50:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:50:33 +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 WAA23833 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:50:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-35.uunet.be [194.7.146.35]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA07992 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:50:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378EF0FB.B7304A2B@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:44:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <7a51d008.24bfca3c@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 7/15/99 7:07:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lobo@ac.net > writes: > > insight and work by people just as knowledgeable tas they are. It is true > that the Committee may decide to discard the ruling of the TD and substitute > one of a different nature, but the TDs ruling "lives" until the AC finds > otherwise. > I would hope ACBL has matured to this concept.........Kojak What a load of argument over one silly remark of mine ! Of course the TD's ruling stands until the AC decides otherwise. All I wanted to say is that the AC begins at zero. Let me throw another stick among the chickens : suppose the AC discovers that the TD (in their opinion) has made a wrong decision over some part of the ruling which is NOT contested by the appealing side ? Should then the AC not change the TD's ruling ? So what is wroing with stating that at the start of an AC hearing, the TD's decision is "cancelled" and a new decision (most often the same one) is reached ? Sorry to have spoken. Please don't write another 75 answers to this post. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 22:50:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:50:36 +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 WAA23834 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:50:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-35.uunet.be [194.7.146.35]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA08007 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:50:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378EF212.38853F0D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:49:22 +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 (and very nasty question) References: <3.0.1.32.19990715081212.0072944c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 12:52 PM 7/14/99 -0500, cfgcs wrote: > > > I would not be happy with such a rule for a "major event" unless it were > confined solely to those events which require players to pre-qualify as set > pairs or teams. For an ACBL player, that would mean the World Championship > level. I have on many occasions played in the ACBL's top-level events, > including the Vanderbilt, Spingold and Reisinger, in partnerships arranged > within hours, sometimes minutes, before the game started. A rule > "mandating such understandings" would have the practical effect of > outlawing such partnerships. Even worse, it might make these events, which > are nominally open or close to open, effectively closed even to non-pickup > but non-expert partnerships. These are not effects to be desired. > But it is up to the AC to define "sufficient attention" at that level. The standards for a European Team championship are allowed to be higher than those at an ACBL top-level event, aren't they ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 22:51:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:51:18 +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 WAA23872 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:51:10 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id qZIDa06136 (4200); Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:49:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:49:30 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals PARDON To: Schoderb@aol.com, 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 7/15/99 8:29:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Schoderb@aol.com writes: > > If one member has a greater > > knowledge of the Laws than others it seems not unreasonable for his > > knowledge to be used. > > From recent events, this doesn't seem to be the quality that Herman > possesses. With the persons in attendance at Malta, the EBL would be much > better served by using their expertise. IMO. These words need clarification. It has been put to me that this might be construed as a criticism of the EBL and it's procedures used in Malta. That is not my intent and I apologize for not making that clear. My concern was with Herman's adamant belief that he still thinks he got the Law Reference right, and would do it again. In many years of exposure I've found that when I get it wrong, I engender greater respect and confidence by admitting it and learning from it. I admire Herman's efforts to want to have every action of the AC referenced to a proper Law, as in WBF TD rulings are so referenced. I have commented on Herman's onerous work in putting things on paper, and am much impressed with the speed with which he accomplished the task. It is never my intent to criticize the EBL, ACBL, WBF, Zone X or Y . It is always my intent to voice an opinion that may do someone some good. And it remains just that....my opinion, for whatever anyone thinks that is worth......... My apologies......Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 23:02:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:02:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA23941 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:02:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.112]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.5/64) id 2605600 ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:58:24 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990716090441.00829e00@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:04:41 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Cc: bills@cshore.com In-Reply-To: <06f801becf56$dbfa3ea0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> References: <061d01bece7d$ee8ceec0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990715090750.006d07e0@pop.cais.com> <8Pf0XEAV8jj3EwLM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Why is this language there, if it is meaningless? Why does L75 >use the word "special" if every agreement is special? One might ask, alternatively, why L75 uses the word "implicit" if everything must be spelled out in black and white in order to constitute a partnership agreement. [Return to lurk.] Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 16 23:20:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:22:16 +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 WAA23710 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:22:07 +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 IAA20052 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990716082133.00731960@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:21:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <199907152345.TAA28443@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:45 PM 7/15/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >Another example is >an ACBL rule in Swiss team games, where if there is an appeal, each >team is paired for future rounds on the basis that it will win the >appeal, not on the basis of the TD ruling. I don't understand this rule. What does it mean to "win the appeal"? Common sense suggests that it means receiving an adjusted score which is more favorable than that imposed by the TD, although in the current context it would appear to mean getting a score more favorable than that obtained at the table. In either case, this rule requires that the TD responsible for the matches not only must assume that each side will win the appeal, but must also be able to predict what the (presumptively favorable) adjusted score will turn out to be (for each side, as they may not be the same), and thus how many IMPs will change hands. How is he supposed to do that? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 00:00:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:00:11 +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 AAA24092 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:00:04 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id 5XTEa02037 (4200); Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:57:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:57:53 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/16/99 8:51:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > Please don't write another 75 answers to this post. > Yes, Sir! Wouldn't want to be accused of trying to get you to change your mind..........Kojak. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 00:32:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:32:15 +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 AAA24180 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:32:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-89-148.uunet.be [194.7.89.148]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA19245 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:31:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378F3F5B.FFAD596A@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:19:07 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Statistics Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Statistics from the first half of 1999: (+2 weeks) We have 250 subskribers, but 3 of those are doubles. So we have 247 readers. These are distributed around the globe as follows : Zone 1 : (98 in 25 countries) GB 25 DE 16 NL 10 BE, DK 7 FR, IL 5 CH, IE, PL, PT, RU 2 CZ, ES, FI, GL, HR, HU, IS, IT, LT, NO, SE, TR, UA 1 Zone 2 : (80 in 3 countries) US 68 CA 11 BM 1 Zone 3 : still no South Americans (except John in Guyana, but that's zone 5) Zone 4 : (3 in 3 countries) EG, IN, ZA 1 Zone 5 : (1 in 1 country) GY 1 Zone 6 : (4 in 3 countries) JP 2 ID, SG 1 Zone 7 : (23 in 2 countries) AU 16 NZ 7 others : (38) .com 24 .net 10 .edu 4 That's a total of 37 countries in 6 zones. 143 readers have been with us since I started counting in 1997, 66 joined us in 1998, and there are currently 41 newbies. There have been 4954 posts so far this year, and one writer is responsible for almost as many as the next 2 put together : 600 David Stevenson 334 Herman De Wael 298 Marvin L. French 249 Grattan Endicott 222 Steve Willner 191 John (MadDog) Probst 189 Eric Landau 188 Roger Pewick 179 Jan Kamras 142 Michael S. Dennis 137 Jesper Dybdal 124 David Burn 114 Schoder "Kojak" 112 Adam Beneschan 94 Dany Haimovici 86 David Grabiner 80 cfgcs (Grant Sterling) 80 Craig Senior 78 Tim West-Meads 67 Anne Jones 66 Jean-Pierre Rocafort 61 Hirsch Davis 55 Anton Witzen 47 Bertel Lund Hansen 45 Ton Kooijman 41 Ed Reppert 38 Richard Bley 34 Richard F Beye 34 Wayne Burrows 32 Robin Barker 32 Tim Goodwin 31 Linda Trent 31 Richard Lighton 29 Jeremy Rickard 29 John R. Mayne 29 Vitold Brushtunov 26 A.L. Edwards 26 Jeff Goldsmith 25 David Martin 24 Michael Farebrother 21 Fearghal O'Boyle 20 Adam Wildavsky 20 Nancy T. Dressing 18 Henk Uijterwaal 18 Tony Musgrove 17 B A Small 17 Magda Thain 16 Bruce J.Moore 16 Karen Allison 16 Robert Nordgren 16 Ron Johnson 15 Laval Dubreuil 15 Richard Willey 15 Sergey Kapustin 14 John S. Nichols 13 Jan Peter Pals 13 Martin Sinot 13 Peter Newman 12 Christian Farwig 12 Gordon Bower 12 RCraig Hemphill 11 af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de(Thomas Dehn) 11 Laurie Kelso 11 Markus Buchhorn 11 Norman Scorbie 10 AlLeBendig 10 Canberra Bridge Club 10 Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) 9 Irwin J. Kostal 9 John MacGregor 9 Michael Albert 8 Don Kersey 8 Jon C. Brissman 8 Lormant Philippe 7 Albert "biigAl" Lochli 7 Chyah E Burghard 7 Michael Schmahl 6 Brian Baresch 6 Jan Romanski 6 Jay Apfelbaum 6 John A. Kuchenbrod 6 Richard or Barbara Odlin 5 Con Holzscherer 5 David Metcalf 5 Evert Angad-Gaur 5 Mark Abraham 5 Michael Amos 5 Rui Marques 4 Dave Kent 4 Paul D Harrington 4 Reg Busch 4 Robert E Harris 4 Sergei Litvak 4 Ted Ying 3 André Pion 3 Barry Wolk 3 Brian Meadows 3 Chris Pisarra 3 Ian Crorie 3 Ian Reissmann 3 Jim Boyce 3 non-reader 3 Yvan Calamé 2 Bill Bickford 2 Bill Segraves 2 Clemens Oelker 2 Ercan Kuru 2 Fred Flam 2 J.C.Lohmann 2 Jac Fuchs 2 Jens & Bodil 2 Julie Atkinson 2 Lino Tralhao 2 Mark Bartusek 2 Martin Hunter 2 Mike Dodson 2 Peter Haglich 2 Peter Hart 2 Ralf Teichmann 2 Sandy Singer 2 Simon Edler 2 Sjoerd Schreuder 2 Trevor Walker 2 Vytautas Rekus 1 Bruce Owen 1 Derrick Heng 1 Farley, Wally 1 Flemming Bogh-Sorensen 1 Georgiana Gates, Leslie West 1 Ilan Shezifi 1 Jaap Herman 1 Joan Gerard 1 Kent V Burghard 1 Kryst, Jack 1 Laszlo Hegedus 1 Linda Mitchell 1 Mark Lincoln 1 Martin Kretschmar 1 Mary Buckland 1 Mary Crenshaw 1 Michael Kopera 1 Noblet-Dominique 1 Norbert Fornoville 1 Patrick Carter 1 Paul Lippens 1 Phillip Mendelsohn 1 Rand 1 Stephanie Rohan 1 Steve Nathan 1 Sven-Olov (Tjolpe) Flodqvist 1 Vinay Desay There are still 88 lurkers out there who have never posted anything ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 00:42:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:42:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (IDENT:exim@sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24237 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:42:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from p44s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.69] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 1159Bd-0005GT-00; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:42:06 +0100 Message-ID: <01ce01becf98$d5343660$3b8993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:45:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 16 July 1999 04:39 Subject: Re: Malta Appeals >Linda Trent wrote: >>It is my understanding that when a hand goes to appeal, it is a hand >>without a result until the Committee assigns one. >> DWS: > Furthermore, some appeals do decide to uphold the Director's ruling: >there were some at Orlando, and some at Vancouver: how can they uphold >something that does not exist? > ++++ As a side comment, numbers of appeals that I have chaired, British and international, have resulted in a statement that the committee "found no basis upon which to vary the Director's ruling". The committee did not feel it knew more than, or perhaps as much as, the Director and did not consider the appellant had produced compelling evidence or argument showing that the Director's ruling was misjudged. So it left the Director's ruling in place. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 00:42:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:42:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (IDENT:exim@sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24239 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:42:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from p44s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.69] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 1159Bg-0005GT-00; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:42:08 +0100 Message-ID: <01d001becf98$d6df7560$3b8993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:30:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 16 July 1999 04:43 Subject: Re: Malta Appeals >Kojak wrote: >>In a message dated 7/15/99 5:27:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: >> >>> If one member has a greater >>> knowledge of the Laws than others it seems not unreasonable for his >>> knowledge to be used. >> >>From recent events, this doesn't seem to be the quality that Herman >>possesses. With the persons in attendance at Malta, the EBL would be much >>better served by using their expertise. IMO. > > It was a theoretical comment. I would hate anyone to read into it >that I was actually commenting on the personnel in Malta: I did not >intend to say this. > ++++ Yes. One of the problems with this thread is that it began with Herman claiming a role for himself as scribe that I most certainly do not accord to the scribe, and thus opening himself up to personal criticism. Some scribes are no doubt less accomplished in laws matters than Herman and his particular level of expertise is not the issue. It is for the Committee, not the scribe, to underwrite the report - for which reason I think the WBF has it right in requiring submission of draft reports to the committee chairman before release. In the case of the Malta committee it was particularly the case that the chairman was especially authoritative on law and the committee largely well versed in the subject. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 01:22:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:42:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (IDENT:exim@sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24248 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:42:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from p44s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.69] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 1159Bf-0005GT-00; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:42:07 +0100 Message-ID: <01cf01becf98$d60e69c0$3b8993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:03:27 +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 > 3D is passed out. The defence drops a trick or two [or three] and my >partner and I do not get a good result. We can make 630 or so, and our >100 does not help. Why did I not protect? Too much in diamonds, of >course! > > John Holland has pre-empted with a trump suit of 10xxx, and his >partner [both in bridge and otherwise] has furnished the singleton >queen. Not one of our better boards, was it, Grattan? > +++ Echoes! By coincidence I mentioned this one to John Collings and others in Malta. There was a discussion about alerting and the like. And about methods incorporating penalty doubles of pre-empts (especially when playing against G T Kirby et al). You were not the only member of the partnership with the wrong hand for the method. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 02:55:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 02:55:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24742 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 02:55:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA24126 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:54:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-03.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.35) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma024085; Fri Jul 16 11:54:34 1999 Message-ID: <000e01becfac$43964a40$23b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:57:15 -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 Eric is quite right. This would be a marketing disaster and a major disservice to the membership. You might save a little by shutting down the partnership desk. I suspect thousands of tables would be lost if pick up partnerships were not allowed. If you also banned inexperienced partnerships, perhaps you could dispense with large hotels and convention centers and hold NABC's where sectionals now are held...just think of the savings! And since only experienced partnerships who KNOW all their agreements and have detailed agreements for every contingency would be allowed to effectively compete, you could remove any threat that new players might become involbed with the game. We could make the ACBL safe for Goren players yet! I do hope the benighted BoD folks who have tried to simplify bridge in the past don't get ahold of this perfectly marvelous way to ruin the game. Today's management seems to have too much marketing savvy to attempt such foolishness...let us hope. Are we being too regional here? Do tournaments outside North America depend only upon established partnerships? Would attendance not suffer similarly? Where bridge is growing and thriving, does it not depend in large measure on new partnerships? Whatever is wrong with having no agreement on some of the less likely sequences? This would appear to benefit opponents far more often than it injures or even discomfits them. This ain't broke...don't try to fix it. == Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Friday, July 16, 1999 3:24 AM Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) >At 12:52 PM 7/14/99 -0500, cfgcs wrote: > >> But here we part company. Herman's valiant efforts >>notwithstanding, I cannot find anywhere in the laws where it says that >>that I have no "right" to make bids that my partner doesn't understand, >>whether on the second round of the auction or the first, whether in a >>local novice game or the finals of the Bermuda Bowl. Of course I would be >>happy with a rule in the CoC mandating such understandings in a major >>event--but absent such a rule, I see no justification for a penalty. > >I would not be happy with such a rule for a "major event" unless it were >confined solely to those events which require players to pre-qualify as set >pairs or teams. For an ACBL player, that would mean the World Championship >level. I have on many occasions played in the ACBL's top-level events, >including the Vanderbilt, Spingold and Reisinger, in partnerships arranged >within hours, sometimes minutes, before the game started. A rule >"mandating such understandings" would have the practical effect of >outlawing such partnerships. Even worse, it might make these events, which >are nominally open or close to open, effectively closed even to non-pickup >but non-expert partnerships. These are not effects to be desired. > >If the ACBL's NABC+ events were to require partnership agreements at a >level beyond that which would be expected in a last-minute casual pickup >partnership between players who have never played together before, I would >no longer have any reason to attend NABCs, and I know a number of others >who would feel the same way. > > >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 Jul 17 03:58:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:58:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24960 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:57:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from DLM (pool0525.cvx8-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.172.15]) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA22086 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <011301becfb5$17c3f120$cf64c80a@schs.com> Reply-To: "Demeter Manning" From: "Demeter Manning" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <378F3F5B.FFAD596A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Statistics Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:59:31 -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 > > There are still 88 lurkers out there who have never posted > anything ! > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > I'm one of those lurkers. I'm not a director or bridge official, just a bridge player who is very interested in the game. I've learned a great deal about bridge from lurking here, and hope that I'll be able to contribute something intelligent and informed someday. Thanks to all for carrying on these discussions in public, and letting the rest of us listen in. Demeter Manning cats - Nikolai and Zonker dog - Katrina From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 04:20:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:21:30 +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 DAA24822 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:20:40 +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 115Beu-000JAK-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:20:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:03:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <199907152345.TAA28443@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199907152345.TAA28443@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes snip > Another example is >an ACBL rule in Swiss team games, where if there is an appeal, each >team is paired for future rounds on the basis that it will win the >appeal, not on the basis of the TD ruling. This is a seriously good idea which I believe the EBU should adopt. ACs meeting on a top table appeal can hold 100 tables up for 15 minutes. This is unacceptable. chs 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 Jul 17 04:40:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA25146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:40:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f203.hotmail.com [207.82.251.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA25141 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:39:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 9117 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jul 1999 18:39:17 -0000 Message-ID: <19990716183917.9116.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:39:16 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:39:16 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Craig Senior" >Eric is quite right. This would be a marketing disaster and a major >disservice to the membership. You might save a little by shutting >down the >partnership desk. > Yes, I agree. But... > Are we being too regional here? Do tournaments outside North >America >depend only upon established partnerships? Would attendance >not suffer >similarly? Where bridge is growing and thriving, does it >not depend in >large measure on new partnerships? > There is a difference between the European Team Championship (where teams that have qualified to represent their country compete for spots in Bermuda) and even the Vanderbilt (which is, granted, a very prestigious team championship, but is open to (almost) everyone[1]). At a tournament primarily focussed (from a marketing standpoint) on getting $150 each from 10000 people, this rule in the CoC would be, I agree, horrible, and I expect that is constant world-wide. In the equivalent tournament (in the US, the International Team Trials; in Canada, the CNTCs), or in a high-profile, limited-entry (by qualification or by invitation) game like the MacAllan (are they still called this?) or the Cavendish, the rule seems to be both realizable and a good idea. After all, if you check the CoC of the European Team Championships, complete WBF conventions cards (and in HUM systems, entire system descriptions) were required to be pre-registered significantly before the tournament. The number of pickup partnerships in this contest would probably hover around nil. >Whatever is wrong with having no agreement on some of the less likely >sequences? This would appear to benefit opponents far more often than >it >injures or even discomfits them. This ain't broke...don't try to >fix it. This is why I agree with the arguments of those who wish it to be in the CoC, and not in the Laws. In a contest where the organizers expect well-prepared and organized partnerships, require thorough discussions of all auctions up to in the first rounds of the bidding, and have a penalty if this is violated, same as the late-for-session penalties. In games where this is not expected or desired, don't. Michael. [1] Over the Canada Day weekend, I finally got the 100 monsterpoints I needed to enter the Vanderbilt. Really, that was the only reason I'd want them...mdf ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 05:20:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA25190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:50:57 +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 EAA25184 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:50:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.69]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA21133 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:50:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907161850.OAA08406@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19990716082133.00731960@pop.cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:21:33 -0400) Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > At 07:45 PM 7/15/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >> Another example is >> an ACBL rule in Swiss team games, where if there is an appeal, each >> team is paired for future rounds on the basis that it will win the >> appeal, not on the basis of the TD ruling. > I don't understand this rule. What does it mean to "win the appeal"? > Common sense suggests that it means receiving an adjusted score which is > more favorable than that imposed by the TD, although in the current context > it would appear to mean getting a score more favorable than that obtained > at the table. In either case, this rule requires that the TD responsible > for the matches not only must assume that each side will win the appeal, > but must also be able to predict what the (presumptively favorable) > adjusted score will turn out to be (for each side, as they may not be the > same), and thus how many IMPs will change hands. How is he supposed to do > that? In most appeals, it's fairly easy. If the TD has ruled an adjusted score and the offenders appeal, the offenders' presumptive score is based on the table result being restored, and the non-offenders' presumptive score is based on the TD's award. If the TD has ruled no adjustment and the non-offenders appeal, he should be at least as good at determining the expected adjusted result as he would be at making an adjustment. The AC may wind up awarding the side which wins the appeal more or less than the TD's presumptive score (or imposing a PP--let's not restart that thread here), but the pairing is likely to be relatively fair; if +500 is changed to +800, that's probably only one or two VP's. (Has anyone actually seen this rule applied? The one time I appealed in a sectional Swiss, trying to restore a table result and turn a lost match into a tie, the TD's ignored the rule and paired us as though we had lost the match.) -- 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 Jul 17 05:23:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:21:51 +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 DAA24833 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:21:31 +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 115Bf0-000KVE-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:20:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 03:01:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <7a51d008.24bfca3c@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <7a51d008.24bfca3c@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes >In a message dated 7/15/99 7:07:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lobo@ac.net >writes: > >> It is my understanding that when a hand goes to appeal, it is a hand >> without a result until the Committee assigns one. >> >> There is no such thing as either "upholding" or "overturning" a Director's >> ruling. >> >KKKKK........... >I can't agree any longer. When TDs were book carrying caddies that made >sense. But with the advent of imtelligent rulings by TDs that is no longer >true. Further, in order to get the AC's off their collective butts and get >them to study the problem, we came up with the idea that their work is >separate from the TDs. I believe that is no longer true. TD rulings, at >least in WBF, are made using the collective wisdom of the staff, players, and >experts in systems., etc.... so when they are appealed the AC is faced not >with some nice guy's opinion, but with a decision arrived at through lots of >insight and work by people just as knowledgeable tas they are. It is true >that the Committee may decide to discard the ruling of the TD and substitute >one of a different nature, but the TDs ruling "lives" until the AC finds >otherwise. > I would hope ACBL has matured to this concept.........Kojak It is very much the EBU way of things. The TD doesn't normally give a ruling until he has consulted with at least one other (and sometimes several other) TD. The ruling itself should be fairly sound, and the UK ACs expect this to be the case. Further I think a good AC will get the TD to explain his reasoning for his ruling as part of the appeals process, and even question him. Then and only then will they hear the further evidence as to why the ruling should be examined. We have a lot of confidence in our ACs, and they have a lot of confidence in us. There is no suggestion of gladiatorial combat between the two ruling groups. This is how it should be IMO. chs 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 Jul 17 05:38:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 05:38:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe010.worldonline.dk (fe010.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA25310 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 05:38:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 4484 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jul 1999 19:38:04 -0000 Received: from 61.ppp1-2.image.dk (212.54.78.125) by mail030.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 16 Jul 1999 19:38:04 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: SUIT BREAKS Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 19:38:03 GMT Message-ID: <379b89d4.6912520@mail.image.dk> References: <378f566f.2261335@news.erols.com> In-Reply-To: <378f566f.2261335@news.erols.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I rec.games.bridge skrev du: >Does anyone have a table of percentages of suit breaks that could be >posted to this newsgroup? I have a small program, nothing fancy, that runs under dos. It can show some tables of useful numbers. I have only made it with Danish texts, but I might translate it if somebody were interested. Here's one page (best viewed with fixed font): Hvordan sidder modpartens kort? Ude: Fordeling: Chance: single: double: 3.: 4.: 5.: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 1-1 52.0 % 52.0 % 48.0 % 0-2 48.0 % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 1-2 78.0 % 26.0 % 52.0 % 22.0 % 0-3 22.0 % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 2-2 40.7 % 12.4 % 40.7 % 37.3 % 9.6 % 1-3 49.7 % 0-4 9.6 % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 2-3 67.8 % 5.7 % 27.1 % 40.7 % 22.6 % 3.9 % 1-4 28.3 % 0-5 3.9 % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 3-3 35.5 % 2.4 % 16.1 % 35.5 % 32.3 % 12.1 % 2-4 48.4 % 1-5 14.5 % 0-6 1.5 % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 3-4 62.2 % 1.0 % 8.7 % 26.6 % 35.5 % 21.8 % 2-5 30.5 % 1-6 6.8 % 0-7 0.5 % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 4-4 32.7 % 0.4 % 4.3 % 17.7 % 32.7 % 29.5 % 3-5 47.1 % 2-6 17.1 % 1-7 2.9 % 0-8 0.2 % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 4-5 58.9 % 0.1 % 1.9 % 10.5 % 26.2 % 32.7 % 3-6 31.4 % 2-7 8.6 % 1-8 1.1 % 0-9 0.0 % Here's the menu (quickly translated - without explanation): Points C-Point Lost tricks Doubles Offering Outstanding cards * Length Distribution X-score? Y-score? Z-score? Contract? Show contract Common scores Switch colours Quit The program is accessible via my homepage. Since it's in Danish, here's a direct link: http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/Programs/bp100.zip I think 6 out of 14pages are nearly selfexplanatory. The rest you can try as a challenge. *: this is the page shown ("Udestående kort" in the Danish menu). If "enough" people drop me an e-mail, I'll make an English version. (Don't fiddle with my e-mail address. It works as it is - as should indeed all e-mail addresses) Bertel -- Denmark, Europe Please do not send me copies of usenet messages in e-mail. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 06:09:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 06:09:02 +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 GAA25473 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 06:08:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem97.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.97] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 115EHj-00078r-00; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:08:44 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Bill Segraves" Cc: Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:22:45 +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 o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ================================ > From: Bill Segraves > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Cc: bills@cshore.com > Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) > Date: 16 July 1999 14:04 > > >Why is this language there, if it is meaningless? Why does L75 > >use the word "special" if every agreement is special? > > > One might ask, alternatively, why L75 uses the word "implicit" if > everything must be spelled out in black and white in order to constitute a > partnership agreement. > > [Return to lurk.] +++ I think a special partnership understanding is one that the partnership has which is not part of the general expectations of all players and to be aware of which opponents are entitled by law. The place to look to understand what is required is Law 40 A & B. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 06:29:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 06:29:10 +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 GAA25548 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 06:29:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA25333 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:28:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:28:54 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <199907161850.OAA08406@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, David Grabiner wrote: > > At 07:45 PM 7/15/99 -0400, Steve wrote: > > >> Another example is > >> an ACBL rule in Swiss team games, where if there is an appeal, each > >> team is paired for future rounds on the basis that it will win the > >> appeal, not on the basis of the TD ruling. > > (Has anyone actually seen this rule applied? The one time I appealed in > a sectional Swiss, trying to restore a table result and turn a lost > match into a tie, the TD's ignored the rule and paired us as though we > had lost the match.) > I've seen it applied more than once in our local sectional (Unit 106-- Northern NJ and Rockland County NY) swisses. I had assumed it was universally applied. Appeals take place at the end of the session. -- Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 07:20:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:20:00 +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 HAA25758 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:19:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA27678; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:19:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-06.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.70) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma027654; Fri Jul 16 16:18:54 1999 Message-ID: <00b701becfd1$3137af40$46b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:21:36 -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:> Pardon me? I think that we have a long-term ongoing problem on BLML >which may be caused by ACBL attitudes, namely that the Laws need only be >applied properly at top-level. In England, and I hope the rest of >Europe and the RoW, we take a lot of trouble with rulings at all levels. >If you play in Flight C, I believe that you have a *right* to competent >tournament direction. > > I think you will find that very few appeals qualify as no-brainers, >but the type of game is unimportant anyway. ### This is an attitude held only by SOME within the ACBL, and which others of us have been actively tryin to eliminate. This is why I keep harping on the subject of better TD training at the club and sectional level. Good direction and a fair contest resulting therefrom are worthy aims in and of themselves; even more important to the economic survival of the game is that the majority of the paying customers play at the lower levels. When they learn, and feel they are being treated fairly they come back. When they perceive they are being given a raw deal or getting inferior service they take their dollars to the bowling alley or the movie theatre or the WWF. I suspect this failure to consider all games important to those who play them is not just an ACBL phenomenon. A club game I play in is generally more important... to me ...than some championship off in another part of the world. -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 07:48:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:48:26 +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 HAA25834 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:48:17 +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 115Fpr-0005tM-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:48:04 +0000 Message-ID: <+t0Uv2A6yxj3EwoI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:51:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <3.0.1.32.19990715090750.006d07e0@pop.cais.com> <06c001becf52$9c483b80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <06c001becf52$9c483b80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Ah, I'm ready for that one! I am glad to explain my partner's bids, >whether or not they are subject to a special partnership agreement, if >the questioner is a novice or someone from a foreign land who may have >different bidding methods than ours. But when a life master asks, "What >does that bid mean?" after I open 1D and it goes 1D-1H-3S-P; Pass by me, I >reply that we have no special partnership agreement about the bid. > >This happened some years ago, and was the occasion for a big brouhaha with >the TD (I'm milder now, with ZT and all), who said I must explain the 3S >bid. I refused, considering the instruction illegal, per L75C. "You >explain it, I'm not going to." I forget what happened, but I never did >explain that 3S was a weak preemptive response. No, my partner had never >made that bid before with me, and we had never discussed it. I don't think >that matters, when you read L75C. I treasure a little postcard from Edgar >Kaplan agreeing with me on this. > >Last year, same preemptive response. TD Max Hardy called to table. He asks >the opponents, "Did Marvin Alert?" "No." "Then it must be weak, >preemptive," and he walks away. Not a bad solution, Max, if a little >illegal. I had discussed this situation with him a while back, so he knew >I was in the right and came up with a pragmatic way of handling it. Good >PR. This is OK so long as you have no agreement about it that an opponent would not expect. If you only make the bid on eight-card suits, for example, then that needs to be disclosed. >So why don't I just explain what bids mean? What's the problem? This: My >partner often doesn't have a clear knowledge of what a bid means or the >strength it implies. If I explain a bid unnecessarily, that is UI which >can tie partner's hands in the remaining auction or play. For instance, if >he/she had made a 3S bid with seven spades AKQ, confusing that with an >opening 3S bid, my explanation would expose the mistake. He/she might want >to bid 4S over an opposing 4H. If I have not explained the 3S bid, he/she >is free to bid 4S. But if I have said it is very weak, preemptive, passing >4H is an LA that partner must take. Not a good example, maybe, but don't >quibble. Given time, I could come up with a better one. > >Similarly, I tell such partners not to answer a question about a call of >mine that is not the subject of a partnership agreement. Why? Because the >explanation is inevitably a little off, sometimes a lot off, from what I >understand about the bid (from general knowledge and experience) and it >becomes UI that restrains my subsequent actions. > >Why should we have to produce UI when it is not required that we do so???? >It only leads to problems. It is more important to keep the opponents informed correctly than to worry about your own UI problems. So long as you are fully disclosing what you need to, that is OK. But remember that you have implicit agreements as well, and they need to be disclosed. You should not want to win by confusing opponents as to the methods you employ. [s] >Get the Laws changed if you don't like them, Eric. How about a new Law: >"If an opponent wants a bridge lesson, it must be given." How about "Let's win by playing better"? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 07:48:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:48:24 +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 HAA25832 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:48:13 +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 115Fpr-0005tN-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:48:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:06:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Avg - (Please help) References: <396b7ac.24bdef8d@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <396b7ac.24bdef8d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > You could do worse than start with the EBU regulations, which are > comprehensive, comprehensible, legal and fair. > > We call it the White Book "The EBU Supplement to the EBL TD Guide" ---------- Kojak wrote: > I don't know if ACBL has a copy, but it sure might be a nice gesture > to send them a complimentary one. Might be an important step in > seeing things with a view toward standardization where possible. ---------- Herman De Wael wrote: > Is this on-line ? > Or does anyone have a text they can mail ? > Or could the EBU be persuaded to send Ton and myself a copy? ---------- Sergey Kapustin wrote: > I didn't find the White Book on the EBU homepage. > Is it possible to have a copy? > It may give us a chance to do right thing third time!:) ---------- The White book is out of print. It is not online. There is no electronic copy extant. However! We are attempting to scan it in and to produce an electronic copy. We would then be happy to let people have a copy, so long as they realise it is based on the 1987 Laws. ---------- Jesper Dybdal wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> The forthcoming EBU L&EC minutes will show that they have taken the >>first step along the road to producing a new edition. I wonder which >>mug will edit it? >I hope and expect that it will be a person who can be relied upon >to ensure that the result will be available on WWW and that BLML >is informed when it is there :-) > >We're looking forward to it, David! In fact, the minutes show that we are intending to write it. Whether we publish it is a different decision, but I would expect it to appear on the Web whatever happens. -- 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 Jul 17 07:48:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:48:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25842 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:48:21 +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 115Fpr-000PlK-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:48:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:42:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <199907160141.VAA23876@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> <072801becf5b$14ecf640$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <072801becf5b$14ecf640$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Of course, and this is all the disclosure required unless there is some >"special partnership agreement." Not every partnership agreement shown on >the card is a *special* partnership agreement. That's SPECIAL, >S-P-E-C-I-A-L, it is not a meaningless word. No, not meaningless, but we need to interpret it. Now, if you read L75C, it gives two possibilities, one for stuff that needs to be disclosed, one for stuff that does not. In my view, we need to read these as covering all the possible agreements, so we can infer what a special agreement is therefrom. When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience; but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. So what of an agreement that a 3S opening shows a reasonable seven- card suit? Well, that would be completely standard in the 1950's, so it would not need to be explained any further than "normal". It would be a matter of general knowledge that 3S openers show such hands. That is not the case in the 1990's. It is no longer general knowledge. Nowadays, general knowledge would tell you that a 3S opening is a pre-empt, showing at least five cards. It is a special partnership agreement if you play it as a seven-card suit, and needs to be disclosed in answer to a question. ---------- Marvin L. French wrote: >It is usual in these parts, where the majority of players still bid >according to the rule of 2 and 3, which has been a matter of general >bridge knowledge for about 60 years. It is an agreement of sorts, but >there is nothing special about it. Playing in an individual, I would >assume partner had that sort of hand when he/she opens 3x (unless he/she >is a pro, of course, or I am playing in Wales). Well, if it is generally understood, then you need not disclose it. But when you play a tournament away from your area, I very much doubt that it is standard. >What is intended by L75D2, "he need not disclose inferences drawn from his >general knowledge and experience" if every call my partner makes must be >explained? Why is this language there, if it is meaningless? Why does L75 >use the word "special" if every agreement is special? Get Grattan et al to >strike it out on the next go-round. No-one except you is suggesting it is meaningless. However, it should be rare that it matters. Not every call made by your partner needs to be explained, because many of them are not asked about. But do you really want to win at bridge because an opponent misunderstands what your partner's bid means after he has asked and you have declined to reply? If all calls were explained, then this distinction might matter more, because of time and practical restraints. But it rarely matters. Would you like an example of what does not need to be explained? A certain pair was playing in a World championship event, and one of them opened an 11-14 NT. There was *no* history of her psyching a 1NT opening: it was her first such psyche in a six-year partnership. Do you think that her partner should have described the 1NT opening as "11-14, unless she has psyched"? No, of course not. The description of 11-14 was accurate: the fact that partner may have psyched for the first time ever in this position is a matter of general knowledge but certainly not a special agreement. Suppose you open 1NT and partner bids 3NT. This is to play, I presume. Actually, it generally denies a major, but as a matter of general knowledge, partner just might have bid 3NT for some reason with a major: perhaps she is 4333 and feels there will be no ruffing. Perhaps she has S AKQJxx and has suddenly decided to gamble that nine tricks are easier than ten. This is general knowledge, and need not be disclosed. However, if Alice dislikes 4-4 fits, and *never* uses Stayman with a four-card major, that is a special agreement. How special? It is one that is for your partnership. not a general agreement, and thus if an opponent were o ask the meaning of 3NT you would disclose this, perhaps by saying "To play: will frequently have a four-card major". -- 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 Jul 17 08:40:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 08:40:20 +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 IAA25976 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 08:40:09 +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 SAA23655 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:40:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA29345 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:40:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:40:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907162240.SAA29345@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Malta Appeals X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Excuse me! Are you really saying that your definition of whether a > ruling exists is based on ACBL scoring practices, despite them not being > followed in the RoW? No, I was giving an example of how a seemingly purely semantic distinction might lead to a practical outcome. > The ACBL has a perfect right to run its tournaments in this way, but > it does not define the Laws! The Laws do not appear to define what happens when a TD ruling is appealed. Does the hand result based on the TD ruling remain in effect unless an AC overturns it? Or is there "no result" until the AC rules? I don't find a clear statement in the Laws, and to the extent the question is purely semantic and of no practical importance, I suspect the law writers had no interest in deciding. However... there are a couple of practical consequences. One is whether an AC can give a L91 ruling. Another is the Swiss matching I mentioned. (Does the EBU match on the TD ruling, even when there has been an appeal?) I have no quarrel with any SO that wants to adopt its own regulations for either question, and I certainly have no quarrel with a semantic interpretation. The idea that there is "no result," as Linda Trent has said, along with the ACBL's policy on Swiss matching appeals to my sense of logic and order, but I wouldn't denounce alternative policies or interpretations. I don't know whether the ACBL allows an AC to use L91 (anybody know?), but the logic of their position says that they should. What does the EBU say? The logic of their position ("TD result in effect") says that they should not allow an AC to use L91. As I have said, the practical result is the same either way. > From: Eric Landau > I don't understand this rule. What does it mean to "win the appeal"? David G. has answered this one pretty well. If the TD is doing his job, the only (common) reason he will be reversed is for bridge judgment. TD's ought to be able to figure out which of the judgments that went into the ruling are questionable and what the likely outcomes are, should the AC rule one way or the other. > In article <7a51d008.24bfca3c@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes > > It is true > >that the Committee may decide to discard the ruling of the TD and substitute > >one of a different nature, but the TDs ruling "lives" until the AC finds > >otherwise. > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > We have a lot of confidence in our ACs, and they have a lot of > confidence in us. There is no suggestion of gladiatorial combat between > the two ruling groups. This is how it should be IMO. No one is suggesting that having no result on a hand under appeal indicates the TD has done a poor job. The question is procedural or perhaps semantic, although logic suggests we adopt an interpretation that best meshes with other rules. Even if the interpretation is that there is "no result," it is still possible to post tentative results for the event. I am not at all sure that is wise, though, because if the results change, people will say "The event was decided in the committee room, not at the table." I really think people are making too much of this subject, and I regret having posted on it. The juxtaposition of Linda's and David's separate contributions appealed to me, and I failed to resist the temptation to point it out. Next time I'll try harder to resist. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 09:41:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:41:21 +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 JAA26276 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:41:13 +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 QAA09259; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:40:32 -0700 Message-Id: <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:42:26 PDT." Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:40:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Suppose you open 1NT and partner bids 3NT. This is to play, I > presume. Actually, it generally denies a major, but as a matter of > general knowledge, partner just might have bid 3NT for some reason with > a major: perhaps she is 4333 and feels there will be no ruffing. > Perhaps she has S AKQJxx and has suddenly decided to gamble that nine > tricks are easier than ten. This is general knowledge, and need not be > disclosed. > > However, if Alice dislikes 4-4 fits, and *never* uses Stayman with a > four-card major, that is a special agreement. How special? It is one > that is for your partnership. not a general agreement, and thus if an > opponent were o ask the meaning of 3NT you would disclose this, perhaps > by saying "To play: will frequently have a four-card major". Well, this particular auction is one I put up a big fight over on r.g.b not too long ago. I don't have any problem with what Eric and others say about a three-level opening, i.e. if partner has a good suit either by explicit agreement or partnership experience, that has to be disclosed. I *do* have a problem with 1NT-3NT, however. To me, this is a significantly different type of bid than a 3 opener. IMHO, there are two types of calls that need to be considered: (1) Calls that provide information to one's partner, that partner can later use to make a decision in the auction or on defense; (2) Calls that do not provide information, but simply command partner to do something; in this case, partner would not have any decision to make. I'd put contract-placing bids, such as 1NT-3NT, in the second category; basically, they command partner to pass. (Not all shutout bids are like that; over 1H-4H, for instance, opener *could* have a reason to go on with some hands just short of a 2C opener. Except when playing Precision.) Some asking bids, e.g. in relay sequences, also fall in the second category, since opener is supposed to answer a question about his hand and not exercise any judgment. (But not Stayman; although the opener's first rebid will be a mechanical one that does not need to know any information about responder's hand, the Stayman bid often provides information that opener needs to know about in *later* rounds of the auction.) OK, so here's my question. Suppose I've noticed that, when my partner makes a certain type (2) bid, there's some interesting characteristic about his hand. With 1NT-3NT, maybe I notice partner never has a 4-card major even if 4333; or I notice partner has a 4-card major much more often than usual; or I notice partner never has a 6-card minor or never has a stiff honor or something. My question: Is this an "agreement"? Or merely an "observation"? My instinct is to say this is *not* an "agreement". The Laws don't define "agreement", but my understanding of the English word is that it implies that one party is making an assertion, or a promise, that the another party can rely on (or *almost* rely on, in bridge). The meaning has to be modified somewhat to provide for "implicit" agreements, where a partner doesn't make an explicit promise---but the other partner can still rely on the information anyway. But it seems to me that the idea of providing information that partner can rely on is an integral part of the concept. If, instead, one partner provides information that the other partner has no use for---as is the case when the other partner is required by agreement to pass or is reduced to answering queries---I don't think the information meets the definition of an "agreement". In my Webster's, the definition of "agreement" includes the words "treaty" and "contract"; those words imply some sort of promise, while if a partner has information he cannot use, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with promises or treaties or whatever. Also, it doesn't seem to me that it should be necessary to disclose such information in bridge. The fundamental rule of bridge is that there be no secret agreements; this is so that one pair does not get an advantage from using information (except for the cards in one's own hand) that the other pair doesn't have available. But in a case like 1NT-3NT, opener cannot take advantage of any information he might have gained about partner's bid from experience. So does it really violate the spirit of the game to withhold "useless" information such as that, and to say merely that one's agreement is that "3NT is to play"? I wonder whether disclosing this sort of information is really what was intended when the Laws about full disclosure were written. It does seem to me that such "observations" that aren't "agreements" are information the opponents shouldn't be entitled to. Now, having said all that, I'll admit that 1NT-3NT isn't even the best example, since it doesn't necessarily end the auction. Oh, opener better not bid again on his own, but there are two opponents that could still have distributional hands and may want to take a save. In that case, opener *can* take advantage of information gained from partnership experience, if his side ends up defending. Still, I'd like some opinions on whether information such as I've described should be considered an "agreement", and whether it ought to be disclosed. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 10:00:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:00:41 +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 KAA26421 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:00:31 +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 UAA25428 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:00:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA29430 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:00:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:00:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907170000.UAA29430@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Monday, I wrote: > Some young scientists decided to modify their > responses to Standard American five-card-major opening bids. > ... (For present purposes, assume the agreements are legal ones.) > > What the pair never discussed was which hands are "left over" and had > to pass. Thus when the auction went 1H-P-P-, they were not in position > to explain responder's pass or even know whether it should be alerted. > ... Now that the pair have > discussed the matter, this pass ... does require an > alert. ... Of course it was not alerted at the table. > > Have this pair committed an infraction? What law? I was disappointed to see so little response. How about L40B (failure to alert)? (Or are the alert rules adopted under a different law?) The partnership _has_ an alertable agreement about the pass, even though they have not discussed it. Don't they? What about a Precision pair who agree that all of 1D through 2C are limited to 15 HCP but never discuss exactly which hands open 1D? Is the failure to have a discussion the same as not having an agreement? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 10:41:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:41:37 +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 KAA26569 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:41:30 +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; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:42:06 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <06c001becf52$9c483b80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990715090750.006d07e0@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:36:06 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:12 AM -0400 7/16/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >This happened some years ago, and was the occasion for a big brouhaha with >the TD (I'm milder now, with ZT and all), who said I must explain the 3S >bid. I refused, considering the instruction illegal, per L75C. "You >explain it, I'm not going to." I forget what happened, but I never did >explain that 3S was a weak preemptive response. No, my partner had never >made that bid before with me, and we had never discussed it. I don't think >that matters, when you read L75C. I treasure a little postcard from Edgar >Kaplan agreeing with me on this. What of Law 90B8? :-) 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/AwUBN4/RMr2UW3au93vOEQLFOACfXjyKdAN3xmT9lpgenzAhibeUxn4AoP10 hrzSIUMiYGyFNPyBcfLwb7+g =vktE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 10:46:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:46:59 +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 KAA26636 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:46:52 +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 115Icm-00098s-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:46:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:45:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Statistics References: <378F3F5B.FFAD596A@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <378F3F5B.FFAD596A@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Statistics from the first half of 1999: (+2 weeks) >There have been 4954 posts so far this year, and one writer >is responsible for almost as many as the next 2 put together >: > >600 David Stevenson Perhaps I should cut down! >334 Herman De Wael >298 Marvin L. French >249 Grattan Endicott >222 Steve Willner -- 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 Jul 17 11:02:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:02:27 +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 LAA26694 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:02:20 +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, 16 Jul 1999 21:02:54 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199907170000.UAA29430@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:58:10 -0400 To: Steve Willner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 8:00 PM -0400 7/16/99, Steve Willner wrote: >The partnership _has_ an alertable agreement about the pass, even >though they have not discussed it. Don't they? I wonder how one describes one's agreements if one doesn't know what they are. :-) >What about a Precision pair who agree that all of 1D through 2C are >limited to 15 HCP but never discuss exactly which hands open 1D? Is >the failure to have a discussion the same as not having an agreement? I would think that "we have no agreement" is not sufficient explanation in this case. Perhaps "we've agreed that all hands less than 16 HCP are opened with some bid between 1D and 2C. 1NT requires a balanced hand, no 5 card major. Majors and 2C require at least 5 cards. All other hands of opening strength and less than 16 HCP are opened 1D." My partner and I describe it as "11-15 HCP, 2 or more diamonds." 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/AwUBN4/WEr2UW3au93vOEQK+UQCg92JCkOfrecxBBRF6tSaD5ilcZ8oAni/m ZR5Ueqn+bZpzF8B8o1kI525/ =kIou -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 11:20:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:45:11 +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 KAA26607 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:45:02 +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 115Iau-00090u-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:44:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:32:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 7/16/99 8:51:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > >> Please don't write another 75 answers to this post. >> > >Yes, Sir! Wouldn't want to be accused of trying to get you to change your >mind..........Kojak. I trust, Kojak, that you are not suggesting it takes 75 posts to make Herman change his mind .... -- 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 Jul 17 11:45:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:45:15 +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 LAA26777 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:45:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA08948 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <077201becff5$cd6d92c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <008301becee6$58a104a0$7084d9ce@host><069901becf15$caef5d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:36:56 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Pardon me? I think that we have a long-term ongoing problem on BLML > which may be caused by ACBL attitudes, namely that the Laws need only be > applied properly at top-level. In England, and I hope the rest of > Europe and the RoW, we take a lot of trouble with rulings at all levels. > If you play in Flight C, I believe that you have a *right* to competent > tournament direction. > > I think you will find that very few appeals qualify as no-brainers, > but the type of game is unimportant anyway. Yes, I agree, and wish that the senior appeals were all published, instead of just those coming out of the major senior championships. No-brainers should not make it past the screening process, but a few do (e.g. Chicago #7). If the casebooks are pinched for space (not true lately), I wouldn't mind the exclusion of this sort of case and the insertion of a senior game appeal that might be more interesting. > > Those rating votes are pretty meaningless anyway, > >once you see how they're done. Maybe David Stevenson will evaluate that > >aspect of the casebook for us. > > I am interested in the rating votes. They are on a scale of 1.0 to > 3.0, which I find very strange, and I am curious to know how they are > translated. After all, if everyone voted 1.0, presumably the rating > would be 0%: I wonder if this is so? > > I take trouble over the rating votes, but I wonder ..... Scale of 1.0 to 3.0, which means 21 possible scores, and then the votes are added and converted to a percentage scale of 0-100, with the result shown to one meaningless (?) decimal place. Maybe the math types can help out here? I think a whole number scale of 0 to 10 would be sufficient, and more easily converted to percentage scores. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 11:56:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:21:28 +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 KAA26509 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:21:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem29.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.29] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 115IDt-0001of-00; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:21:02 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Michael Farebrother" , Subject: Re: ýY?¤*-ü¹?µ??ü·???³ü³???¸ü¦?f?® Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:13:42 +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 o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ================================ ---------- > From: Michael Farebrother > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: AC's and PP's (now Acronyms)ýY?¤*-ü¹?µ??ü·???³ü³???¸ü¦?f?® > Date: 15 July 1999 16:11 > > >From: Schoderb@aol.com > > >In a message dated 7/14/99 12:31:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > > > > > You know, Kojak, you are beginning to use as many odd letter > > > combinations as I do! > > ++++ Uhu ........ and for a man who assured me he would only intervene when driven to it, preferring to lurk and listen, he sure do use up a lot of space! :-))) Something is doing some driving. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 12:25:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:45:16 +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 KAA26608 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:45:03 +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 115Iau-00090t-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:44:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:29:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <199907152345.TAA28443@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <199907152345.TAA28443@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > >snip > > >> Another example is >>an ACBL rule in Swiss team games, where if there is an appeal, each >>team is paired for future rounds on the basis that it will win the >>appeal, not on the basis of the TD ruling. > >This is a seriously good idea which I believe the EBU should adopt. ACs >meeting on a top table appeal can hold 100 tables up for 15 minutes. >This is unacceptable. chs John Excuse me? We are not to hold up the tournament, so to continue the tournament we assume that the TD is going to be overruled? Why does this make the tournament run faster, please? -- 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 Jul 17 12:25:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:25:20 +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 MAA26872 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:25:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (from kardwizard@juno.com) by m2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id EFPRJLE7; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:24:31 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:22:50 -0500 Subject: THIS IS REALLY WEIRD Message-ID: <19990716.212341.-65805.1.KardWizard@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 6-10 X-Juno-Att: 0 X-Juno-RefParts: 0 From: Sandy Singer Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a session of the Nashville Regional yesterday I did a strange thing. After passing 5 times in a row [a record for me] I replaced all the Pass cards in my bidding box. On the next board RHO bid 1D, I placed what I thought was a Pass card on the table. LHO passed and my partner bid 1H. RHO bid 2D--I looked down and saw I a red X in front of me and muttered, "How did THAT get there!" The director was called.....I'll let you take it from there. Sandy Singer =--------------= Nashville ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 12:32:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:32:54 +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 MAA26908 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:32:46 +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 115KHD-000N8b-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 02:32:36 +0000 Message-ID: <2o$H8MBsn+j3Ew51@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:26:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <199907162240.SAA29345@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907162240.SAA29345@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> Excuse me! Are you really saying that your definition of whether a >> ruling exists is based on ACBL scoring practices, despite them not being >> followed in the RoW? > >No, I was giving an example of how a seemingly purely semantic >distinction might lead to a practical outcome. > >> The ACBL has a perfect right to run its tournaments in this way, but >> it does not define the Laws! > >The Laws do not appear to define what happens when a TD ruling is >appealed. Does the hand result based on the TD ruling remain in effect >unless an AC overturns it? Or is there "no result" until the AC >rules? I don't find a clear statement in the Laws, and to the extent >the question is purely semantic and of no practical importance, I >suspect the law writers had no interest in deciding. I do not accept this. A ruling is made, and I really cannot see any logic whatever why it disappears. I actually find it close to incredible that people believe it suddenly disappears, and I challenge such people to find a Law that makes it disappear. OK, to justify, you post one of the most disgraceful, disgusting and unjustifiable ACBL decisions I have ever heard. Is it any wonder that we hear that players do not have faith in the people that run the ACBL when they have to deal with this? When a TD gives a ruling outside the ACBL there is a presumption that he has done his best, and unless the AC sees it differently, that his result will be accepted. This leads to a faith in TDs, and in many countries, TDs are well trained, make good decisions, and do not get routinely appealed. In the ACBL, there is a presumption that the TD is a mindless puppet who cannot make a decision, so it must be left to ACs who do not know the Laws and are the only people capable of making a decision. And where does this lack of faith come from? From the ACBL itself! What does it mean when a player appeals in the ACBL? It means one of the following: [1] He does not trust the TD [2] He thinks the gamble worth it against losing his deposit, or these days, acquiring an AWMP [Appeal Without Merit Point]. [3] He thinks it is the way to win at Bridge [4] He has got a good case Now, [1][2] and [3] describe what is wrong with the ACBL, and they need to get things back on the rails. Appeals should not be automatic, there needs to be faith in the TDs, and we need to stamp out BLs [bridge lawyers]. So how does the ACBL go about it? They show that they have complete and total faith in their TDs by having a regulation that if there is an appeal in a Swiss match, the matching is done on the basis that the TD has got it wrong. I cannot believe it. >However... there are a couple of practical consequences. One is >whether an AC can give a L91 ruling. Another is the Swiss matching >I mentioned. (Does the EBU match on the TD ruling, even when there >has been an appeal?) Naturally. What other way is there? > I have no quarrel with any SO that wants to >adopt its own regulations for either question, and I certainly have >no quarrel with a semantic interpretation. The idea that there is >"no result," as Linda Trent has said, along with the ACBL's policy >on Swiss matching appeals to my sense of logic and order, but I >wouldn't denounce alternative policies or interpretations. I don't >know whether the ACBL allows an AC to use L91 (anybody know?), but >the logic of their position says that they should. What does the >EBU say? They may not overrule a TD on the use of his disciplinary powers. Subject to that, we allow ACs to have all the powers of a TD .... What do you mean, what does the EBU say? We do not say any of that: we do not need to: it is all in the Law book. > The logic of their position ("TD result in effect") says >that they should not allow an AC to use L91. As I have said, the >practical result is the same either way. Of course they can use L91. They have the rights of a TD. [s] >Even if the interpretation is that there is "no result," it is still >possible to post tentative results for the event. I am not at all sure >that is wise, though, because if the results change, people will say >"The event was decided in the committee room, not at the table." You really do have a problem, don't you? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 12:34:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:21:15 +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 KAA26496 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:21:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem29.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.29] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 115IDn-0001of-00; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:20:56 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Grabiner" , Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:21:34 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ================================ ---------- > From: David Grabiner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Malta Appeals > Date: 16 July 1999 19:50 > > Eric Landau writes: > > > At 07:45 PM 7/15/99 -0400, Steve wrote: > > > In most appeals, it's fairly easy. If the TD has ruled an adjusted > score and the offenders appeal, the offenders' presumptive score is > based on the table result being restored, and the non-offenders' > presumptive score is based on the TD's award. If the TD has ruled no > adjustment and the non-offenders appeal, he should be at least as good > at determining the expected adjusted result as he would be at making an > adjustment. > ++ I would think this likely to be a better balanced procedure than to award either the adjusted score or the unadjusted score to both sides. But this is very much a matter for SOs. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 13:07:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:21:32 +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 KAA26512 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:21:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem29.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.29] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 115IDv-0001of-00; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:21:03 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: with pride Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:29:20 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ================================ ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: with pride > Date: 15 July 1999 23:06> > It's a shame that the interpretations of the WBF LC must be incorporated > into the Laws in order to get them implemented everywhere. There ought to > be an easier way. Since the ACBL Appeals Administrator (I think he is) > Rich Colker has accepted this particular interpretation and will implement > it henceforth, that is a surely an important step toward its universal > adoption. > +++ It will be a long, hard road and I am willing to accept any lift along the way. But Directors in many parts of the world do not see much of the exchanges and we should not neglect them. In the end the laws have to spell out the way it is intended the game should be run and it would be a waste of time agreeing without carrying thru to implementation. And let's be clear, 'the WBF LC' is not a European body, not an ACBL body, but an international body. The laws are international laws. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 13:23:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:45:15 +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 KAA26609 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:45:04 +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 115Iau-00090s-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:44:50 +0000 Message-ID: <59IUJVAx+7j3EwI7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:26:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <7a51d008.24bfca3c@aol.com> <378EF0FB.B7304A2B@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <378EF0FB.B7304A2B@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >What a load of argument over one silly remark of mine ! > >Of course the TD's ruling stands until the AC decides >otherwise. Well, not everyone agrees, but the majority do, and I think nothing else is tenable. >All I wanted to say is that the AC begins at zero. Not a good idea. Fortunately, few ACs work that way. >Let me throw another stick among the chickens : suppose the >AC discovers that the TD (in their opinion) has made a wrong >decision over some part of the ruling which is NOT contested >by the appealing side ? Should then the AC not change the >TD's ruling ? Certainly. L93B3 gives the power, and effectively subordinates L81C6. >So what is wroing with stating that at the start of an AC >hearing, the TD's decision is "cancelled" and a new decision >(most often the same one) is reached ? It does not happen, and it certainly does not follow from your last remark. >Sorry to have spoken. > >Please don't write another 75 answers to this post. > -- 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 Jul 17 13:28:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:28:34 +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 NAA27018 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:28:23 +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 115L92-000O8z-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:28:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:20:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: THIS IS REALLY WEIRD In-Reply-To: <19990716.212341.-65805.1.KardWizard@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <19990716.212341.-65805.1.KardWizard@juno.com>, Sandy Singer writes >In a session of the Nashville Regional yesterday I did a strange thing. >After passing 5 times in a row [a record for me] I replaced all the Pass >cards in my bidding box. On the next board RHO bid 1D, I placed what I >thought was a Pass card on the table. LHO passed and my partner bid 1H. >RHO bid 2D--I looked down and saw I a red X in front of me and muttered, L25a says that you can't change an inadvertent call after pard has called. So your double stands. Your comment is UI to pard. It's probably going to get you a good result as the psychic t/o double is one of the better and more successful (high variance, adequate payback) weapons in the YC armoury. chs john >"How did THAT get there!" The director was called.....I'll let you take >it from there. -- 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 Jul 17 13:28:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:28:34 +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 NAA27017 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:28:23 +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 115L92-000KRj-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:28:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:27:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <199907162240.SAA29345@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199907162240.SAA29345@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes snip reply to two threads >>> Another example is >>>an ACBL rule in Swiss team games, where if there is an appeal, each >>>team is paired for future rounds on the basis that it will win the >>>appeal, not on the basis of the TD ruling. >> >>This is a seriously good idea which I believe the EBU should adopt. ACs >>meeting on a top table appeal can hold 100 tables up for 15 minutes. >>This is unacceptable. chs John SW: > (Does the EBU match on the TD ruling, even when there >has been an appeal?) 400 bridge players miss trains and hate the EBU 'cos we can't make any assignments until the appeal is heard. Altogether now ACBL "We don't believe the EBU could be SO stupid" FFS Get real, EBU. These customers are paying to keep YOU in jobs. DWS: > Excuse me? We are not to hold up the tournament, so to continue the >tournament we assume that the TD is going to be overruled? Why does >this make the tournament run faster, please? Do you want the situation where 100 tables wait 15 minutes before the last round assignments are issued because an AC is making a ruling (therby costing 100 player-hours of goodwill) or do you assign *now* based on the TD's ruling and the table result, thereby keeping 400 (FOUR HUNDRED) bridge players happy. (And award a mismatch adjustment if necessary). It's happened. I was there. I was embarrassed for the Organisers. And it's not illegal, when we have such methods. Get real David :)) It's them Customers pay our mortgages. chs 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 Jul 17 13:32:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:32:28 +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 NAA27049 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:32:22 +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 115LCw-000KnV-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:32:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:30:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <59IUJVAx+7j3EwI7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <59IUJVAx+7j3EwI7@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes snip >>All I wanted to say is that the AC begins at zero. > > Not a good idea. Fortunately, few ACs work that way. > absolutely not. The AC starts with the TD ruling, his reasons and their questions of him. chs 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 Jul 17 13:58:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:58:47 +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 NAA27100 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:58:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.58]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA00575 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:58:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907170358.XAA16733@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <2o$H8MBsn+j3Ew51@blakjak.demon.co.uk> (message from David Stevenson on Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:26:52 +0100) Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > So how does the ACBL go about it? They show that they have complete > and total faith in their TDs by having a regulation that if there is an > appeal in a Swiss match, the matching is done on the basis that the TD > has got it wrong. I agree that this would be wrong, but it isn't what is done. The matching is done to be fair to both sides no matter what the TD has ruled. If Team 1 scores +620, and Team 2 calls the TD because of UI and attempts to get the result adjusted to +170, the TD will rule either +620 or +170. Whichever way the TD rules, there may be an appeal if the match is at stake. If the TD's ruling is assumed to stand, then the team for which the TD ruled will be paired as if it won, and the other team will be paired as if it lost; this gives an advantage to the team which the TD ruled against. That team could now win the event without ever playing the leaders, which would not be possible without the ruling. Under the ACBL's rule, both teams will be paired as if they won the match, and then at least one will become a loser when the AC finally rules. Whoever was in the right will be in the same position as if there had been no appeal. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 14:20:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:21:19 +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 KAA26502 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:21:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem29.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.29] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 115IDq-0001of-00; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:20:59 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Phillip Mendelsohn" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Should Dummy's UI After Lead Out of Turn Breed Vigilante Justice? Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:57:27 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ================================ ---------- > From: Phillip Mendelsohn > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Should Dummy's UI After Lead Out of Turn Breed Vigilante Justice? > Date: 14 July 1999 21:05 > > Hello all: > > This is my first post on the BLML. A word of introduction: I am one of > the ACBL's most newly-minted tournament directors in the Southern California > area; I also direct a few days a week at a well-known local club. Although > I do not have any cats per se, I do have two miniature schnauzers, Visa and > Mr. Peabody. They like cats just fine. . . . ++++ It will be with unanimous pleasure throughout the list that we greet your arrival with us ++++ > Know here's where it gets interesting: after the game, I discussed the > hand with B, a nationally-recognized expert on the Laws who plays at our > club. B said that after the UI, if he had been making the ruling, he would > have excluded from among declarer's Law 54 options the choice that dummy > could play the hand. ++ I think B would have been wrong. How is he to know whether the contract might go down played in the pro's hand and make in the partner's hand? And it is not the law. I think you did well. Give the margin of doubt to the defenders if they feel at all reasonably that they may have been damaged; let the offender argue it with the appeal committee. I would guess the offender is convinced he plays the hands 1.5 tricks better than his partner - and he probably does - so make sure he gets no advantage from his impropriety. ~Grattan~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 15:35:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA27355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:35:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot0-39.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-39.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27350 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:35:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-39.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA20267 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:35:08 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:35:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm no expert and not even a TD. But somehow it seems wrong even in a prestigious event to require partnerships to have agreements on all possible sequences of some specified length. I agree that some consistency across the Atlantic is a good idea, but let's try to pick and choose intelligently. Others have already stated that there is no basis in the Laws for a penalty to be given when such a pair finds a hole in its agreements. Law 40 has been cited. In my limited experience, bidding a sequence for which the partnership has no agreements tends to lose on average. I might compare it to a psychic bid; occasionally the bid might gain, but it will lose more often. I believe it makes more sense to judge whether or not a pair's agreements are adequate by their results at the table. There are more than a few players who revel in the play, and for whom the bidding is little more than a preliminary. And to what sequence length should even an expert pair have agreements? Consider that there are 561 sequences (ignoring sequences containing a pass) for just the first round. I'd be willing to bet that there are more than a few expert pairs that don't have explicit agreements for them all. I doubt that more than one expert partnership in ten worldwide has explicit agreements for all possible sequences through two rounds. Bruce Kooijman, A. wrote: : Onderwerp: Obligation to have agreements : Hi all, : I am currently corresponding with David on the final touches : of the Appeals from Malta, and they should appear on the : swiss site soon. : We have an interesting discussion about something the AC : decided (appeal 25) : In short, the bidding had gone : : 2Cl pass 2Di pass : 2Sp pass 3Di : 2Cl was 11-16 with 6Cl : 2Di was asking relay : 2Sp showed 4 spades : 2NT would have been the next relay (very well described in : system notes) : 3Di was explained differently on either side. : What happened next is of little importance to us here, but : in addition to their ruling, the AC decided to give to this : pair a PP of half a VP. : The AC did not find it acceptable that a partnership had no : agreements over a simple third round bid in an uncontested : auction (in a European Championship). : Well, another subject to be put on our agenda in Lausanne in September. It : touches notions as 'convention disruption'(an ACBL invention) and : discussions we have in the Netherlands where our national appeal committee : decided some time ago that in case of mistaken bids using some popular : conventions as Ghestem (an overcall with 2 known 5plus-suiters; but nobody : knows, nor the bidders nor the explainers) and a bad score for the other : side as a result of that, an adjusted should be given (60/40 is their : favorite) . Not based on the laws, but who cares. : If we change the wording of the AC decision slightly, and it seems possible : to me that they wanted to say that, things become understandable. If both : sides, after the 3D bid had said that there was no agreement about that bid, : it sounds not right to me to give a PP. But if two different explanations : are given, an AC may draw the conclusion that this pair, discussing the : system, didn't pay enough attention, which might be worth a PP. Without : consequent damage for the non offenders their score should not be changed. : Bobby Wolff will like this decision taken by the AC. An early and unexpected : partial agreement between both sides of the Atlantic? : ton From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 15:45:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:21:32 +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 KAA26515 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:21:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem29.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.29] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 115IDw-0001of-00; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:21:05 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:19:32 +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 o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ================================ > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements > Date: 14 July 1999 12:30 > > I have never stated that this AC was absolutely correct in > awarding this PP. Maybe this pair did not commit an > offense, and our PP was wrong. +++ I have failed to find anything in the regulations which seeks to overturn the provision in Law40A that a player may make any call about which he has no partnership understanding. (A partnership understanding would quickly ensue if he were to do so.) If a player makes a call and partner interprets it correctly, either the interpretation is based on general bridge knowledge or they do have an understanding.+++ > But I concur with the PP, and I personally believe L74B1 is > the correct reference. > Argue that as much as you like, but that is my position. +++ No need to argue. The Law reference is plain bunkum. Concurrence with the PP, if the basis for it was truly as is asserted, calls into question knowledge of the laws.+++ > I agree that the Laws do not provide for pairs to be obliged > to have full agreements. I feel that at some level of play, > over some basic points, it is not correct not to have > agreements. +++ An opinion to which anyone is entitled. However, the award of a PP has to be based upon the law and regulations; not upon an opinion of what they ought to be.+++ > The Committee was unanimous in this feeling. > I think many of you may agree with this feeling. > If the Laws do not provide for any way this feeling can be > translated into a PP, then the Laws need changing. +++ So the PP was awarded in anticipation of a change in the rules of the game? Not only in the rules but in one of the long-standing principles which 40A expresses clearly. +++ > > Personally I think 74B1 fits nicely, provided we interpret > "the game" in > the way we would interpret "The Game". +++ Not to repeat myself.+++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 16:32:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA27465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 16:32:18 +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 QAA27460 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 16:32:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA20892 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <07b501bed01d$dfc34d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:29:27 -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 > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > From: Bill Segraves >>Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Why is this language there, if it is meaningless? Why does L75 > > >use the word "special" if every agreement is special?> > > > > > One might ask, alternatively, why L75 uses the word "implicit" if > > everything must be spelled out in black and white in order to constitute a > > partnership agreement. > > > > [Return to lurk.] > > +++ I think a special partnership understanding is > one that the partnership has which is not part of the > general expectations of all players and to be > aware of which opponents are entitled by law. The > place to look to understand what is required is > Law 40 A & B. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ L40A concerns misleading calls and calls that depart from a convention's customary usage. Not what we're talking about. L40B says you can't make a call based on a special partnership understanding that the opponents don't know about. Not exactly what we're talking about. We're talking about calls whose meanings come from general knowledge and experience, not from any special partnership understanding, and that is covered by L75C: "...a player shall disclose all special [that word again, SPECIAL] information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." It doesn't say that my general knowledge and experience must match that of "all players." There are players who don't know what any bid means. Take that sequence John Probst gave us: 2NT=3C=3D=3H=3S=3NT=4D As responder, playing SAYC in an individual game with an intelligent-looking partner that I don't know, I would assume that 3S and 4D are cue bids in support of hearts. That comes from my general knowledge and experience, and if an opponent asks me what my partner's bids mean I am not going to create unnecessary UI by explaining them. I'm sure everyone who reads L75C would agree with that, but not this: If one of my regular partners were to make these bids 20 times, my knowledge about them would still have come from general knowledge and experience. It is not "special information" that was conveyed to me "through partnership agreement or partnership experience," so I need not disclose if I don't want to. (The same principle applies to psychs, by the way.) I usually do explain such calls, if I am sure the UI created will do no harm and the opponent asking is an inexperienced player who just wants to learn, or is from a foreign country and may have a much different idea of how Stayman is used hereabouts. But if it's a pro asking for client's benefit, no way am I going to answer. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 18:18:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:18:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27623 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:18:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id AAA13893 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:18:19 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:18:19 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <199907170358.XAA16733@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, David Grabiner wrote: : You write: : : > So how does the ACBL go about it? They show that they have complete : > and total faith in their TDs by having a regulation that if there is an : > appeal in a Swiss match, the matching is done on the basis that the TD : > has got it wrong. : : Under the ACBL's rule, both teams will be paired as if they won the : match, and then at least one will become a loser when the AC finally : rules. Whoever was in the right will be in the same position as if : there had been no appeal. : This matches with USCF (United States Chess Federation) procedure in pairing rounds with an adjourned game in the previous round. Both players are asked whether they are playing to win, lose, or draw. (If a player says he's playing to lose, that's equivalent to a resignation; if both players are playing to draw, the game is agreed drawn immediately.) The next round is paired as if both players get their intended result. This procedure makes sense for bridge, as well, as a board pending appeal (and thus with no certain result) is effectively the same as a board still being played. signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ "Never argue with a women when she's tired -- or rested." - LL ] From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 19:20:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:40 +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 TAA27796 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-216.uunet.be [194.7.150.216]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA15260 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:09:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37903B0B.4CA73E5A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:12:59 +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 (and very nasty question) References: <000e01becfac$43964a40$23b420cc@host> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > Eric is quite right. This would be a marketing disaster and a major > disservice to the membership. You might save a little by shutting down the > partnership desk. > (and so on) Now stop this ! The EBL AC has given a PP to a pair who did not have an agreement over a second round auction in a normal sequence, uncontested bidding. The AC felt this was not allowed in a tournament where you had to qualify to come, and send in CC three weeks in advance. That is absolutely not the same as what is suggested in Craig's post. If every small remark I make creates 100 silly replies, I will stop posting. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 19:25:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:25:49 +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 TAA27871 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:25:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.145.204]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19990717092806.XVVC956294.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:28:06 +1200 Message-ID: <37904B5B.DCDA3175@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:22:35 +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: Obligation to have agreements References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Bruce J. Moore" wrote: > > I'm no expert and not even a TD. But somehow it seems wrong even > in a prestigious event to require partnerships to have agreements > on all possible sequences of some specified length. I agree that > some consistency across the Atlantic is a good idea, but let's > try to pick and choose intelligently. > > Others have already stated that there is no basis in the Laws > for a penalty to be given when such a pair finds a hole in its > agreements. Law 40 has been cited. > > In my limited experience, bidding a sequence for which the > partnership has no agreements tends to lose on average. I might compare > it to a psychic bid; occasionally the bid might gain, but it will > lose more often. > > I believe it makes more sense to judge whether or not a pair's > agreements are adequate by their results at the table. There are > more than a few players who revel in the play, and for whom the bidding > is little more than a preliminary. > > And to what sequence length should even an expert pair have agreements? > Consider that there are 561 sequences (ignoring sequences containing a > pass) for just the first round. I'd be willing to bet that there are > more than a few expert pairs that don't have explicit agreements for > them all. I doubt that more than one expert partnership in ten > worldwide has explicit agreements for all possible sequences through two > rounds. > > Bruce > My count is about 2000 uncontested sequences in two rounds below 3NT. This climbs to nearly 10000 in three rounds. There are just two many sequences to expect players to have agreements on them all. -- Wayne Burrows mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 20:15:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:44 +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 TAA27801 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-216.uunet.be [194.7.150.216]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA15266 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:09:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37903B89.9BD2FE03@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:15:05 +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: Malta Appeals References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Kojak wrote: > >In a message dated 7/16/99 8:51:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > >> Please don't write another 75 answers to this post. > >> > > > >Yes, Sir! Wouldn't want to be accused of trying to get you to change your > >mind..........Kojak. > > I trust, Kojak, that you are not suggesting it takes 75 posts to make > Herman change his mind .... > No David, it takes 75 posts to have me shut up ! 73 and counting ... > -- > 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 ~ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 20:20:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:48 +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 TAA27807 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-216.uunet.be [194.7.150.216]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA15272 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:09:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37903C99.40240566@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:19:37 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > Another example is > >an ACBL rule in Swiss team games, where if there is an appeal, each > >team is paired for future rounds on the basis that it will win the > >appeal, not on the basis of the TD ruling. > > This is a seriously good idea which I believe the EBU should adopt. ACs > meeting on a top table appeal can hold 100 tables up for 15 minutes. > This is unacceptable. chs John I agree. Furthermore, what does one do in the following set of circumstances: The match finishes (rather late, because of a ruling). The Director is still consulting. The match is scored. The Director comes to tell the result of his ruling. The CTD calls out for results. The Captain hands in the result. The team start discussing the ruling, and decide to appeal. And now the pairings have to change again, do they ? Silly rule, and no real advantage to it anyway. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 21:00:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:53 +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 TAA27811 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-216.uunet.be [194.7.150.216]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA15282 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:09:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37903E34.B4C2AB@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:26:29 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > snip > > >>All I wanted to say is that the AC begins at zero. > > > > Not a good idea. Fortunately, few ACs work that way. > > > absolutely not. The AC starts with the TD ruling, his reasons and their > questions of him. chs john Again everyone misunderstands me. I think I'm writing in dutch. Of course the AC starts by hearing the TD. What do you thing I am - deaf and blind ? But when deciding, the AC starts from the facts, not from the ruling. Only in rare cases will the AC determine that they have not been able to find out the facts better than the TD, and then they will probably decide that the TD determination of facts shall stand. Ergo his ruling. But I have never encountered a case where say, if the vote on LA's is 2-2, the AC decides to have the TD's decision be the casting vote. That is what I mean by saying that the AC decides from scratch. What is so wrong with that statement ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 21:12:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:57 +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 TAA27823 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-216.uunet.be [194.7.150.216]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA15292 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:09:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3790411B.ABB9DF51@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:38:51 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > (2) Calls that do not provide information, but simply command partner > to do something; in this case, partner would not have any decision > to make. > > I'd put contract-placing bids, such as 1NT-3NT, in the second > category; basically, they command partner to pass. (Not all shutout > > OK, so here's my question. Suppose I've noticed that, when my partner > makes a certain type (2) bid, there's some interesting characteristic > about his hand. With 1NT-3NT, maybe I notice partner never has a > 4-card major even if 4333; or I notice partner has a 4-card major much > more often than usual; or I notice partner never has a 6-card minor or > never has a stiff honor or something. My question: Is this an > "agreement"? Or merely an "observation"? > > My instinct is to say this is *not* an "agreement". The Laws don't > define "agreement", but my understanding of the English word is that I agree. > > Also, it doesn't seem to me that it should be necessary to disclose > such information in bridge. The fundamental rule of bridge is that yes it does. You should disclose agreements AND understandings. I'd call this an understanding. I have often pointed out that there is a difference between an agreement and an understanding. Both must be disclosed, but only agreements can be regulated. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 21:26:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:54 +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 TAA27817 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-216.uunet.be [194.7.150.216]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA15288 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:09:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37904009.B95A3DB7@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:34:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <199907160141.VAA23876@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> <072801becf5b$14ecf640$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > So what of an agreement that a 3S opening shows a reasonable seven- > card suit? Well, that would be completely standard in the 1950's, so it > would not need to be explained any further than "normal". It would be a > matter of general knowledge that 3S openers show such hands. > > That is not the case in the 1990's. It is no longer general > knowledge. Nowadays, general knowledge would tell you that a 3S opening > is a pre-empt, showing at least five cards. It is a special partnership > agreement if you play it as a seven-card suit, and needs to be disclosed > in answer to a question. > I had a similar case yesterday. I was playing in a club 20 km away. I know the people, they know me, but at one time I am playing against a young lady who I have known (through my business) for 10 years, but meet for the first time at the bridge table. I bid 4C, which is (correctly) explained as "control". I end up in 4Sp, and defenders take the first three tricks. The Ace of clubs is out, and I expect this return and another ruff for two down. The young lady returns trumps and I win the contract for a giant top. I ask her why she did not switch to clubs, and she replies "because you showed the Ace". They wanted to stop me from calling the Director in function. But yet I insisted. It is not up to me to rule that I have given enough explanation. In my club "control" is generally understood to be first or second round control (King or singleton). But if in Lier the understanding is different, I would be happy to write down 2. (The TD confirmed that my explanation was enough) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 17 23:03:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 23:03:26 +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 XAA28259 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 23:03:17 +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 115U7J-000G2o-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:03:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:43:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <07b501bed01d$dfc34d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <07b501bed01d$dfc34d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes snip > >Take that sequence John Probst gave us: 2NT=3C=3D=3H=3S=3NT=4D > >As responder, playing SAYC in an individual game with an >intelligent-looking partner that I don't know, I would assume that 3S and >4D are cue bids in support of hearts. That comes from my general knowledge >and experience, and if an opponent asks me what my partner's bids mean I >am not going to create unnecessary UI by explaining them. > >I'm sure everyone who reads L75C would agree with that, but not this: If >one of my regular partners were to make these bids 20 times, my knowledge >about them would still have come from general knowledge and experience. It >is not "special information" that was conveyed to me "through partnership >agreement or partnership experience," so I need not disclose if I don't >want to. >(The same principle applies to psychs, by the way.) > >I usually do explain such calls, if I am sure the UI created will do no >harm and the opponent asking is an inexperienced player who just wants to >learn, or is from a foreign country and may have a much different idea of >how Stayman is used hereabouts. But if it's a pro asking for client's >benefit, no way am I going to answer. I think that this must be the right approach. Suppose I'm playing at my local UK club and I have this auction (playing with one of the usual suspects) and my opponent is the "visiting ACBL Life Master" playing with a passing waiter. [The waiter *can* play bridge btw :)) ] At my club that auction will likely be 5-card puppet (even if our total agreement was "oh just the usual rubbish then?"). I'm going to tell VACBLLM "We have no agreement but in this club it is very likely that 'this and this' is what is going on, because 'this' is what is usually played here". VACBLLM would never have known otherwise and this is 'experience' not really of the partnership but of a local custom To me, and I've said this before, it is far more important to avoid MI and maybe give UI, than to say nothing. If it's likely we'll declare the hand then I'll speak, and put up with the UI it might create if they buy the contract. If we are likely to become defenders then I'll call the TD at the end of the hand. Knowingly to create an MI position (which would be unprovable) smacks of the 'dirty tricks' brigade. FWIW the auction would be described at the YC as: 2N "whatever pard thinks is a 2N opener, 21-ish I'd guess" 3C "5 card puppet" 3D "no 5-carder and not 2S with 3 or fewer hearts" 3H "denies hearts" 3S "shows 4 spades" 3N "denies 4 spades and to play" 4D "haven't a clue, general bridge knowledge only I'm afraid" but I'd picture 4-2-5-2 looking for the moysian with doubt about clubs and I would not explain 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 Sat Jul 17 23:45:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 23:45:13 +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 XAA28387 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 23:45:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-89-47.uunet.be [194.7.89.47]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA26094 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:44:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37906E54.193174C8@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:51:48 +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: Obligation to have agreements References: <37904B5B.DCDA3175@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wayne wrote: > > "Bruce J. Moore" wrote: > > > > I'm no expert and not even a TD. But somehow it seems wrong even > > in a prestigious event to require partnerships to have agreements > > on all possible sequences of some specified length. I agree that > > some consistency across the Atlantic is a good idea, but let's > > try to pick and choose intelligently. > > > > Others have already stated that there is no basis in the Laws > > for a penalty to be given when such a pair finds a hole in its > > agreements. Law 40 has been cited. > > > > In my limited experience, bidding a sequence for which the > > partnership has no agreements tends to lose on average. I might compare > > it to a psychic bid; occasionally the bid might gain, but it will > > lose more often. > > > > I believe it makes more sense to judge whether or not a pair's > > agreements are adequate by their results at the table. There are > > more than a few players who revel in the play, and for whom the bidding > > is little more than a preliminary. > > > > And to what sequence length should even an expert pair have agreements? > > Consider that there are 561 sequences (ignoring sequences containing a > > pass) for just the first round. I'd be willing to bet that there are > > more than a few expert pairs that don't have explicit agreements for > > them all. I doubt that more than one expert partnership in ten > > worldwide has explicit agreements for all possible sequences through two > > rounds. > > > > Bruce > > > > My count is about 2000 uncontested sequences in two rounds below 3NT. > This climbs to nearly 10000 in three rounds. > > There are just two many sequences to expect players to have agreements > on them all. > > -- > Wayne Burrows > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Of course there are. But the AC never said the partnership needed to have agreements on all 10000 or so. The AC said that the particular auction was unspecific enough (within the framework of the partnership's system) not to be allowed to go without agreement. May I repeat the auction ? 2Cl (six cards) - 2Di (asking) 2Sp (four cards) - 3Di (??) 2NT (as every one-over-one in their system) would have been asking, but they don't know what 3Di means ? I would expect the explanation to be "any non-asking bid is natural, non-forcing, absolutely uninterested in going further". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 00:13:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 00:13:33 +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 AAA28473 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 00:13:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id KAA12328 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:08:32 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News In-Reply-To: <077201becff5$cd6d92c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Marvin L. French wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > I am interested in the rating votes. They are on a scale of 1.0 to > > 3.0, which I find very strange, and I am curious to know how they are > > translated. After all, if everyone voted 1.0, presumably the rating > > would be 0%: I wonder if this is so? > > > > I take trouble over the rating votes, but I wonder ..... > > Scale of 1.0 to 3.0, which means 21 possible scores, and then the votes > are added and converted to a percentage scale of 0-100, with the result > shown to one meaningless (?) decimal place. > > Maybe the math types can help out here? I think a whole number scale of 0 > to 10 would be sufficient, and more easily converted to percentage scores. > The problem with that is differentiating between what person A means by a "7" as against what person B means by a "6". I would prefer something like: 0 = hopelessly wrong 1 = wrong, I think, but I would have had to be there 2 = Gee, I see both sides' arguments and I still don't know 3 = right, I think, etc 4 = correct Of course, no-one would ever give a "2". -- Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 00:44:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 00:44:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28558 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 00:44:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5 [134.117.136.25]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.1a/8.9.1/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id KAA09115 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:44:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA26728; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907171444.KAA26728@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >SW: >> (Does the EBU match on the TD ruling, even when there >>has been an appeal?) > >400 bridge players miss trains and hate the EBU 'cos we can't make any >assignments until the appeal is heard. Altogether now ACBL "We don't >believe the EBU could be SO stupid" > >FFS Get real, EBU. These customers are paying to keep YOU in jobs. > >DWS: >> Excuse me? We are not to hold up the tournament, so to continue the >>tournament we assume that the TD is going to be overruled? Why does >>this make the tournament run faster, please? > >Do you want the situation where 100 tables wait 15 minutes before the >last round assignments are issued because an AC is making a ruling >(therby costing 100 player-hours of goodwill) or do you assign *now* >based on the TD's ruling and the table result, thereby keeping 400 (FOUR >HUNDRED) bridge players happy. (And award a mismatch adjustment if >necessary). It's happened. I was there. I was embarrassed for the >Organisers. And it's not illegal, when we have such methods. > >Get real David :)) > >It's them Customers pay our mortgages. > > There is even a small practical benefit to handling pairings the ACBL way. A team which just lost, but wants to appeal, has to decide if they would rather carry forward with the appeal, and be paired up, or not appeal, and be paired normaly. This would end up discouraging frivolous appeals from most reasonable players. Add good screening directors, and good initial rulings, and we have eliminated most of the possible appeals, made the game (and trains!) run on time, and made the players happy. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 01:34:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:34:23 +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 BAA28686 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:34:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-196-37.s37.tnt5.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.196.37]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA11190 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005a01bed069$919a3ae0$25c47ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000e01becfac$43964a40$23b420cc@host> <37903B0B.4CA73E5A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:32:23 -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: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, July 17, 1999 4:12 AM Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) [snip] > > Now stop this ! > > The EBL AC has given a PP to a pair who did not have an > agreement over a second round auction in a normal sequence, > uncontested bidding. > > The AC felt this was not allowed in a tournament where you > had to qualify to come, and send in CC three weeks in > advance. > And the question has been asked about exactly what the AC's feelings have to do with this. The Laws are relevant to what is allowed in a tournament. The regulations of the SO are relevant. The CoC of the event are relevant. The feelings of the AC are not. The AC does not create Law (although there is a perception that some have tried to do so, which your position seems to defend). The AC attempts to determine fact and apply applicable Law and regulations. It can try to interpret Law on occassions when the Law appears ambiguous and there are no official interpretations available (at which point is should also become a matter for Grattan's and Ton's notebooks). When the AC makes its determination based on what it feels is right, rather than upon existing Law, it is taking upon itself the duties of a Lawmaker rather than the duties of a TD that are its legitimate domain. If the AC cannot make a ruling based in Law even if that ruling runs counter to its own feelings of what the ruling should be, then the AC was either not properly instructed in its duties, or was not a competent AC. > That is absolutely not the same as what is suggested in > Craig's post. > > If every small remark I make creates 100 silly replies, I > will stop posting. > Some replies were probably silly, most were not. I respect that you are a great deal more experienced in bridge law than I. However if I ever reach the point where I interpret a position as silly solely because it is different than my own, and not try to learn from it and perhaps alter my own perceptions, then I have no chance of becoming a better TD. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 01:50:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:50:21 +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 BAA28734 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:50:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-159-26.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.26]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA21778 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3790A6DD.BF25DB2E@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 08:53:01 -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: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <07b501bed01d$dfc34d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > [long Probst auction snipped] > As responder, playing SAYC in an individual game with an > intelligent-looking partner that I don't know, I would assume that 3S and > 4D are cue bids in support of hearts. That comes from my general knowledge > and experience, and if an opponent asks me what my partner's bids mean I > am not going to create unnecessary UI by explaining them. > > I'm sure everyone who reads L75C would agree with that, but not this: If > one of my regular partners were to make these bids 20 times, my knowledge > about them would still have come from general knowledge and experience. It > is not "special information" that was conveyed to me "through partnership > agreement or partnership experience," so I need not disclose if I don't > want to. > (The same principle applies to psychs, by the way.) Sigh. OK, so you discover that your partner plays rigid first-round control showing cuebids in sequence, with bypassing guaranteeing no first-round control? Or do you follow the Blue Team style of indiscriminately cue-bidding first and second round controls? Or a "prepared" style of cue-bidding? How about an even simpler example: Your partner opens 1S, playing some variant of some popular American style. Your opponent asks. You're not going to tell them? Anyone playing with anyone develops many inferences. Playing a Walsh style, 5-card majors mean *5* cards plus, period. But perhaps they, like I, might have 4 cards. Would they open 1S on AJTxx AT98x xx x? Would they open 1S on xxxxx AK QJ Kxxx? (I would the first, but not the second.) If the opponents are defending and they ask this question, I'd expect a good answer (e.g. partner strongly tends to value good distribution, good spots, and aces more than most in this field. It is not a light opening style, but the set of hands opened is skewed away from balanced 12 counts into some unbalanced hands with low high-card counts.) Or, even if the opponents asked after seeing the AJ A on the play: "Could declarer open AJTxx AT98x ? ? without a side value if 5-5?" I would expect any partner who wants to continue to play with me to say "Yes." In these discussion, Marvin sometimes cites his sources of what "standard" bidding is. I can cite mine just as well; my openers are *very* close to the Kaplan count. Does this mean the opponents should know it? These inferences accrue from partnership experience. And the original example you cited; in a good game I would be somewhat surprised to see a third-seat MP green opener of 3m having a good 7-card suit. I would be much less surprised to see an indifferent 6-carder. The only way you know this is from partnership experience or discussion. I do not interpret "special" as Marv does. And I continue to believe that this particular interpretation is not only wrong, but bad for the game. I know we've been round on this at least twice before (and I stayed out for a bit) but I think bridge would really suffer were Marv's opinion to become the interpretation of the law. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 03:09:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 03:09:30 +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 DAA29108 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 03:09:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.30]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990717170908.STMM22847.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:08 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:07 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <379ab7e8.11761892@post12.tele.dk> References: <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.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 DAA29110 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:40:34 PDT, Adam Beneschan wrote: >OK, so here's my question. Suppose I've noticed that, when my partner >makes a certain type (2) bid, there's some interesting characteristic >about his hand. With 1NT-3NT, maybe I notice partner never has a >4-card major even if 4333; or I notice partner has a 4-card major much >more often than usual; or I notice partner never has a 6-card minor or >never has a stiff honor or something. My question: Is this an >"agreement"? Or merely an "observation"? I think it is an agreement, because I believe that information that "partner has no use for" is (almost) non-existent. >Now, having said all that, I'll admit that 1NT-3NT isn't even the best >example, since it doesn't necessarily end the auction. Oh, opener >better not bid again on his own, but there are two opponents that >could still have distributional hands and may want to take a save. In >that case, opener *can* take advantage of information gained from >partnership experience, if his side ends up defending. That is exactly the problem. If the next hand sacrifices in 4S, then the opener's knowledge of partner's typical or possible hand patterns may suddenly become important for the defence, so that knowledge is information that partner may sometimes have a use for. Declarer in the 4S sacrifice may also have a use for it; he may even need the information in order to decide whether or not to bid 4S. I don't think we can distinguish clearly between the explicit agreement (3NT is to play on any hand on which he believes 3NT to be the best contract) and the knowledge of partner's style and habits (he does not usually have a 4-card major, except with a 4333 distribution). Both need to be disclosed. There are very few situations where it is clear that a player has no use for information from his partner's call: it can only occur if one of those two players become declarer. And except for bids, passes, and redoubles at the level of 7NT, you cannot be certain at the time of your call that you or partner will become declarer. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 03:09:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 03:09:31 +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 DAA29107 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 03:09:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.30]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990717170913.STMZ22847.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:13 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:13 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <379bb7f4.11774350@post12.tele.dk> References: <199907160141.VAA23876@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> <072801becf5b$14ecf640$f5075e18@san.rr.com> 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 DAA29109 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:29:56 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >I think we're missing the more important point here, which is that if you >know that partner's bid shows a good seven-card suit, you should leave it >to the bridge lawyers to argue about whether that's a "special agreement" >or not, while you simply tell your opponents what you know without worrying >about whether it might be technically legal to refuse to do so. I agree very much with that - but I will of course happily join the discussion of whether it is technically legal to refuse to do so. I think the word "special" should be removed; IMO it means almost nothing, and it can be used as an excuse for not giving information in situations where the information ought to be given (according to my idea of what the game should be about). I would like the laws to explicitly say that players have a duty to attempt to give their opponents any possibly useful information about their explicit and implicit agreements concerning system and style. On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:42:26 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > So what of an agreement that a 3S opening shows a reasonable seven- >card suit? Well, that would be completely standard in the 1950's, so it >would not need to be explained any further than "normal". It would be a >matter of general knowledge that 3S openers show such hands. There is an interesting question here: is "standard" in the sense of "very usual agreement" covered by the term "general bridge knowledge"? It must be general bridge knowledge that 3S shows some hand with the necessary playing strength to at least make it reasonably probable that some contract at the level of 3S or higher will not be a disaster. This follows from the fact that regardless of any knowledge of any bidding system, a 3S opening showing any other kind of hand would be suicidal. But in principle the knowledge that 3S shows a spade suit is not "general bridge knowledge" - it is knowledge about a specific agreement, which just happens to be extremely common. It is "usual system knowledge", not "bridge knowledge". It should be possible to teach new players the game without necessarily teaching them a system that is common. A beginner (or a visitor from a different culture) who happens to have learnt a system in which 3S shows a club suit has a right to a full explanation of the 3S bid. So I would tend to interpret "special partnership agreement" very broadly as "any partnership agreement that does not follow from the logic of the rules of the game". But I just might be influenced by the fact that I think the word "special" ought not to be there ... -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 03:09:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 03:09:35 +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 DAA29117 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 03:09:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.30]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990717170919.STNJ22847.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:19 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:09:18 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <379cb861.11882876@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990715090750.006d07e0@pop.cais.com> <06c001becf52$9c483b80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <06c001becf52$9c483b80$f5075e18@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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id DAA29120 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:12:36 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Ah, I'm ready for that one! I am glad to explain my partner's bids, >whether or not they are subject to a special partnership agreement, if >the questioner is a novice or someone from a foreign land who may have >different bidding methods than ours. But when a life master asks, "What >does that bid mean?" after I open 1D and it goes 1D-1H-3S-P; Pass by me, I >reply that we have no special partnership agreement about the bid. > >This happened some years ago, and was the occasion for a big brouhaha with >the TD (I'm milder now, with ZT and all), who said I must explain the 3S >bid. I refused, considering the instruction illegal, per L75C. "You >explain it, I'm not going to." I forget what happened, but I never did >explain that 3S was a weak preemptive response. No, my partner had never >made that bid before with me, and we had never discussed it. It seems to me that there is a world of difference between replying "we have no special partnership agreement about the bid" and replying "my partner has never made that bid before with me, and we have never discussed it" when an opponent ask about the 3S bid. The former more or less implies that you have an agreement which you happen to consider "not special" and do not wish to divulge. As your opponent, I would call the TD. The latter is a fine explanation that clearly says everything there is to say about your agreement. If I were the TD called, I would insist that you gave an explanation (such as that one). If you refused, I would turn to L90B8 and L91. The second time it happens, of course, you have an agreement and you must disclose it. Possibly with words like "we still have no explicit agreement, but it was weak and preemptive the last time". Regardless of the unfortunate word "special", I do not believe that the laws were intended to allow you to win by keeping your opponents in the dark about your methods. As for its being general bridge knowledge, I can only say that my general bridge knowledge must then be too limited. I think I know what 3S means if bid by my regular partner, but I would be in doubt with lots of other partners. Your problem that it gives UI to partner is not a good reason to withhold information from opponents. Disclosure has a higher priority than protecting partner from UI. The UI is only a problem if your parther has actually forgotten the agreement, and the way to solve that problem is to not have too many agreements that partner cannot remember. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 03:30:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 03:30:10 +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 DAA29189 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 03:30:00 +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 MAA81308 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:29:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0HJL900I Sat, 17 Jul 99 12:29:18 Message-ID: <9907171229.0HJL900@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sat, 17 Jul 99 12:29:18 Subject: EXPLAININ To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) B>References: <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> B>Adam Beneschan wrote: B>> B>> B>> B>> (2) Calls that do not provide information, but simply command partner B>> to do something; in this case, partner would not have any decision B>> to make. B>> B>> I'd put contract-placing bids, such as 1NT-3NT, in the second B>> category; basically, they command partner to pass. (Not all shutout B>> B>> OK, so here's my question. Suppose I've noticed that, when my partner B>> makes a certain type (2) bid, there's some interesting characteristic B>> about his hand. With 1NT-3NT, maybe I notice partner never has a B>> 4-card major even if 4333; or I notice partner has a 4-card major much B>> more often than usual; or I notice partner never has a 6-card minor or B>> never has a stiff honor or something. My question: Is this an B>> "agreement"? Or merely an "observation"? B>> B>> My instinct is to say this is *not* an "agreement". The Laws don't B>> define "agreement", This is the best bridge definition for agreement I have come across: An agreement is the understanding governing a pair's normal bidding and play. An agreement is established explicitly by discussion and implicitly by consistent behavior. Roger Pewick B>I agree. B>> B>> Also, it doesn't seem to me that it should be necessary to disclose B>> such information in bridge. The fundamental rule of bridge is that B>yes it does. B>You should disclose agreements AND understandings. B>I'd call this an understanding. B>I have often pointed out that there is a difference between B>an agreement and an understanding. Both must be disclosed, B>but only agreements can be regulated. B>-- B>Herman DE WAEL B>Antwerpen Belgium B>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 06:51:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 06:51:10 +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 GAA29615 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 06:51:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehi9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.73]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA02681 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 16:50:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990717164847.01207184@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 16:48:47 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements In-Reply-To: <199907170000.UAA29430@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:00 PM 7/16/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >On Monday, I wrote: >> Some young scientists decided to modify their >> responses to Standard American five-card-major opening bids. >> ... (For present purposes, assume the agreements are legal ones.) >> >> What the pair never discussed was which hands are "left over" and had >> to pass. Thus when the auction went 1H-P-P-, they were not in position >> to explain responder's pass or even know whether it should be alerted. >> ... Now that the pair have >> discussed the matter, this pass ... does require an >> alert. ... Of course it was not alerted at the table. >> >> Have this pair committed an infraction? What law? > >I was disappointed to see so little response. How about L40B (failure >to alert)? (Or are the alert rules adopted under a different law?) >The partnership _has_ an alertable agreement about the pass, even >though they have not discussed it. Don't they? OK, I'll bite. No, they do not have an alertable agreement, at least not until they have either discussed the inferences or developed sufficient experience with the methods to have come to an understanding about all the inferences available, including negative inferences. With my favorite partner, I play a 2/1 style with a 12-14 NT. Although we have played the basic elements of this system for years, and spent lots of time discussing our methods, I am sure there are still many unexplored issues, including subtle negative inferences of which we may or may not be aware in a given sequence. Do we have an obligation to alert these? Yes, IMO, but only to the point where we have an explicit awareness of them. Although the ideal stipulated in the Laws is "full disclosure", the reality is that players who are working on developing their own methods or mixing and matching from existing systems will have many of these quirks in their bidding, and it is both unrealistic to expect that they will be aware of all of them and impractical in any event to insist upon their full disclosure in every instance. What I would object to is a decision by an AC that some such previously unconsidered sequence required an alert, because of logical inferences that might be apparent, in hindsight, to expert AC members but were not obvious to us at the time. >What about a Precision pair who agree that all of 1D through 2C are >limited to 15 HCP but never discuss exactly which hands open 1D? Is >the failure to have a discussion the same as not having an agreement? > "...never discuss exactly which hands open 1D?" Does this mean that they a) Have no explicit or implicit rules about opening 1D except that such bids have fewer than 15 HCP? b) Only have implicit rules, basically lumping into 1D all opening hands which fail to meet the explicit requirements for 1C, 1M, 1NT, or 2C? c) Have explicit rules, but have not made a complete catalog of hands which meet those rules? a) seems silly, and although c) comes closest to the precise meaning of your words, I am guessing you mean b). Yes, they have an agreement, which can best be explained as "opening hand, usually unbalanced with no 5-card major. States nothing about diamond length." This is obviously alertable in the ACBL, and I suspect in most other jurisdictions as well. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 09:26:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:26:19 +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 JAA29838 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:26:12 +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 115dqF-0009PP-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 23:26:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:41:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: THIS IS REALLY WEIRD References: <19990716.212341.-65805.1.KardWizard@juno.com> In-Reply-To: <19990716.212341.-65805.1.KardWizard@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sandy Singer wrote: Hi Sandy: nice to see you. Any cats? >In a session of the Nashville Regional yesterday I did a strange thing. >After passing 5 times in a row [a record for me] I replaced all the Pass >cards in my bidding box. On the next board RHO bid 1D, I placed what I >thought was a Pass card on the table. LHO passed and my partner bid 1H. >RHO bid 2D--I looked down and saw I a red X in front of me and muttered, >"How did THAT get there!" The director was called.....I'll let you take >it from there. You have doubled, and can do what you like to try and retrieve the situation. Your partner has UI from your unfortunate but understandable comment and the TD should have warned him about the effects, and suggested that everyone calls him back at the end if they are unhappy. Is that what happened? 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 Sun Jul 18 10:31:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 10:31:36 +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 KAA29993 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 10:31:26 +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 UAA01060 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:31:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA00203 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:31:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907180031.UAA00203@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Of course [an AC] can use L91. They have the rights of a TD. Based on the interpretation you give, this is illogical, but I said I wouldn't criticize another SO in this matter, and I won't. > You really do have a problem, don't you? There are many things about the ACBL that I won't defend. I don't think there is any doubt that we have many problems over here. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 12:51:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:51:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00380 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:51:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA08183 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <080a01bed0c8$0ee6dcc0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990715090750.006d07e0@pop.cais.com><06c001becf52$9c483b80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <+t0Uv2A6yxj3EwoI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:48:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Ah, I'm ready for that one! I am glad to explain my partner's bids, > >whether or not they are subject to a special partnership agreement, if > >the questioner is a novice or someone from a foreign land who may have > >different bidding methods than ours. But when a life master asks, "What > >does that bid mean?" after I open 1D and it goes 1D-1H-3S-P; Pass by me, I > >reply that we have no special partnership agreement about the bid. > > > >This happened some years ago, and was the occasion for a big brouhaha with > >the TD (I'm milder now, with ZT and all), who said I must explain the 3S > >bid. I refused, considering the instruction illegal, per L75C. "You > >explain it, I'm not going to." I forget what happened, but I never did > >explain that 3S was a weak preemptive response. No, my partner had never > >made that bid before with me, and we had never discussed it. I don't think > >that matters, when you read L75C. I treasure a little postcard from Edgar > >Kaplan agreeing with me on this. > > > >Last year, same preemptive response. TD Max Hardy called to table. He asks > >the opponents, "Did Marvin Alert?" "No." "Then it must be weak, > >preemptive," and he walks away. Not a bad solution, Max, if a little > >illegal. I had discussed this situation with him a while back, so he knew > >I was in the right and came up with a pragmatic way of handling it. Good > >PR. > > This is OK so long as you have no agreement about it that an opponent > would not expect. If you only make the bid on eight-card suits, for > example, then that needs to be disclosed. We are old-fashioned bidders, with no change in preemptive meaning for the last 50 years. No, that's not true this year. We are trying out a new gimmick, in which an opening 3-level opening in first of second seat denies an ace. Very handy when partner is considering a 3NT bid, or wonders if he should double an opposing bid. Of course the opening is Alerted: "Tends to deny an ace." > > It is more important to keep the opponents informed correctly than to > worry about your own UI problems. Agreed. Disclosure comes first in priority. > So long as you are fully disclosing > what you need to, that is OK. But remember that you have implicit > agreements as well, and they need to be disclosed. You should not want > to win by confusing opponents as to the methods you employ. They would never be confused by what Alice and I play, which is old-fashioned in every respect. No surprises, everything is either on the convention card or Alerted according to ACBL regulations. The only criticism I have received concerns our penalty doubles of overcalls, which are so unknown these days that TDs and ACs don't realize that they can be removed if opener has an unsuitable hand. They claim I should not call them penalty doubles if opener doesn't have to pass them (St. Louis Case #2). Will someone please repeat what the Orange Book says about penalty doubles. Isn't it something to this effect? We have other "implicit agreements," which involve agreements to bid in the most natural way possible. Don't bid your hand twice, bid out your distribution when possible, don't bypass a good major to bid notrump, don't push someone to game if beating it is unlikely, stuff like that. Nothing "special" about them, so they are not required to be disclosed, per L75A.and L75C. However, if an opponent inquires about style, not meaning, that's different. We will gladly disclose all we know about each other's "style," as the ACBL calls it, when an opponent asks for an explanation of the auction (per L20F1). How does this work? Ideally, like this: Our auction (no opposing bidding) goes P=1S=2C=2S=3S=4S. That auction is interrupted by an opponent asking "What does 2C mean?" That's illegal per 20F1, and possibly unethical (holding clubs, or wanting partner to know it isn't Drury). If there is no Alert, it has to show clubs, and if it is an unAlerted Drury response, any damage will be redressed. All we know about the 2C bid comes from general knowledge and experience, so the fact that it is natural and non-forcing need not be disclosed, and the question about it goes unanswered. After the auction is over, the other opponent correctly asks, "Please explain your auction." Reply: "All natural bids. The sequence suggests that responder has a good doubleton spade, but could be three small with very good clubs, since we open four-card majors. No guarantees about all that, but that is our way of bidding." Probably more than we have to say, but that's okay. Note that the reply does not mention that 2C is not forcing, nor that opener must have five spades at least, since those are not special partnership agreements, just normal ones. Now, if the other opponent had asked the right question over 2C: "Please explain your auction," the answer would be "No conventions, nothing Alertable." If he then had asked, "Would you tell me more about your style?" then the style understanding about 1S and 2C would be disclosed. Responder says, "One spade may be based on a four-carder, but opposite a passed partner we don't usually bid a weak four-carder." And the 1S bidder says: "Two clubs tends to be based on a good suit of at least five cards, and tends to deny spade support, but could have three small spades if the clubs are particularly good." Again no mention that 2C is non-forcing, because that is nothing special. I'm not making up a new procedure, but am just going by the ACBL's Principle of Full Disclosure in the *Active Ethics* brochure, modified a little to comply with L75. Don't have time to work out a better example, but you get the idea. We disclose special partnership understandings, explicit or implicit, but not ordinary everyday agreements that are not special (novices and foreigners get it all). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 12:59:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:59:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00399 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:59:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA10317 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <080e01bed0c9$34d300c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907160141.VAA23876@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu><072801becf5b$14ecf640$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:56:55 -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 David Stevenson wrote; > > So what of an agreement that a 3S opening shows a reasonable seven- > card suit? Well, that would be completely standard in the 1950's, so it > would not need to be explained any further than "normal". It would be a > matter of general knowledge that 3S openers show such hands. > > That is not the case in the 1990's. It is no longer general > knowledge. Nowadays, general knowledge would tell you that a 3S opening > is a pre-empt, showing at least five cards. It is a special partnership > agreement if you play it as a seven-card suit, and needs to be disclosed > in answer to a question. > Only in Wales, and perhaps other places, but not in California. :)) The fact that we have "sound preempts" checked on our cc is disclosure enough.The only proper question (per ACBL Principle of Full Disclosure) is: "Please tell me more about your style," and the answer is, "As our convention card shows, we play sound preempts." If an opponent doesn't know what that implies, too bad. If I were to play with a stranger in an individual contest, and we agreed to play sound opening three-bids, we would know that means good seven-card suits, no need to discuss that fact. It is an implicit partnership understanding, but there is nothing "special" about it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 13:40:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 13:40:17 +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 NAA00507 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 13:40:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA20529; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <083401bed0ce$d7910b40$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990715090750.006d07e0@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:28:27 -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 Ed Repper wrote; > >This happened some years ago, and was the occasion for a big brouhaha with > >the TD (I'm milder now, with ZT and all), who said I must explain the 3S > >bid. I refused, considering the instruction illegal, per L75C. "You > >explain it, I'm not going to." I forget what happened, but I never did > >explain that 3S was a weak preemptive response. No, my partner had never > >made that bid before with me, and we had never discussed it. I don't think > >that matters, when you read L75C. I treasure a little postcard from Edgar > >Kaplan agreeing with me on this. > > What of Law 90B8? :-) > In military service one has to obey orders, but not if they are illegal. I follow the same principle in regard to TD's instructions. If they are illegal, I don't feel obligated to obey them. If they sock me with a PP, I can appeal that. But usually I do comply, just to keep Alice from getting upset with me. As Charlie Brown says, life is full of decisions, but you never get to make any. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 13:40:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 13:40:16 +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 NAA00506 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 13:40:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA20534 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <083501bed0ce$d7fd61a0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <378F3F5B.FFAD596A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Statistics Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:30:19 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >Statistics from the first half of 1999: (+2 weeks) > > >There have been 4954 posts so far this year, and one writer > >is responsible for almost as many as the next 2 put together > >: > > > >600 David Stevenson > > Perhaps I should cut down! > > >334 Herman De Wael > >298 Marvin L. French > >249 Grattan Endicott > >222 Steve Willner > No need, we don't count those with the subject of cats, so your real count is 197. :)) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 14:00:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:00:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00559 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:00:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA25615; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <087a01bed0d1$a90b87c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "richard lighton" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:54:20 -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 Richard Lighton wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > I am interested in the rating votes. They are on a scale of 1.0 to > > > 3.0, which I find very strange, and I am curious to know how they are > > > translated. After all, if everyone voted 1.0, presumably the rating > > > would be 0%: I wonder if this is so? > > > > > > I take trouble over the rating votes, but I wonder ..... > > > > Scale of 1.0 to 3.0, which means 21 possible scores, and then the votes > > are added and converted to a percentage scale of 0-100, with the result > > shown to one meaningless (?) decimal place. > > > > Maybe the math types can help out here? I think a whole number scale of 0 > > to 10 would be sufficient, and more easily converted to percentage scores. > > > The problem with that is differentiating between what person A means > by a "7" as against what person B means by a "6". Teachers have to grade papers on a scale of 0 to 100, and don't have complaints. Gymnasts are rated with whole numbers up to 10, with the judges' total scores averaged to the nearest tenth. I think there are enough components to a decision for this approach. The casebook panelists should perhaps be given a sheet of explicit criteria for their use, as is common for judges of gymanstics, skating, beauty contests, etc. > I would prefer something like: > > 0 = hopelessly wrong > 1 = wrong, I think, but I would have had to be there > 2 = Gee, I see both sides' arguments and I still don't know > 3 = right, I think, etc > 4 = correct > I still like 0 to 10, the way men rate women (and no doubt, the way women rate men). And there ain't no ten! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 18 22:06:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 22:06:25 +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 WAA01304 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 22:06:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-85-153.uunet.be [194.7.85.153]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA12751 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:06:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3791AA1F.BFDD6C3A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:19:11 +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 (and very nasty question) References: <000e01becfac$43964a40$23b420cc@host> <37903B0B.4CA73E5A@village.uunet.be> <005a01bed069$919a3ae0$25c47ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > Now stop this ! > > > > The EBL AC has given a PP to a pair who did not have an > > agreement over a second round auction in a normal sequence, > > uncontested bidding. > > > > The AC felt this was not allowed in a tournament where you > > had to qualify to come, and send in CC three weeks in > > advance. > > > > And the question has been asked about exactly what the AC's feelings have to > do with this. Everything ! > The Laws are relevant to what is allowed in a tournament. And as we see from 75 posts, the Laws are not clear. > The regulations of the SO are relevant. The CoC of the event are relevant. > The feelings of the AC are not. The AC does not create Law (although there > is a perception that some have tried to do so, which your position seems to > defend). No, but the AC creates interpretations. My position (sadly not checkable with the other AC members anymore) is that this AC gave a PP under L74B1. You may disagree that this Law applies, but the AC has decided that it does. The fact is, that I have instructed my AC co-members (OK, after the fact, I agree) that L74B1 applies. Thus, this AC has interpreted that L74B1 applies to this particular offense. That's a fact. We may debate until 2007 whether or not the AC was right in deciding so, but the AC did not create Law, only interpretation. > The AC attempts to determine fact and apply applicable Law and > regulations. It can try to interpret Law on occassions when the Law appears > ambiguous and there are no official interpretations available (at which > point is should also become a matter for Grattan's and Ton's notebooks). > Well, that's what it has done. Don't say that this Law is not open to interpretation, I have just opened it. > When the AC makes its determination based on what it feels is right, rather > than upon existing Law, it is taking upon itself the duties of a Lawmaker > rather than the duties of a TD that are its legitimate domain. If the AC > cannot make a ruling based in Law even if that ruling runs counter to its > own feelings of what the ruling should be, then the AC was either not > properly instructed in its duties, or was not a competent AC. > OK. > > That is absolutely not the same as what is suggested in > > Craig's post. > > > > If every small remark I make creates 100 silly replies, I > > will stop posting. > > > > Some replies were probably silly, most were not. I respect that you are a > great deal more experienced in bridge law than I. However if I ever reach > the point where I interpret a position as silly solely because it is > different than my own, and not try to learn from it and perhaps alter my own > perceptions, then I have no chance of becoming a better TD. > > Hirsch I don't interpret positions as silly, I found Craig's suggestion that this interpretation would lead to the scrapping of all pick-up pairs in all ACBL events down to club level, silly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 19 01:16:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:16:33 +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 BAA01865 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:16:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id LAA17259 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:16:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:16:15 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <2o$H8MBsn+j3Ew51@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > > When a TD gives a ruling outside the ACBL there is a presumption that > he has done his best, and unless the AC sees it differently, that his > result will be accepted. This leads to a faith in TDs, and in many > countries, TDs are well trained, make good decisions, and do not get > routinely appealed. A very informal poll on rgb some time back indicated that the number of appeals in European countries was about 3 times higher than in the ACBL. > > What does it mean when a player appeals in the ACBL? It means one of > the following: > > [1] He does not trust the TD > [2] He thinks the gamble worth it against losing his deposit, or these > days, acquiring an AWMP [Appeal Without Merit Point]. > [3] He thinks it is the way to win at Bridge > [4] He has got a good case > > Now, [1][2] and [3] describe what is wrong with the ACBL, and they > need to get things back on the rails. Appeals should not be automatic, > there needs to be faith in the TDs, and we need to stamp out BLs [bridge > lawyers]. > > So how does the ACBL go about it? They show that they have complete > and total faith in their TDs by having a regulation that if there is an > appeal in a Swiss match, the matching is done on the basis that the TD > has got it wrong. > It seems to me that the ACBL procedure on appeals in a Swiss event presumes [4]. The director makes a ruling. Someone appeals. Pairings are then done on the basis that: (a) The director was right, so the team who "gained" by the ruling is paired based on that score. (b) The appelant is right, so the team who "lost" by the ruling is paired on the basis that they were right. This seems reasonable. It would be to the appealing teams' advantage to be paired on the basis that the director was right, and then to gain points if they "win" after they had a favo(u)rable pairing or two. Yes, it would be better to have the appeal heard at once, but schedules make that very hard. People not unreasonably object if the meal break is curtailed by a substantial amount. -- Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 19 01:49:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:49:10 +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 BAA01960 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:49:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegna.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.234]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA02465 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:48:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:46:12 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <379ab7e8.11761892@post12.tele.dk> References: <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:09 PM 7/17/99 +0200, Jesper wrote: >On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:40:34 PDT, Adam Beneschan > wrote: > >>OK, so here's my question. Suppose I've noticed that, when my partner >>makes a certain type (2) bid, there's some interesting characteristic >>about his hand. With 1NT-3NT, maybe I notice partner never has a >>4-card major even if 4333; or I notice partner has a 4-card major much >>more often than usual; or I notice partner never has a 6-card minor or >>never has a stiff honor or something. My question: Is this an >>"agreement"? Or merely an "observation"? > >I think it is an agreement, because I believe that information >that "partner has no use for" is (almost) non-existent. > Whoa! We are going _way_ overboard if we are claiming that "full disclosure" requires us to tabulate and report on every conceivable tendency in partner's approach to bidding. Sorry folks, but I just don't keep such a record of my partner's past actions. Certainly, with any partner, I might from time to time notice that partner's decision is not the same one I would have made (to put it charitably). _If_ partner's actions in a particular class of situations were so consistently at variance with my own approach, then of course it would be time to sit down and discuss the issue. And if the result of such a discussion was to agree on a particular method which was clearly contrary to mainstream usage, then of course its future use would require the appropriate disclosure. But the fact that I might "notice" that partner sometimes, or even frequently, bypasses a 4-card major on his way to 3nt, when I might choose to use Stayman, or that partner has occasionally chosen not to open 1nt with a 6-card minor when I might have done, is _not_ a "special partnership agreement" by any reasonable interpretation of that phrase. For one thing, there's nothing "special" about it: many strong players might well have tendencies in either direction on these issues. For another, it's not an agreement. I will not be basing any action at all on the flimsy (not to say hazy) recollection of what partner may have done in some similar situation months ago, and would clearly be misleading the opponents to suggest that they should do so. There is another issue lurking here, and it ties into Marvin's arguments on the "Obligation" thread: it is the unstated expectation that we should all be expert on "standard" methodologies, at least within our own usual playing venues. Even at the local club, there is a wide range of opinions as to the "standard" approach on dozens of bidding questions, and if the local experts can't come to an agreement on these questions (see Master Solvers, for example) then how can we expect the vast unwashed out there to know when their particular tendencies are "unexpected"? It's hard enough to define these questions for specific bidding agreements and conventions, as the belabored exercises over convention classifications demonstrate (i.e., General and Mid-chart in the ACBL, and prior to that Classes A through E of conventions). The tie to Marvin's argument is his insistence on the right to refuse to explain his agreements whenever he deems them to be "not special" enough. Sorry, Marv, but I don't think anyone is enough of an expert on "standard" methods to be able to make that determination unilaterally. There is in each of us a tendency to assume that the way we learned to play the game is the "standard" way, when there may well be a large body of contrary practice. The competitive 2nt bid he offered by way of illustration is a case in point (advancer's delayed 2nt in the balance seat after a takeout double, for minors). Simply put, not everyone would treat this as showing minors, and it is unreasonable to refuse to explain based solely on your belief that this is the universal treatment. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 19 02:30:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 02:30:24 +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 CAA02244 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 02:30:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA01731 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <08b101bed13a$55381640$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00b701becfd1$3137af40$46b420cc@host> Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:26:42 -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 Senior wrote: > DWS wrote:> Pardon me? I think that we have a long-term ongoing problem on > BLML > >which may be caused by ACBL attitudes, namely that the Laws need only be > >applied properly at top-level. In England, and I hope the rest of > >Europe and the RoW, we take a lot of trouble with rulings at all levels. > >If you play in Flight C, I believe that you have a *right* to competent > >tournament direction. > > > > I think you will find that very few appeals qualify as no-brainers, > >but the type of game is unimportant anyway. > > > ### This is an attitude held only by SOME within the ACBL, and which others > of us have been actively tryin to eliminate. This is why I keep harping on > the subject of better TD training at the club and sectional level. Good > direction and a fair contest resulting therefrom are worthy aims in and of > themselves; even more important to the economic survival of the game is that > the majority of the paying customers play at the lower levels. When they > learn, and feel they are being treated fairly they come back. When they > perceive they are being given a raw deal or getting inferior service they > take their dollars to the bowling alley or the movie theatre or the WWF. I > suspect this failure to consider all games important to those who play them > is not just an ACBL phenomenon. A club game I play in is generally more > important... to me ...than some championship off in another part of the > world. > Some examples of inferior service at NABCs come to mind: (1) Appeals in senior games are not handled by the normal appeals personnel, and not published anywhere, unless the event is a major championship. (2) Continuous pair games that start at 10:00 a.m. do not have hand records, it's shuffle and deal. The reason given by TDs that duplication would cause a time overrun, but without exception players tell me they would rather play 12 rounds with duplication of hand records than 13 without. They say they travel a long way, pay a large entry fee, and they want the hand records. (3) Games are run as straight Mitchells with no arrow switches, even though players are ranked overall. (4) 17 and 18-table games, in which contestants play less than 80% of the boards (a well-recognized minimum), are routine. Most of these can be avoided with a little effort. (5) Stratified games are not matchpointed across-the-field, thereby making data entry a little easier. (6) Seeding (except for stratified games) involves strong pairs only, not weak pairs. Weak pairs should be seeded as if every event were stratified. That's just off the top of my head, and it's time for my morning bike ride. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 19 03:26:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA02346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 03:26:03 +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 DAA02340 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 03:25:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.69]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA29953 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 13:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 13:25:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907181725.NAA05113@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <08b101bed13a$55381640$f5075e18@san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > (6) Seeding (except for stratified games) involves strong pairs only, not > weak pairs. Weak pairs should be seeded as if every event were stratified. That should be done in theory, but it's not practical; most weak pairs will not be known to the TD's and will not volunteer themselves as week, so weak pairs will wind up getting seeded by masterpoints in open events. Flight B pairs playing up in Flight A, who tend to be good, will receive the anti-seeds. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 19 07:22:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:22:39 +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 HAA02767 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:22:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA11887 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <08c201bed163$227df480$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907181725.NAA05113@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:13:34 -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 David Grabiner writes: > Marvin L. French writes: > > > (6) Seeding (except for stratified games) involves strong pairs only, not > > weak pairs. Weak pairs should be seeded as if every event were stratified. > > That should be done in theory, but it's not practical; most weak pairs > will not be known to the TD's and will not volunteer themselves as weak, > so weak pairs will wind up getting seeded by masterpoints in open > events. Flight B pairs playing up in Flight A, who tend to be good, > will receive the anti-seeds. > Not sure I understand all that. However, IMO just pretending it's a stratified game, asking about masterpoints, and distributing B & C players as in a stratified game, is better than the current method. Not perfect, but better. It is to a pair's advantage to be anti-seeded (they will start against an anti-seed, and will meet other anti-seeds). I can't imagine anyone lying about being a B or C pair. While riding my bike, I thought of another reason that TDs don't like to score ATF in stratified games. Score adjustments, more numerous (I presume) in such games, will often affect just one section if matchpointing is by section. With ATF, every adjustment affects the posted score sheets of every section, which must then be reprinted and reposted. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 19 07:27:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:27:26 +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 HAA02799 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:27:18 +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 RAA13303 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 17:39:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990718172702.00731fe4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 17:27:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News In-Reply-To: <077201becff5$cd6d92c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> References: <008301becee6$58a104a0$7084d9ce@host> <069901becf15$caef5d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:36 PM 7/16/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >Scale of 1.0 to 3.0, which means 21 possible scores, and then the votes >are added and converted to a percentage scale of 0-100, with the result >shown to one meaningless (?) decimal place. But... but... bububuh... if the scale is 1.0 to 3.0, that wouldn't yield percentages 0-100; it would yield percentages 33.3-100. Have they really rigged the formula so that the minimum possible score is 33.3% (hmm... perhaps there's a future for that in the matchpoint formula)? The one meaningless decimal place is a separate issue. For doing that, they should be sentenced to sit through my five-minute lecture on the difference between "accuracy" and "precision". >Maybe the math types can help out here? I think a whole number scale of 0 >to 10 would be sufficient, and more easily converted to percentage scores. If they want a scale with 21 possible scores, I'd tell 'em to try 0-20. But my brain has been tampered with by those Europeans, who don't do 10 tops with halves. 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 Jul 19 07:32:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:32:46 +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 HAA02831 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:32:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA12747 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <08c501bed164$8c3e9900$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:26:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > The tie to Marvin's argument is his insistence on the right to refuse to > explain his agreements whenever he deems them to be "not special" enough. > Sorry, Marv, but I don't think anyone is enough of an expert on "standard" > methods to be able to make that determination unilaterally. There is in > each of us a tendency to assume that the way we learned to play the game is > the "standard" way, when there may well be a large body of contrary > practice. The competitive 2nt bid he offered by way of illustration is a > case in point (advancer's delayed 2nt in the balance seat after a takeout > double, for minors). Simply put, not everyone would treat this as showing > minors, and it is unreasonable to refuse to explain based solely on your > belief that this is the universal treatment. > Where do you get that "universal treatment" from? That was not the basis, nor did I say it was. This was an auction that was never discussed, and to my memory had never occurred before with that partner. How could I disclose an agreement when there was none? I told the pro, "You know as much as I do," which was true, and she did not accept that answer, nor would the idiot TD. "You must disclose what 2NT means." No, I don't. All I knew about the bid came from my general knowledge and experience, not from any special partnership agreement. Now, what if the same auction occurs again with the same partner? Has it become a *special* partnership agreement? Not to my mind. If people confuse a player's "general knowledge and experience" with "universal treatment," they are writing a new Law. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 19 07:58:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:58:21 +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 HAA02883 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:58:13 +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 SAA13905 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990718175800.00731fe4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 17:58:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <2o$H8MBsn+j3Ew51@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <199907162240.SAA29345@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199907162240.SAA29345@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:26 AM 7/17/99 +0100, David wrote: > What does it mean when a player appeals in the ACBL? It means one of >the following: > >[1] He does not trust the TD >[2] He thinks the gamble worth it against losing his deposit, or these >days, acquiring an AWMP [Appeal Without Merit Point]. >[3] He thinks it is the way to win at Bridge >[4] He has got a good case > > Now, [1][2] and [3] describe what is wrong with the ACBL[...] Along with... [5] He believes that the outcome of the appeal is a random result, that he is doing the equivalent of flipping a coin to determine whether the TD's ruling will stand. He undoubtedly stands ready to recount a few choice anecdotes to justify this belief; I suspect most of us in ACBL land have a few of our own. For some players, the only consideration in the wake of an unfavorable ruling is whether an appeal would be ruled frivolous. If they are confident that they can put up a superficially meritorious case, they will do so, knowing that they stand a good chance of winning, without giving a moment's consideration to the matter of whether they themselves actually believe the ruling to have been incorrect. This of course has nothing to do with the players' confidence in the TDs, only with their opinion of the quality of the ACs. 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 Jul 19 08:09:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:09:53 +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 IAA02912 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:09:46 +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 SAA14130 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990718180933.00732500@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:09:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: THIS IS REALLY WEIRD In-Reply-To: References: <19990716.212341.-65805.1.KardWizard@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:20 AM 7/17/99 +0100, John wrote: >In article <19990716.212341.-65805.1.KardWizard@juno.com>, Sandy Singer > writes >>In a session of the Nashville Regional yesterday I did a strange thing. >>After passing 5 times in a row [a record for me] I replaced all the Pass >>cards in my bidding box. On the next board RHO bid 1D, I placed what I >>thought was a Pass card on the table. LHO passed and my partner bid 1H. >>RHO bid 2D--I looked down and saw I a red X in front of me and muttered, > >L25a says that you can't change an inadvertent call after pard has >called. So your double stands. Your comment is UI to pard. It's >probably going to get you a good result as the psychic t/o double is one >of the better and more successful (high variance, adequate payback) >weapons in the YC armoury. Well, probably not such a good result after... >>"How did THAT get there!" The director was called.....I'll let you take >>it from there. I'd bet that at the YC they'd keep a straight face and say nothing. No UI, no problem, and "probably... a good result". Certainly what I would do in Sandy's shoes. 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 Jul 19 09:04:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:04:35 +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 JAA03028 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:04:25 +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 115zyj-0001zV-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 23:04:18 +0000 Message-ID: <0Pg0hHAs0lk3EwTs@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:03:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News In-Reply-To: <087a01bed0d1$a90b87c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <087a01bed0d1$a90b87c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >> >I still like 0 to 10, the way men rate women (and no doubt, the way women >rate men). And there ain't no ten! > The unit of female beauty is the milliHelen. It is a measure of how many ships would be launched. Helen of Troy got the full thousand :)) -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 19 10:50:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:50:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03238 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:49:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 1161co-00087q-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:49:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:43:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <07b501bed01d$dfc34d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <07b501bed01d$dfc34d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >L40A concerns misleading calls and calls that depart from a convention's >customary usage. Not what we're talking about. > >L40B says you can't make a call based on a special partnership >understanding that the opponents don't know about. Not exactly what we're >talking about. Oh, yes it is. If your partner opens 3S, and you know she always has a good seven card suit, your opponents do not know that, and L40B covers it. A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. There is no reason for the opponents to understand it to be a good seven card suit if you do not tell them so. Therefore, your partner is not allowed to make such a call if you are not prepared to disclose it. You are going to hide behind the word "special"? Well, we do not seem to have agreement as to why the word is there, but it is certainly not there to let you avoid answering reasonable questions. >We're talking about calls whose meanings come from general knowledge and >experience, not from any special partnership understanding, and that is >covered by L75C: > >"...a player shall disclose all special [that word again, SPECIAL] >information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership >experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general >knowledge and experience." > >It doesn't say that my general knowledge and experience must match that of >"all players." There are players who don't know what any bid means. > >Take that sequence John Probst gave us: 2NT=3C=3D=3H=3S=3NT=4D > >As responder, playing SAYC in an individual game with an >intelligent-looking partner that I don't know, I would assume that 3S and >4D are cue bids in support of hearts. That comes from my general knowledge >and experience, and if an opponent asks me what my partner's bids mean I >am not going to create unnecessary UI by explaining them. That is correct: it is not from your partnership experience. After all, your partner may not see it the same way. >I'm sure everyone who reads L75C would agree with that, but not this: If >one of my regular partners were to make these bids 20 times, my knowledge >about them would still have come from general knowledge and experience. It >is not "special information" that was conveyed to me "through partnership >agreement or partnership experience," so I need not disclose if I don't >want to. That is just wrong. It is a special partnership understanding, and you know it exists from your partnership experience, so it is clearly required to be answered to a question legally asked. >I usually do explain such calls, if I am sure the UI created will do no >harm and the opponent asking is an inexperienced player who just wants to >learn, or is from a foreign country and may have a much different idea of >how Stayman is used hereabouts. But if it's a pro asking for client's >benefit, no way am I going to answer. Who made you the arbiter of the Laws? You are in direct contravention of L10A. it is not up to you to apply Laws of the game. Players are not allowed to ask for their partner's benefit, that is true, but you do not refuse to answer in contravention of L10A, you call 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 Mon Jul 19 10:50:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:50:07 +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 KAA03237 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:49:58 +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 1161cn-00088G-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:49:49 +0000 Message-ID: <2gzH+3AB5mk3EwBv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:16:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <199907162240.SAA29345@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >DWS: >> Excuse me? We are not to hold up the tournament, so to continue the >>tournament we assume that the TD is going to be overruled? Why does >>this make the tournament run faster, please? >Do you want the situation where 100 tables wait 15 minutes before the >last round assignments are issued because an AC is making a ruling >(therby costing 100 player-hours of goodwill) or do you assign *now* >based on the TD's ruling and the table result, thereby keeping 400 (FOUR >HUNDRED) bridge players happy. (And award a mismatch adjustment if >necessary). It's happened. I was there. I was embarrassed for the >Organisers. And it's not illegal, when we have such methods. > >Get real David :)) Would you like to explain the relationship between your answer and mine, please? -- 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 Jul 19 10:50:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:50:13 +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 KAA03236 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:49:57 +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 1161cj-00087t-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:49:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:40:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <37903E34.B4C2AB@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37903E34.B4C2AB@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> snip >> >> >>All I wanted to say is that the AC begins at zero. >> > >> > Not a good idea. Fortunately, few ACs work that way. >> > >> absolutely not. The AC starts with the TD ruling, his reasons and their >> questions of him. chs john > >Again everyone misunderstands me. I think I'm writing in >dutch. Not everyone misunderstands you: you just will not accept the answers. >Of course the AC starts by hearing the TD. What do you >thing I am - deaf and blind ? > >But when deciding, the AC starts from the facts, not from >the ruling. The facts include a TD's ruling, not a void where the TD's ruling used to be until the appeal. >Only in rare cases will the AC determine that they have not >been able to find out the facts better than the TD, and then >they will probably decide that the TD determination of facts >shall stand. Ergo his ruling. > >But I have never encountered a case where say, if the vote >on LA's is 2-2, the AC decides to have the TD's decision be >the casting vote. So? That does not prove that the facts did not include the TD's ruling. Have you ever sat on an appeal where the decision is to accept the TD's ruling because they have seen no reason to do otherwise? Well, even if you have not, there are reports of such rulings in the NABC casebooks. >That is what I mean by saying that the AC decides from >scratch. >What is so wrong with that statement ? It is not usually true. Most AC's start from the facts. -- 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 Jul 19 18:52:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:52:56 +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 SAA04115 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:52:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:52:22 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990719105225.007ed2e0@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, 19 Jul 1999 10:52:25 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990714031856.00ac1e90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <01becd87$30a2b080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.5.32.19990714031856.00ac1e90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A > [When I gave a DP in the final of our Spring Foursomes, England's >premier teams weekend event, the captain was heard to say that they >would appeal if necessary, and "No doubt it would be reversed". Max >Bavin, who overheard this, was quietly confident of another 20 GBP for >the EBU coffers. Before you ask, yes, I had told them it was not >appealable.] Hi David! Be careful. No doubt your decision is appealable. The appeal-result can be that the AC recommends the TD to adjust the decision (L93B3). So the appeal is only without merit if the AC thinks that such a recommendation is not thinkable. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 19 19:58:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:58:05 +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 TAA04282 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:57:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-8.uunet.be [194.7.148.8]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00921 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:57:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3792EC79.9AC8EC63@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:14:33 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <37903E34.B4C2AB@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > >That is what I mean by saying that the AC decides from > >scratch. > >What is so wrong with that statement ? > > It is not usually true. Most AC's start from the facts. > No they start from scratch, and then they determine the facts. They use the TD to bypass the factfinding, but after the TD has spoken, the first question Steen asks of the players is "do you agree with the facts as determined by the TD". The AC uses the Director as a means of getting to the correct ruling. But don't you see that we are not actually disagreeing ? If all you want to do, David, is to say that my statements are wrong, then please do so once more. But this whole discussion does not bring one iota of extra knowledge to blml. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 19 19:58:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:58:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04295 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:58:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-8.uunet.be [194.7.148.8]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00928 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:57:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3792EDE8.AC664E96@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:20:40 +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: Malta Appeals References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard lighton wrote: > > > A very informal poll on rgb some time back indicated that the number > of appeals in European countries was about 3 times higher than in the > ACBL. > I have calculated the frequency of appeals in Warszawa and Malta as being : Warszawa : 0.58 appeals per 1000 boards played Malta : 0.70 appeals per 1000 boards played Maybe someone in the ACBL can calculate the same for a national. Warszawa includes consolation events and seniors. Malta includes seniors and ladies pairs and teams. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 19 19:58:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:58:03 +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 TAA04281 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:57:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-8.uunet.be [194.7.148.8]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00917 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:57:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3792EBA0.A325B9A8@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:10:56 +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: Malta Appeals References: <37903E34.B4C2AB@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >Again everyone misunderstands me. I think I'm writing in > >dutch. > > Not everyone misunderstands you: you just will not accept the answers. > I DO accept the answers !!!!!!! That's just it! Everything that everyone has said, I agree with. But it was not that which I stated in the first place. What's wrong with me ? Can't I make myself understood ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 19 20:18:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:18:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk ([195.147.248.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04364 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:17:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from p09s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.10] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 116AUS-0000cC-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:17:44 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bed1cf$638a5c40$0a8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: A quiet weekend. Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:09:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:48:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 116Axt-0007qU-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:48:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 03:36:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <2o$H8MBsn+j3Ew51@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <199907170358.XAA16733@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907170358.XAA16733@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >You write: > >> So how does the ACBL go about it? They show that they have complete >> and total faith in their TDs by having a regulation that if there is an >> appeal in a Swiss match, the matching is done on the basis that the TD >> has got it wrong. > >I agree that this would be wrong, but it isn't what is done. The >matching is done to be fair to both sides no matter what the TD has >ruled. If Team 1 scores +620, and Team 2 calls the TD because of UI and >attempts to get the result adjusted to +170, the TD will rule either >+620 or +170. Whichever way the TD rules, there may be an appeal if the >match is at stake. If the TD's ruling is assumed to stand, then the >team for which the TD ruled will be paired as if it won, and the other >team will be paired as if it lost; this gives an advantage to the team >which the TD ruled against. That team could now win the event without >ever playing the leaders, which would not be possible without the >ruling. > >Under the ACBL's rule, both teams will be paired as if they won the >match, and then at least one will become a loser when the AC finally >rules. Whoever was in the right will be in the same position as if >there had been no appeal. I am not sure I particularly like this method, because it still shows a belief that rulings are liable to be wrong, but it certainly does not have the basic unfairness that I assumed from the original description. Perhaps it is my fault for reading something into the original description that was not there. The terminology "win the appeal" to me means that the appellants win it: I presume the original poster meant otherwise: sorry. -- 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 Jul 19 20:48:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:48:36 +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 UAA04467 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:48:27 +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 116Axw-000O38-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:48:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 03:11:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <199907180031.UAA00203@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907180031.UAA00203@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> Of course [an AC] can use L91. They have the rights of a TD. > >Based on the interpretation you give, this is illogical, but I said I >wouldn't criticize another SO in this matter, and I won't. I am the one saying it, and you can criticise me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 19 20:48:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:48:29 +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 UAA04455 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:48:19 +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 116Axs-000O2F-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:48:09 +0000 Message-ID: <6e$kxYByuok3EwDi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 03:21:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News References: <008301becee6$58a104a0$7084d9ce@host> <069901becf15$caef5d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <077201becff5$cd6d92c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718172702.00731fe4@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990718172702.00731fe4@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 06:36 PM 7/16/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: > >>Scale of 1.0 to 3.0, which means 21 possible scores, and then the votes >>are added and converted to a percentage scale of 0-100, with the result >>shown to one meaningless (?) decimal place. > >But... but... bububuh... if the scale is 1.0 to 3.0, that wouldn't yield >percentages 0-100; it would yield percentages 33.3-100. Have they really >rigged the formula so that the minimum possible score is 33.3% (hmm... >perhaps there's a future for that in the matchpoint formula)? > >The one meaningless decimal place is a separate issue. For doing that, >they should be sentenced to sit through my five-minute lecture on the >difference between "accuracy" and "precision". It is not meaningless. I am very carefully choosing among 21 possible figures. Without the decimal point the grading system becomes hopeless. >>Maybe the math types can help out here? I think a whole number scale of 0 >>to 10 would be sufficient, and more easily converted to percentage scores. > >If they want a scale with 21 possible scores, I'd tell 'em to try 0-20. >But my brain has been tampered with by those Europeans, who don't do 10 >tops with halves. I would be happy enough with 0.0 - 2.0. I just don't trust 1.0 - 3.0. -- 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 Jul 19 22:16:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:16:36 +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 WAA04695 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:16:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id IAA16783 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:16:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:15:30 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <3792EDE8.AC664E96@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard lighton wrote: > > > > > > A very informal poll on rgb some time back indicated that the number > > of appeals in European countries was about 3 times higher than in the > > ACBL. > > > > I have calculated the frequency of appeals in Warszawa and > Malta as being : > > Warszawa : 0.58 appeals per 1000 boards played > Malta : 0.70 appeals per 1000 boards played > > Maybe someone in the ACBL can calculate the same for a > national. > Not a formal calculation, but there seem to be about 40 appeals per NABC, with about 10,000 tables, or about 250,000 hands played. That's about 0.16 appeals per 1000 boards. > Warszawa includes consolation events and seniors. > Malta includes seniors and ladies pairs and teams. > An NABC includes a large number of lower ranked events. Most appeals come from events that are at least Regionally rated (I doubt if there's ever been an appeal from a novice event) so the numbers are skewed in favor of the ACBL. -- Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 00:21:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:14:29 +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 XAA04818 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:14:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from p84s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.133] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 116DF3-0004fo-00; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:14:01 +0100 Message-ID: <002701bed1e8$03d28a20$858993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:25:26 +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: 17 July 1999 02:34 Subject: Re: Malta Appeals > > I trust, Kojak, that you are not suggesting it takes 75 posts to make >Herman change his mind .... > +++ From experience, nothing like as few as this. +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 01:06:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA05165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:06:21 +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 BAA05160 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:06:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from p5ds01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.94] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 116EzS-0008UF-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:06:02 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:15:39 +0100 Message-ID: <01bed1f9$8f4554a0$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: Monday, July 19, 1999 12:02 PM Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Original preamble snipped. > > Perhaps it is my fault for reading something into the original >description that was not there. The terminology "win the appeal" to me >means that the appellants win it: I presume the original poster meant >otherwise: sorry. In a recent conversation with a senior EBU TD, about the progress of an event so far, I was told that there had been one appeal, "but we won." This threw me somewhat as my attitude to appeals against my rulings is that I am now a being appart. Other than to explain the reasons for my ruling, the law/s used, and my findings, I consider that my job is done until I am asked to convey the findings of the AC. Whether or not my ruling is upheld, or overturned, I have no sence of win or lose. What are the opinions of others. Do other TDs feel that they have lost an argument, or do they consider that a higher authority had a different opinion, which on reflection they might agree or disagree with, purely academically. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 01:21:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:14:45 +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 XAA04831 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:14:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from p84s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.133] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 116DF5-0004fo-00; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:14:03 +0100 Message-ID: <002801bed1e8$05330480$858993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Valerie Rippon" , "Patricia Davidson" , "Lynn & Dan Hunt" , "bridge-laws" Cc: "Ron Endicott" , "Kooijman, A." , "David W Stevenson" , "Christine Francin" Subject: To whom it may concern Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:04:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:14:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from p84s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.133] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 116DF1-0004fo-00; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:14:00 +0100 Message-ID: <002601bed1e8$03231040$858993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:23:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 16 July 1999 23:54 Subject: Re: Malta Appeals >> From: David Stevenson >The Laws do not appear to define what happens when a TD ruling is >appealed. Does the hand result based on the TD ruling remain in effect >unless an AC overturns it? Or is there "no result" until the AC >rules? I don't find a clear statement in the Laws, and to the extent >the question is purely semantic and of no practical importance, I >suspect the law writers had no interest in deciding. > +++ However, the EBL regulations make it crystal clear in EBL tournaments. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 02:21:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:21:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA04864 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:20:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA04695 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990719092046.0073ba70@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:20:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News In-Reply-To: <6e$kxYByuok3EwDi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990718172702.00731fe4@pop.cais.com> <008301becee6$58a104a0$7084d9ce@host> <069901becf15$caef5d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <077201becff5$cd6d92c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718172702.00731fe4@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:21 AM 7/19/99 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>The one meaningless decimal place is a separate issue. For doing that, >>they should be sentenced to sit through my five-minute lecture on the >>difference between "accuracy" and "precision". > > It is not meaningless. I am very carefully choosing among 21 possible >figures. Without the decimal point the grading system becomes hopeless. I think David misunderstood me. The decimal point in "1.0-3.0" is not meaningless at all. It is needed to yield those 21 possible figures. Since they're eventually averaged and scaled, it doesn't matter at all whether those 21 points on the scale are tenths on a two-unit interval, halves on a 10-unit interval, or units on a 20-unit interval, but the choice of a 21-point scale is certainly a meaningful choice. What is meaningless is, after the individual 21-point-scale ratings have been averaged and converted to percentages, reporting the results to the nearest tenth (a 1,001-point scale) rather than to the nearest unit (a 101-point scale). For the additional precision to add any accuracy at all to the reported result, they would have to be averaging more than 50 individual ratings, and unless it were much more the gains would be more theoretical than significant. >>If they want a scale with 21 possible scores, I'd tell 'em to try 0-20. >>But my brain has been tampered with by those Europeans, who don't do 10 >>tops with halves. > > I would be happy enough with 0.0 - 2.0. I just don't trust 1.0 - 3.0. As well David shouldn't. Whether 0-2 in tenths (the David method), 0-10 in halves (the Marvin method), or 0-20 in units (the Eric method -- all three are exactly equivalent), the scale must start at zero! Using a 1-3 scale, then dividing by the number of ratings and multiplying by 100 does *not* yield corresponding percentages. They can use responses of 1-3 if they think for some reason that their raters will be more comfortable with a scale that starts at 1 rather than zero, but then must subtract 1 from each individual rating before they average them to convert to percentages. 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 Jul 20 02:21:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:21:36 +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 XAA04873 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:21:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:03:52 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990719150355.007caa10@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, 19 Jul 1999 15:03:55 +0200 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: References: <3792EDE8.AC664E96@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi! At 08:15 19.07.99 -0400, richard lighton wrote: > > >On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> richard lighton wrote: >> > >> > >> > A very informal poll on rgb some time back indicated that the number >> > of appeals in European countries was about 3 times higher than in the >> > ACBL. >> > >> >> I have calculated the frequency of appeals in Warszawa and >> Malta as being : >> >> Warszawa : 0.58 appeals per 1000 boards played >> Malta : 0.70 appeals per 1000 boards played >> >> Maybe someone in the ACBL can calculate the same for a >> national. >> >Not a formal calculation, but there seem to be about 40 appeals >per NABC, with about 10,000 tables, or about 250,000 hands played. >That's about 0.16 appeals per 1000 boards. > >> Warszawa includes consolation events and seniors. >> Malta includes seniors and ladies pairs and teams. >> >An NABC includes a large number of lower ranked events. Most appeals >come from events that are at least Regionally rated (I doubt if there's >ever been an appeal from a novice event) so the numbers are skewed >in favor of the ACBL. > An open event such as Cino del Duca (Paris) or Brighton bridge week seems a more appropriate comparison then. In may 99 we had a tournament with 100 tables in Bonn at one day. Each table played approx. 45 boards. There were 2 appeals (last year same figures) So this was 4 appeals in 9000 boards played. (meets my guesses for german tournaments) Seems to me a figure about 0.3/tb (tb=thousand boards) AFAIK the german players are very fast in calling AC (some sort of tradition I guess...). I heard that the numbers in Netherland or in France are much smaller. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 02:37:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:37:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05851 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:37:28 +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 MAA21335 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:37:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907191637.MAA28712@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <01bed1f9$8f4554a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> (eajewm@globalnet.co.uk) Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes: > In a recent conversation with a senior EBU TD, about the progress of an > event so far, I was told that there had been one appeal, "but we won." > This threw me somewhat as my attitude to appeals against my rulings > is that I am now a being appart. Other than to explain the reasons for > my ruling, the law/s used, and my findings, I consider that my job is done > until I am asked to convey the findings of the AC. Whether or not my > ruling is upheld, or overturned, I have no sence of win or lose. > What are the opinions of others. Do other TDs feel that they have lost an > argument, or do they consider that a higher authority had a different > opinion, which on reflection they might agree or disagree with, purely > academically. It depends on the situation. In complicated UI/MI cases, the TD is supposed to give the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. Both can make perfect rulings when the TD rules that it is reasonable that West would pass an in-tempo double and the AC, after learning more about West's methods and level of play, rules that this West's peers would not pass it. If facts come up at the AC hearing that the TD could not have determined, this should also not reflect on the TD. If the AC invokes L12C3. a power the TD does not have, this cannot be considered a loss for the TD. There are times that the AC ruling is essentially that the TD made a mistake, and these are the rulings that should concern the TD, particularly if the AC's ruling is that the TD's ruling was inconsistent with the laws (A+/A- when a score was obtained, ruling a result which would have been impossible). -- 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 Jul 20 04:21:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 03:20:03 +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 DAA06189 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 03:19:46 +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 NAA03457 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA01429 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:19:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907191719.NAA01429@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > What is meaningless is, after the individual 21-point-scale ratings have > been averaged and converted to percentages, reporting the results to the > nearest tenth (a 1,001-point scale) rather than to the nearest unit (a > 101-point scale). For the additional precision to add any accuracy at all > to the reported result, they would have to be averaging more than 50 > individual ratings, and unless it were much more the gains would be more > theoretical than significant. In particular, if the uncertainty on any individual rating is +/- 0.1, then it's one part in 21. To get the uncertainty down to one part in 1000, you would have to average about 2300 individual scores. With about 25 raters, it's reasonable to expect the uncertainty to drop by a factor of five, so going from a 21 point scale to a 100 (or 101) point scale makes sense. Going further does not. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 04:21:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 04:21:44 +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 EAA06336 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 04:21:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA08385; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:20:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-21.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.53) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008345; Mon Jul 19 13:20:10 1999 Message-ID: <008001bed213$bff700c0$35b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:23:05 -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 Calm yourself. My post was in response to one that suggested that such a policy could or should be applied to ACBL events in general and NABC contests specifically. If we are to ban silly posts, some of us should look in the mirror perhaps. Are we to adopt a policy that we canot discuss matters that develop in the course of a thread? My post made no reference to your original post Herman, nor to the EBL, which of course is free to make any CoC for its championships it may wish..silly, brilliant or in between. I would, however, be most distressed to see such restrictions applied in the ACBL to freeze pickup pairs out of serious flight A competition, for the reasons stated. If you disagree, tell me why. If not, what is your problem with my (and Eric's) continuation of a discussion that has diverged into restrictive conditions of contest. It is not silly to us. Remember that we must face the one psyche to a partnership to a lifetime pseudo rule, the rule of coincidence, and "convention disruption" as well as the inability to shade mini opening no trumps. We used to have to put up with point count restrictions on weak 2's for heaven's sake. It is important to kill any such proposed restriction before it gets a chance to spread here. We often hear criticism that this is not only a North American list. Well, it is not only a European one either. Once a discussion is begun that is read by many in authority in the ACBL, we have a right and duty to contribute our concerns. Else we ignore the lessons of history and are doomed to repeat it...(Durand I think). Now please don't be silly, take offense, and deprive us of your usually interesting comments. You play a valuable part in discussions here on the list...we would miss you. Regards, Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Saturday, July 17, 1999 5:24 AM Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) >Craig Senior wrote: >> >> Eric is quite right. This would be a marketing disaster and a major >> disservice to the membership. You might save a little by shutting down the >> partnership desk. >> > >(and so on) > >Now stop this ! > >The EBL AC has given a PP to a pair who did not have an >agreement over a second round auction in a normal sequence, >uncontested bidding. > >The AC felt this was not allowed in a tournament where you >had to qualify to come, and send in CC three weeks in >advance. > >That is absolutely not the same as what is suggested in >Craig's post. > >If every small remark I make creates 100 silly replies, I >will stop posting. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 05:47:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:47:36 +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 FAA06582 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:47:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.41.78]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19990719194651.NCQQ4651@default> for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:46:51 +0000 Message-ID: <004e01bed21f$61d63540$4e294b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: References: <199907191637.MAA28712@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:46:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Grabiner > It depends on the situation. In complicated UI/MI cases, the TD is > supposed to give the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. NO, not in the ACBL. In the ACBL the directing staff always tries to make the best ruling possible given all facts available. It is the view of some PLAYERS that the directing staff should always make the offending side appeal. This view is not consistent with the Laws. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 05:49:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:49:35 +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 FAA06597 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:49:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.28]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990719194918.EJBG22847.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:49:18 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:49:18 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3793797a.2971753@post12.tele.dk> References: <01bed1f9$8f4554a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bed1f9$8f4554a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 FAA06599 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:15:39 +0100, "Anne Jones" wrote: >In a recent conversation with a senior EBU TD, about the progress of an >event so far, I was told that there had been one appeal, "but we won." >This threw me somewhat as my attitude to appeals against my rulings >is that I am now a being appart. Other than to explain the reasons for >my ruling, the law/s used, and my findings, I consider that my job is done >until I am asked to convey the findings of the AC. Whether or not my >ruling is upheld, or overturned, I have no sence of win or lose. >What are the opinions of others. Do other TDs feel that they have lost an >argument, or do they consider that a higher authority had a different >opinion, which on reflection they might agree or disagree with, purely >academically. I would hope that most TDs have the same attitude that you have. If a TD considers it a "loss" to have his ruling changed, then one could fear that he might feel an incentive to give rulings that will not be appealed rather than rulings that he believes to be correct. And TDs who do that are not good TDs. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 05:49:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:49:44 +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 FAA06603 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:49:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.28]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990719194924.EJBQ22847.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:49:24 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:49:23 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk> References: <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.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 FAA06605 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:46:12 -0400, "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: >At 07:09 PM 7/17/99 +0200, Jesper wrote: >>On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:40:34 PDT, Adam Beneschan >> wrote: >> >>>OK, so here's my question. Suppose I've noticed that, when my partner >>>makes a certain type (2) bid, there's some interesting characteristic >>>about his hand. With 1NT-3NT, maybe I notice partner never has a >>>4-card major even if 4333; or I notice partner has a 4-card major much >>>more often than usual; or I notice partner never has a 6-card minor or >>>never has a stiff honor or something. My question: Is this an >>>"agreement"? Or merely an "observation"? >> >>I think it is an agreement, because I believe that information >>that "partner has no use for" is (almost) non-existent. >> >Whoa! We are going _way_ overboard if we are claiming that "full >disclosure" requires us to tabulate and report on every conceivable >tendency in partner's approach to bidding. Sorry folks, but I just don't >keep such a record of my partner's past actions. Fine: if you haven't noticed your partner's actions, there is no agreement. >But the fact that I might "notice" that partner sometimes, or even >frequently, bypasses a 4-card major on his way to 3nt, when I might choose >to use Stayman, or that partner has occasionally chosen not to open 1nt >with a 6-card minor when I might have done, is _not_ a "special partnership >agreement" by any reasonable interpretation of that phrase. For one thing, >there's nothing "special" about it: many strong players might well have >tendencies in either direction on these issues. The word "special" is a problem. I do not believe that it is meant as a synonym for "unusual", but I have to admit that I have no clear opinion as to what it actually does mean. In practice, I would like it to be interpreted as "not following from the logic of the rules of the game", since it seems obvious to me that any knowledge of partner's habits that do not follow from the logic of the game should be made available to the opponents. > For another, it's not an >agreement. I will not be basing any action at all on the flimsy (not to say >hazy) recollection of what partner may have done in some similar situation >months ago, and would clearly be misleading the opponents to suggest that >they should do so. Imagine that after such an auction you find yourself defending a contract, and that it soon turns out that one defensive plan is correct if partner has 4 hearts and another is correct if partner has less than 4 hearts. From the fall of the cards, disregarding the auction, it seems probable but far from certain that partner does have 4 hearts. Might not your flimsy recollection of whether or not your partner sometimes has 4 hearts in this kind of auction have some influence on your choice of action? If you can answer "no" to that, then I agree that you have no agreement and no obligation to disclose your "non-agreement". Otherwise, you have an agreement, and your opponents have a right to know it. I would not find it a problem if you did not go out of your way to remember partner's habits just because you were asked about a bid, but if it seems probable that the opponent who asks if specifically interested in the lengths of the majors, then you must explain your partnership experience as well as you can. >There is another issue lurking here, and it ties into Marvin's arguments on >the "Obligation" thread: it is the unstated expectation that we should all >be expert on "standard" methodologies, at least within our own usual >playing venues. Even at the local club, there is a wide range of opinions >as to the "standard" approach on dozens of bidding questions, and if the >local experts can't come to an agreement on these questions (see Master >Solvers, for example) then how can we expect the vast unwashed out there to >know when their particular tendencies are "unexpected"? I agree very much with that. That is one of the reasons for my not believing that "special" means "non-standard": the concept of "standard" is not useful except in very small closed circles. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 05:49:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:49:47 +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 FAA06608 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:49:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.28]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990719194929.EJBV22847.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:49:29 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:49:28 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37998108.4905283@post12.tele.dk> References: <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <08c501bed164$8c3e9900$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <08c501bed164$8c3e9900$f5075e18@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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id FAA06614 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:26:35 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >This was an auction that was never discussed, and to my memory had never >occurred before with that partner. How could I disclose an agreement when >there was none? I told the pro, "You know as much as I do," which was >true, and she did not accept that answer, nor would the idiot TD. "You >must disclose what 2NT means." No, I don't. All I knew about the bid came >from my general knowledge and experience, not from any special partnership >agreement. Fine. >Now, what if the same auction occurs again with the same partner? Has it >become a *special* partnership agreement? Not to my mind. > >If people confuse a player's "general knowledge and experience" with >"universal treatment," they are writing a new Law. When it happens again, you have specific knowledge of how a specific partner uses that bid: that is not "general bridge knowledge" - it is an implicit partnership agreement. You _know_ what your partner's bid means, but you want your opponents to guess. I will not try to convince you of any specific meaning of the word "special", since I do not really understand why it is there, but I will point out that if that word were to mean that you could keep your opponents in the dark while knowing perfectly well yourself what partner's bid means, then the Laws would IMO be basically and intolerably unfair. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 06:13:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 06:13:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA06704 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 06:13:17 +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 QAA27148 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:13:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907192013.QAA03282@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <004e01bed21f$61d63540$4e294b0c@default> (rbeye@worldnet.att.net) Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye writes: > From: David Grabiner >> It depends on the situation. In complicated UI/MI cases, the TD is >> supposed to give the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. > NO, not in the ACBL. In the ACBL the directing staff always tries to make > the best ruling possible given all facts available. It is the view of some > PLAYERS that the directing staff should always make the offending side > appeal. This view is not consistent with the Laws. I don't beleive the TD is supposed to always make the offending side appeal (although some TD's believe this), but in a case in which the ruling is uncertain, the TD should rule for the non-offending side and make the offending side appeal. This seems to be a consensus supported by the casebooks; there are some cases in which the TD, ruling at the table, ruled for the non-offenders, was overturned on appeal and both the TD and AC received high scores. -- 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 Jul 20 06:19:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 06:19:46 +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 GAA06740 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 06:19:39 +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 WAA00296; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:18:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA24555; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:18:59 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:18:59 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Richard F Beye cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <004e01bed21f$61d63540$4e294b0c@default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Richard F Beye wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Grabiner > > > It depends on the situation. In complicated UI/MI cases, the TD is > > supposed to give the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. > > NO, not in the ACBL. In the ACBL the directing staff always tries to make > the best ruling possible given all facts available. It is the view of some > PLAYERS that the directing staff should always make the offending side > appeal. This view is not consistent with the Laws. Has the ACBL abolished laws 12C2, 84D and in particular 84E? While this doesn't literally say that the offenders should be the ones to bring a case to a committee, it resolving any doubtful point against the offenders will in practice mean that the offenders will be ones to appeal. (And just read the comments in the case-books when the non-offenders have to appeal :-) Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 06:49:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 06:49:47 +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 GAA06876 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 06:49:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:49:11 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990719224914.007a0240@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, 19 Jul 1999 22:49:14 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: References: <004e01bed21f$61d63540$4e294b0c@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 22:18 19.07.99 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Richard F Beye wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: David Grabiner >> >> > It depends on the situation. In complicated UI/MI cases, the TD is >> > supposed to give the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. >> >> NO, not in the ACBL. In the ACBL the directing staff always tries to make >> the best ruling possible given all facts available. It is the view of some >> PLAYERS that the directing staff should always make the offending side >> appeal. This view is not consistent with the Laws. > >Has the ACBL abolished laws 12C2, 84D and in particular 84E? > >While this doesn't literally say that the offenders should be the ones to >bring a case to a committee, it resolving any doubtful point against the >offenders will in practice mean that the offenders will be ones to appeal. > >(And just read the comments in the case-books when the non-offenders have >to appeal :-) Well. Not all commentators support the official view or the correct one (just think of this acronym rubbish...) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 07:07:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:07:35 +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 HAA06921 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:07:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.40.90]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19990719210649.ORGG4651@default>; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:06:49 +0000 Message-ID: <017901bed22a$8d9404e0$4e294b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Cc: References: Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:06:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) > On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Richard F Beye wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: David Grabiner > > > > > It depends on the situation. In complicated UI/MI cases, the TD is > > > supposed to give the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. > > > > NO, not in the ACBL. In the ACBL the directing staff always tries to make > > the best ruling possible given all facts available. It is the view of some > > PLAYERS that the directing staff should always make the offending side > > appeal. This view is not consistent with the Laws. > > Has the ACBL abolished laws 12C2, 84D and in particular 84E? > > While this doesn't literally say that the offenders should be the ones to > bring a case to a committee, it resolving any doubtful point against the > offenders will in practice mean that the offenders will be ones to appeal. Henk, IMHO your last is a popular view held by PLAYERS. The ACBL has not abolished any of the Laws that you cite above. A player may consider a point doubtful. But in arriving at a staff consensus, usually unanimous, a TD (staff) may determine that same point to be a certainty after considering all the information available. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 07:30:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:30:20 +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 HAA06979 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:30:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem111.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.111] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 116Kz3-0006hI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:30:02 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Statistics Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:05:00 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ================================ ---------- > From: Demeter Manning > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Statistics > Date: 16 July 1999 18:59 > > > > > There are still 88 lurkers out there who have never posted > > anything ! > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > > I'm one of those lurkers. I'm not a director or bridge official, just a > bridge player who is very interested in the game. I've learned a great > deal about bridge from lurking here, and hope that I'll be able to > contribute something intelligent and informed someday. Thanks to all for > carrying on these discussions in public, and letting the rest of us listen > in. > > Demeter Manning > cats - Nikolai and Zonker > dog - Katrina > > +++ There are a handful of lurkers who communicate with me occasionally, on this or that, without going public ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 07:46:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:46:19 +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 HAA07007 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:46:08 +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 RAA15403 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA01772 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:46:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:46:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907192146.RAA01772@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > OK, I'll bite. No, they do not have an alertable agreement, at least not > until they have either discussed the inferences or developed sufficient > experience with the methods to have come to an understanding about all the > inferences available, including negative inferences. Interesting. > With my favorite partner, I play a 2/1 style with a 12-14 NT. Suppose you play with a stranger and agree "2/1, 12-14 NT," no time for any other discussion. On the first board, your unopposed auction goes 1C-1H-1NT. Don't you think you have to alert 1NT because it shows 15-17, even though you have never discussed it? [Precision pair] > "...never discuss exactly which hands open 1D?" Does this mean that they > a) Have no explicit or implicit rules about opening 1D except that such > bids have fewer than 15 HCP? > b) Only have implicit rules, basically lumping into 1D all opening hands > which fail to meet the explicit requirements for 1C, 1M, 1NT, or 2C? > c) Have explicit rules, but have not made a complete catalog of hands which > meet those rules? > > a) seems silly, and although c) comes closest to the precise meaning of > your words, I am guessing you mean b). Yes, I meant b (except less than 16 HCP); sorry for the confusion. Assume there has been no discussion, for whatever reason. Perhaps they have an agreement that 2D is natural and weak. Regular Precision players will know that this forces a 1D opening on 4414 distribution. Even if not, 1D with longer clubs is possible. Precision players might not all agree on what to do with 11-12 balanced, but surely they wouldn't be astonished to find an unknown partner opening 1D. > Yes, they have an agreement, which > can best be explained as "opening hand, usually unbalanced with no 5-card > major. States nothing about diamond length." This is obviously alertable in > the ACBL, and I suspect in most other jurisdictions as well. I agree that the 1D bid under all such conditions is alertable, even if never discussed. So how is this different from the young scientists' pass of 1H? I'm arguing that the unusual pass is alertable, even if not discussed, because its unusual features are a _direct_ consequence of explicit agreements. Michael seems to agree in the Precision 1D case, and I hope he will agree in the 1NT rebid case. So what is different about the pass? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 07:48:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:48:54 +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 HAA07023 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:48:46 +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 XAA04700; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:48:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA25782; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:48:10 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:48:09 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Richard F Beye cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <017901bed22a$8d9404e0$4e294b0c@default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Richard F Beye wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) > > > On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Richard F Beye wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: David Grabiner > > > > > > > It depends on the situation. In complicated UI/MI cases, the TD is > > > > supposed to give the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. > > > > > > NO, not in the ACBL. In the ACBL the directing staff always tries to > make > > > the best ruling possible given all facts available. It is the view of > some > > > PLAYERS that the directing staff should always make the offending side > > > appeal. This view is not consistent with the Laws. > > > > Has the ACBL abolished laws 12C2, 84D and in particular 84E? > > > > While this doesn't literally say that the offenders should be the ones to > > bring a case to a committee, it resolving any doubtful point against the > > offenders will in practice mean that the offenders will be ones to appeal. > > Henk, IMHO your last is a popular view held by PLAYERS. The ACBL has not > abolished any of the Laws that you cite above. A player may consider a > point doubtful. But in arriving at a staff consensus, usually unanimous, a > TD (staff) may determine that same point to be a certainty after > considering all the information available. You are mixing 2 things here: TD and player disagreeing on something and what to do if the TD considers a point doubtful. Of course, the TD should use his judgement on the problem and he may decide that what the players consider doubtful is clear-cut. However, if the TD considers a point doubtful, the TD will have to rule in favor of the non-offending side, so, effectively, the offending side is most likely to be the side to appeal. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 07:57:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:57:01 +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 HAA07048 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:56:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.45.236]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19990719215617.PNKC4651@default>; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:56:17 +0000 Message-ID: <01d901bed231$769ec660$4e294b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Cc: References: Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:55:46 -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: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) > > > While this doesn't literally say that the offenders should be the ones to > > > bring a case to a committee, it resolving any doubtful point against the > > > offenders will in practice mean that the offenders will be ones to appeal. > > > > Henk, IMHO your last is a popular view held by PLAYERS. The ACBL has not > > abolished any of the Laws that you cite above. A player may consider a > > point doubtful. But in arriving at a staff consensus, usually unanimous, a > > TD (staff) may determine that same point to be a certainty after > > considering all the information available. > > You are mixing 2 things here: TD and player disagreeing on something and > what to do if the TD considers a point doubtful. > > Of course, the TD should use his judgement on the problem and he may > decide that what the players consider doubtful is clear-cut. Not mixing. The above is what I am trying to say, though in (almost) the SAME words :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 08:02:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:02:18 +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 IAA07067 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:02:09 +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 116LTo-000Mrf-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:01:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 20:48:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News References: <3.0.1.32.19990718172702.00731fe4@pop.cais.com> <008301becee6$58a104a0$7084d9ce@host> <069901becf15$caef5d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <077201becff5$cd6d92c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718172702.00731fe4@pop.cais.com> <6e$kxYByuok3EwDi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990719092046.0073ba70@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990719092046.0073ba70@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 03:21 AM 7/19/99 +0100, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>The one meaningless decimal place is a separate issue. For doing that, >>>they should be sentenced to sit through my five-minute lecture on the >>>difference between "accuracy" and "precision". >> >> It is not meaningless. I am very carefully choosing among 21 possible >>figures. Without the decimal point the grading system becomes hopeless. > >I think David misunderstood me. The decimal point in "1.0-3.0" is not >meaningless at all. It is needed to yield those 21 possible figures. >Since they're eventually averaged and scaled, it doesn't matter at all >whether those 21 points on the scale are tenths on a two-unit interval, >halves on a 10-unit interval, or units on a 20-unit interval, but the >choice of a 21-point scale is certainly a meaningful choice. > >What is meaningless is, after the individual 21-point-scale ratings have >been averaged and converted to percentages, reporting the results to the >nearest tenth (a 1,001-point scale) rather than to the nearest unit (a >101-point scale). For the additional precision to add any accuracy at all >to the reported result, they would have to be averaging more than 50 >individual ratings, and unless it were much more the gains would be more >theoretical than significant. > >>>If they want a scale with 21 possible scores, I'd tell 'em to try 0-20. >>>But my brain has been tampered with by those Europeans, who don't do 10 >>>tops with halves. >> >> I would be happy enough with 0.0 - 2.0. I just don't trust 1.0 - 3.0. > >As well David shouldn't. Whether 0-2 in tenths (the David method), 0-10 in >halves (the Marvin method), or 0-20 in units (the Eric method -- all three >are exactly equivalent), the scale must start at zero! Using a 1-3 scale, >then dividing by the number of ratings and multiplying by 100 does *not* >yield corresponding percentages. They can use responses of 1-3 if they >think for some reason that their raters will be more comfortable with a >scale that starts at 1 rather than zero, but then must subtract 1 from each >individual rating before they average them to convert to percentages. So, Linda, will you please convince us that one is subtracted each time? -- 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 Jul 20 08:23:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:03:00 +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 IAA07081 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:02:47 +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 SAA15719 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA01808 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:02:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:02:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907192202.SAA01808@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Malta Appeals X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Perhaps it is my fault for reading something into the original > description that was not there. The terminology "win the appeal" to me > means that the appellants win it: I presume the original poster meant > otherwise: sorry. Let's try again, just to be sure everyone is clear. I wrote: > Another example is an ACBL rule in Swiss team games, where if there is > an appeal, each team is paired for future rounds on the basis that it > will win the appeal, not on the basis of the TD ruling. Perhaps there was some each/both confusion. The pairing is not on the basis that the TD's ruling is overturned but on the basis of a separate result for each team. In other words, _for pairing purposes only_, VP's for each team are calculated on the basis of the TD's estimate of a favorable AC outcome for that team. In a UI case, for example, the OS score would be on the basis that there were no LA's (probably meaning the table result), and the NOS score would be on the basis that there were LA's and an illegal alternative was chosen. There may be complications if more than one outcome is possible, but the TD just has to do the best he can to "see things from the point of view" of each team and fix the pairings accordingly. In the end, at least one team will "lose" and find that they have been paired against other teams that are "too strong." This may even happen to _both_ teams if the AC gives a split score unfavorable to both. If this discourages meritless appeals, so be it. What the pairing rule avoids is a team being hurt by a wrong TD decision and thereby losing its right to try to beat its nearest rivals in later rounds. This pairing method should work _better_ in SO's that have fewer appeals. Of course if a TD decision is never changed, then the rule is useless. But if the chance of a different ruling, _given that there has been an appeal_, is as high as a few tens of percent, SO's would do well to consider this pairing rule. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 10:36:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:36:24 +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 KAA07405 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:36:16 +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 116Nt9-000IJI-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:36:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 03:12:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <2gzH+3AB5mk3EwBv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <2gzH+3AB5mk3EwBv@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>DWS: >>> Excuse me? We are not to hold up the tournament, so to continue the >>>tournament we assume that the TD is going to be overruled? Why does >>>this make the tournament run faster, please? we don't have to wait for the AC's adjudication. > >>Do you want the situation where 100 tables wait 15 minutes before the >>last round assignments are issued because an AC is making a ruling >>(therby costing 100 player-hours of goodwill) or do you assign *now* >>based on the TD's ruling and the table result, thereby keeping 400 (FOUR >>HUNDRED) bridge players happy. (And award a mismatch adjustment if >>necessary). It's happened. I was there. I was embarrassed for the >>Organisers. And it's not illegal, when we have such methods. >> >>Get real David :)) > > Would you like to explain the relationship between your answer and >mine, please? > > I have watched 400 bridge plyers going demented because we could not assign the last round as there was an appeal relating to table 1 or 2. There was a wait of 15 minutes while the AC deliberated, after which there was a 3 minute wait while the VP scores were computed and then the assignments were made. Computer assignments were being used and the software can't cope with a re-assignment competently. In my view we should do what the ACBL does which is to say The most favourable likely outcome and most unfavourable likely outcome are 'X' and 'Y' Based on these two figures give the two teams the higher of these scores for their team pro tem., and assign on this basis. When the AC has deliberated adjust the VP scores appropriately, and if necessary, play the tables as mismatches. 392 bridge players will be greatful, and 8 *just might* be a bit unhappy. To hold up 100 tables unnecessarily is *bad* Customer relations. 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 Jul 20 11:03:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:03:05 +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 LAA07504 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:02:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb6s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.183] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 116OIs-0000pO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:02:43 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:12:24 +0100 Message-ID: <01bed24c$ecb53a80$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: Richard F Beye To: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 11:13 PM Subject: Re: Malta Appeals > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) > >> > > While this doesn't literally say that the offenders should be the ones >to >> > > bring a case to a committee, it resolving any doubtful point against >the >> > > offenders will in practice mean that the offenders will be ones to >appeal. >> > >> > Henk, IMHO your last is a popular view held by PLAYERS. The ACBL has >not >> > abolished any of the Laws that you cite above. A player may consider >a >> > point doubtful. But in arriving at a staff consensus, usually >unanimous, a >> > TD (staff) may determine that same point to be a certainty after >> > considering all the information available. >> >> You are mixing 2 things here: TD and player disagreeing on something and >> what to do if the TD considers a point doubtful. >> >> Of course, the TD should use his judgement on the problem and he may >> decide that what the players consider doubtful is clear-cut. > >Not mixing. The above is what I am trying to say, though in (almost) the >SAME words :-)) The occasions on which the TD rules in favour of the NOS because they are NO, are few and far between. The facts are agreed and UI from the withdrawn call of a NO has given too much info to an offender, for the board to be played. The TD has an options. If it is considered a "close call", the TD should rule in favour if the NOs (L84) A TD should not abrogate his responsibility to rule by using a "get out" clause. TDs that do this habitually should compile a list of the Laws that actually advocate it! IMO ACs are valued adjudicators in cases of value judgements. No TD should feel demeaned because an AC overturns his ruling. As David Grabinger pointed out, there are occasions that the TD makes a mistake. Yes the AC over-rules, and rightly so. The TD has not "lost" the appeal, justice was done and the TD may learn from it. My point is that it is the contestants who win or lose an appeal, not the TDs. While the ACs hear appeals against the ruling of a TD, the AC is in fact a continuation of the TDs authority as a function of the Law. Anne (pwuioa) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 11:06:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:06:38 +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 LAA07524 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:06:25 +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 116OMD-000LEQ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:06:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:29:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <004e01bed21f$61d63540$4e294b0c@default> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Richard F Beye wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: David Grabiner >> >> > It depends on the situation. In complicated UI/MI cases, the TD is >> > supposed to give the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. >> >> NO, not in the ACBL. In the ACBL the directing staff always tries to make >> the best ruling possible given all facts available. It is the view of some >> PLAYERS that the directing staff should always make the offending side >> appeal. This view is not consistent with the Laws. > >Has the ACBL abolished laws 12C2, 84D and in particular 84E? No, they just seem to be doing the job as required. Suppose that a player has UI available from partner, and his comments provide MI to the opposing side potentially. This is a complex situation, and a good TD will make a reasonable investigation to find out what is happening. Suppose he works out what is happening, and realises that there was no MI in his opinion, and that the UI appears not to have damaged the opposition. No, he is not 100% certain, but he has taken this view *after consultation*. What is he required to do by the Laws? According to L81D he attempts to restore equity, resolving any doubtful point in favour of the NOS. But he has decided that equity is restored by not adjusting, because there is no damage: why should he not rule that way? If he really could not decide, that might be different. Anyway, you quote L12C2: there is no requirement in it to adjust when there is no damage. Now, you mention "in particular 84E". L84E applies to an irregularity where no penalty is prescribed by Law: we are talking about bog standard MI and UI, and members of this list can quote the Law numbers in their sleep. L84E is clearly irrelevant. Of course, in many cases he has to determine the facts: but if he does so satisfactorily, L85A directs him to L84, and if he cannot, then he rules under L85B and makes some sort of ruling to continue. In practice he generally has a fair idea and follows that. What we want in this game is to make it flow as smoothly as possible, accepting that ripples and eddies are inevitable. In the long run, Directors ruling *right* will make the game run smoother than over-use of ACs. And what happens if a TD makes a ruling in favour of the putative NOs as a matter of course, and it is not appealed: is this making things go smoothly? But it may not be appealed for any number of reasons. >While this doesn't literally say that the offenders should be the ones to >bring a case to a committee, it resolving any doubtful point against the >offenders will in practice mean that the offenders will be ones to appeal. Not always, I am pleased to say. We do not want a reading where the offenders have to appeal for justice when they are clearly in the right. >(And just read the comments in the case-books when the non-offenders have >to appeal :-) Hmm. Let me tell you about my weekend. I ran an inter-County event, reasonable standard. Because of problems with dates it only had four teams [usually seven], teams-of-eight, selected to represent their county. I gave four rulings. All four were judgement ones. I could post them if anyone likes, though it might be argued they are really RGB rulings rather than BLML, because the Law was clear: it was the bridge judgement that was not. I had no other TD present. One team had five pairs: the others had four. So I consulted in each case with the sitting out pair, without telling them whether their team was involved. Then I ruled. A couple of the rulings were very close, and none seemed completely obvious. How many appeals? None, of course. There was not the faintest suggestion that anyone would appeal, and from the demeanour and attitude of the teams and their captains, I am quite sure there would have been no appeals if I had ruled the other way in each case. Is his what we want? Well, we would not get it if I had ruled in every case in favour of the "non-offenders". But I can assure you that this attitude to rulings was part of the reason for one of the pleasantest weekends that I can remember. I sweated blood to rule *right* and that is the way it should be. Meaningless cyphers who take the facts and then rule for the NOS are not desirable. Furthermore, I dislike the terms "non-offenders" and "offenders" anyway, since they are pejorative and inaccurate. The Os are the people who created the problem first: the NOs are their opponents: but the Os need not have offended, and I would like the WBFLC to consider introducing a fairer term that does not prejudice the case before it is even heard. -- 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 Jul 20 11:11:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:11:20 +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 LAA07565 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:11:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from p2cs01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.45] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 116OQw-0002XS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:11:03 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:20:47 +0100 Message-ID: <01bed24e$18c1f900$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 1:58 AM Subject: Re: Malta Appeals >In article <2gzH+3AB5mk3EwBv@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>>DWS: >>>> Excuse me? We are not to hold up the tournament, so to continue the >>>>tournament we assume that the TD is going to be overruled? Why does >>>>this make the tournament run faster, please? > >we don't have to wait for the AC's adjudication. >> >>>Do you want the situation where 100 tables wait 15 minutes before the >>>last round assignments are issued because an AC is making a ruling >>>(therby costing 100 player-hours of goodwill) or do you assign *now* >>>based on the TD's ruling and the table result, thereby keeping 400 (FOUR >>>HUNDRED) bridge players happy. (And award a mismatch adjustment if >>>necessary). It's happened. I was there. I was embarrassed for the >>>Organisers. And it's not illegal, when we have such methods. >>> >>>Get real David :)) >> >> Would you like to explain the relationship between your answer and >>mine, please? >> >> >I have watched 400 bridge plyers going demented because we could not >assign the last round as there was an appeal relating to table 1 or 2. >There was a wait of 15 minutes while the AC deliberated, after which >there was a 3 minute wait while the VP scores were computed and then the >assignments were made. Computer assignments were being used and the >software can't cope with a re-assignment competently. > >In my view we should do what the ACBL does which is to say The most >favourable likely outcome and most unfavourable likely outcome are 'X' >and 'Y' Based on these two figures give the two teams the higher of >these scores for their team pro tem., and assign on this basis. > >When the AC has deliberated adjust the VP scores appropriately, and if >necessary, play the tables as mismatches. 392 bridge players will be >greatful, and 8 *just might* be a bit unhappy. > >To hold up 100 tables unnecessarily is *bad* Customer relations. As I understand it, at the moment we assign according to the TD ruling. As long as we don't change that rule to fit the bodies involved, what's wrong with that. Change the rule, and give both sides the benefit? Fine! But make it a rule. Guidance from SOs is called for. Anne (pwuioa) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 11:21:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:06:40 +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 LAA07531 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:06:30 +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 116OMG-000LEm-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:06:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:39:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <199907191637.MAA28712@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> <004e01bed21f$61d63540$4e294b0c@default> In-Reply-To: <004e01bed21f$61d63540$4e294b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Grabiner > >> It depends on the situation. In complicated UI/MI cases, the TD is >> supposed to give the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. > >NO, not in the ACBL. In the ACBL the directing staff always tries to make >the best ruling possible given all facts available. It is the view of some >PLAYERS that the directing staff should always make the offending side >appeal. This view is not consistent with the Laws. Not in the Rest of the World either. in fact, we had heard that this was the case in the ACBL, but I am beginning to think that maybe it was at one time but has shifted. -- 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 Jul 20 12:21:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:44:58 +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 LAA07674 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:44:50 +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 116Ox8-000C2S-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:44:19 +0000 Message-ID: <9GymDfAl78k3Ewi0@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:20:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <3792EDE8.AC664E96@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3792EDE8.AC664E96@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >richard lighton wrote: >> >> >> A very informal poll on rgb some time back indicated that the number >> of appeals in European countries was about 3 times higher than in the >> ACBL. >> > >I have calculated the frequency of appeals in Warszawa and >Malta as being : > >Warszawa : 0.58 appeals per 1000 boards played >Malta : 0.70 appeals per 1000 boards played So a Swiss with 100 tables playing 48 boards in the day would be 4800 boards? Typical EBU one day events of this size generate about 2-3 appeals. Chs 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 Jul 20 12:24:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:24:32 +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 MAA07841 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:24:22 +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 116PZj-000Jjv-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:24:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 03:22:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <2gzH+3AB5mk3EwBv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <2gzH+3AB5mk3EwBv@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>>DWS: >>>> Excuse me? We are not to hold up the tournament, so to continue the >>>>tournament we assume that the TD is going to be overruled? Why does >>>>this make the tournament run faster, please? > >we don't have to wait for the AC's adjudication. >> >>>Do you want the situation where 100 tables wait 15 minutes before the >>>last round assignments are issued because an AC is making a ruling >>>(therby costing 100 player-hours of goodwill) or do you assign *now* >>>based on the TD's ruling and the table result, thereby keeping 400 (FOUR >>>HUNDRED) bridge players happy. (And award a mismatch adjustment if >>>necessary). It's happened. I was there. I was embarrassed for the >>>Organisers. And it's not illegal, when we have such methods. >>> >>>Get real David :)) >> >> Would you like to explain the relationship between your answer and >>mine, please? >> >> >I have watched 400 bridge plyers going demented because we could not >assign the last round as there was an appeal relating to table 1 or 2. >There was a wait of 15 minutes while the AC deliberated, after which >there was a 3 minute wait while the VP scores were computed and then the >assignments were made. Computer assignments were being used and the >software can't cope with a re-assignment competently. > >In my view we should do what the ACBL does which is to say The most >favourable likely outcome and most unfavourable likely outcome are 'X' >and 'Y' Based on these two figures give the two teams the higher of >these scores for their team pro tem., and assign on this basis. > >When the AC has deliberated adjust the VP scores appropriately, and if >necessary, play the tables as mismatches. 392 bridge players will be >greatful, and 8 *just might* be a bit unhappy. > >To hold up 100 tables unnecessarily is *bad* Customer relations. Agreed, of course. What has this got to do with my posting? -- 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 Jul 20 12:57:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:06:38 +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 LAA07522 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:06:23 +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 116OMD-0005dW-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:06:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:39:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Statistics References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >> From: Demeter Manning >> I'm one of those lurkers. I'm not a director or bridge official, just a >> bridge player who is very interested in the game. I've learned a great >> deal about bridge from lurking here, and hope that I'll be able to >> contribute something intelligent and informed someday. Thanks to all for >> carrying on these discussions in public, and letting the rest of us listen >> in. >> Demeter Manning >+++ There are a handful of lurkers who communicate with >me occasionally, on this or that, without going public The same applies to me. I am always very happy to receive an email on *any* suitable subject, and my email replies are much milder than my postings [deliberate policy]. -- 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 Jul 20 13:17:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:44:48 +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 LAA07663 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:44:39 +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 116Ox7-0007dC-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:44:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:36:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: A quiet weekend. In-Reply-To: <001301bed1cf$638a5c40$0a8d93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001301bed1cf$638a5c40$0a8d93c3@pacific>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >The chief benefit of law is restraint of government >v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v > >Two days as Appeals Chairman at Premier League >Second Division matches 1 & 2 (48 boards each, >8 teams in play) in Young Chelsea club. No appeals. >One question of system; a fully disclosed item and >conditions are WBF Systems Policy, category 1, >so no problem. ~ Grattan ~ > That has been my experience too. I've directed about 20 days of these events and typically would make 1 ruling per day. ... Apart from one nightmare day with three appeals, one of which I wrote up in English Bridge when DALB couldn't remember who was on the other side of the screen and was playing a totally different system with presumed partner than actual partner was :)) -- 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 Jul 20 13:21:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:44:52 +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 LAA07664 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:44:42 +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 116Ox7-000P9l-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:44:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:29:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <3793797a.2971753@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3793797a.2971753@post12.tele.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:15:39 +0100, "Anne Jones" > wrote: > >>In a recent conversation with a senior EBU TD, about the progress of an >>event so far, I was told that there had been one appeal, "but we won." >>This threw me somewhat as my attitude to appeals against my rulings >>is that I am now a being appart. Other than to explain the reasons for >>my ruling, the law/s used, and my findings, I consider that my job is done >>until I am asked to convey the findings of the AC. Whether or not my >>ruling is upheld, or overturned, I have no sence of win or lose. >>What are the opinions of others. Do other TDs feel that they have lost an >>argument, or do they consider that a higher authority had a different >>opinion, which on reflection they might agree or disagree with, purely >>academically. > >I would hope that most TDs have the same attitude that you have. > >If a TD considers it a "loss" to have his ruling changed, then >one could fear that he might feel an incentive to give rulings >that will not be appealed rather than rulings that he believes to >be correct. And TDs who do that are not good TDs. When talking with other TDs or friends at an event where I have an appeal of one of my rulings pending I would certainly say "I expect to win" or "I expect to lose" This is no particular reflection of my own judgement of the ruling I gave in the first instance, but a view I will be taking of the potential thought processes of the AC. Rather like DWS (pace David but I believe you agree) I don't worry whether my ruling is overturned or not. When I gave the ruling I believed it to be correct from the facts which I had theretofore grattanesquely elucidated. obliquely 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 Jul 20 18:06:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:06:45 +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 SAA08592 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:06:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11117 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:05:52 GMT Message-ID: <37942E0C.BC42B8D8@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:06:36 +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: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <08c501bed164$8c3e9900$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <37998108.4905283@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal a écrit : > On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:26:35 -0700, "Marvin L. French" > wrote: > >This was an auction that was never discussed, and to my memory had never > >occurred before with that partner. How could I disclose an agreement when > >there was none? I told the pro, "You know as much as I do," which was > >true, and she did not accept that answer, nor would the idiot TD. "You > >must disclose what 2NT means." No, I don't. All I knew about the bid came > >from my general knowledge and experience, not from any special partnership > >agreement. > > Fine. > > >Now, what if the same auction occurs again with the same partner? Has it > >become a *special* partnership agreement? Not to my mind. > > > >If people confuse a player's "general knowledge and experience" with > >"universal treatment," they are writing a new Law. > > When it happens again, you have specific knowledge of how a > specific partner uses that bid: that is not "general bridge > knowledge" - it is an implicit partnership agreement. > > You _know_ what your partner's bid means, but you want your > opponents to guess. > > I will not try to convince you of any specific meaning of the > word "special", since I do not really understand why it is there, > but I will point out that if that word were to mean that you > could keep your opponents in the dark while knowing perfectly > well yourself what partner's bid means, then the Laws would IMO > be basically and intolerably unfair. Not so clear-cut as you think, maybe, and I will try an exemple to explain what I understood from Marv's interpretation: Let's suppose you start a cue-bidding auction, and, at same point, your partner fails to bid BW and you rightly deduce (from logics, from general bridge knowledge ...) that his trumps are weak. OK, you don't alert, you leave to your opponents (having as much input as you have) the responsability to get the same deductions. Some time later, you meet a similar situation with the same partner; you could make the same analysis but, no need, you remember the previous occurence and you know (from experience or implicit partnership agreement?) partner's trumps are poor. Should you alert? Would it be important to know if opponents are experienced or novices? The general problem is: are you bound to share your previous reflexions when they become reflexes? JP Rocafort > > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Jul 20 18:08:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:08:35 +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 SAA08606 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:08:27 +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 KAA06859 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:07:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA11423 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:07:47 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:07:47 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <9GymDfAl78k3Ewi0@probst.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <3792EDE8.AC664E96@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > >richard lighton wrote: > >> A very informal poll on rgb some time back indicated that the number > >> of appeals in European countries was about 3 times higher than in the > >> ACBL. > >I have calculated the frequency of appeals in Warszawa and > >Malta as being : > > > >Warszawa : 0.58 appeals per 1000 boards played > >Malta : 0.70 appeals per 1000 boards played > So a Swiss with 100 tables playing 48 boards in the day would be 4800 > boards? Typical EBU one day events of this size generate about 2-3 > appeals. 2/4800 = 0.42 appeals/1000 boards, 3/4800 = 0.63 appeals/1000 boards which is in the same range as the Malta and Warsaw numbers. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 20:54:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:54:29 +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 UAA08852 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:54:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-149-24.uunet.be [194.7.149.24]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA14453 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:54:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37944BDD.E21F24E5@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:13:49 +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: Malta Appeals References: <01bed24e$18c1f900$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: (twice) > Anne > (pwuioa) Is this Welsh ? Considering the number of vowels, it is more likely Hawaiian. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 20:54:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:54:30 +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 UAA08857 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:54:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-149-24.uunet.be [194.7.149.24]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA14457 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:54:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37944CC1.D67F5007@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:17:37 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <08c501bed164$8c3e9900$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <37998108.4905283@post12.tele.dk> <37942E0C.BC42B8D8@meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > The general problem is: are you bound to share your previous reflexions when > they become reflexes? > > JP Rocafort > I like the way the question is put, including the intended pun. I would answer : Reflexions are not to be explained, Reflexes are. With one proviso to the first : provided all elements that lead to the correct deductions ARE fully explained. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 20:54:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:54:22 +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 UAA08850 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:54:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-149-24.uunet.be [194.7.149.24]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA14436 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:53:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <379449CF.4CCDB0EE@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:05:03 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) References: <008001bed213$bff700c0$35b420cc@host> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Craig, list, Craig Senior wrote: > > Calm yourself. My post was in response to one that suggested that such a > policy could or should be applied to ACBL events in general and NABC > contests specifically. If we are to ban silly posts, some of us should look > in the mirror perhaps. > I am sorry if I misunderstood what you were replying to. Your post was in reply to someone who suggested that such and such a regulation might be implemented, and you carried the regulation to the extreme. You were not the only one doing so. I suspect (and I don't believe I am wrong) that this was triggered by the Malta-AC decision on which I reported at length. And I got mad at the length the discussion took. Sorry, I'm only human too. Now personally, I don't advocate any regulation that suggests that players should have agreements. That is against the Laws. OTOH I feel strongly that at some level of competition, for some sort of bidding, it is unacceptible that no agreements exist. I feel that this is universal, and is within the spirit of Bridge and even the Laws of Bridge. I don't believe that regulations should be written to explicitely describe what level of agreement should exist for a particular tournament. I feel every AC can decide this after the facts and I don't believe any AC would put the bar higher than what players might expect. I even believe that the bar can be set higher for more experienced pairs and lower for pick-up partnerships, even within one tournament. > Are we to adopt a policy that we canot discuss matters that develop in the > course of a thread? My post made no reference to your original post Herman, > nor to the EBL, which of course is free to make any CoC for its > championships it may wish..silly, brilliant or in between. I would, however, > be most distressed to see such restrictions applied in the ACBL to freeze > pickup pairs out of serious flight A competition, for the reasons stated. > Every SO should organize as it ses fit. If the ACBL wants to accept, and encourage, pick-up partnerships at its main events, then it is free to do so (and I have no opinion as to this). Surely the 'bar' as stated above, should be set accordingly. > If you disagree, tell me why. If not, what is your problem with my (and > Eric's) continuation of a discussion that has diverged into restrictive > conditions of contest. I don't disagree. I did not know this discussion had moved into the realm of the possible. Is the ACBL seriously suggesting implementing regulations along the lines I state above ? If that is true, then certainly forgive me for calling the discussion "silly". > It is not silly to us. Remember that we must face the > one psyche to a partnership to a lifetime pseudo rule, the rule of > coincidence, and "convention disruption" as well as the inability to shade > mini opening no trumps. We used to have to put up with point count > restrictions on weak 2's for heaven's sake. It is important to kill any such > proposed restriction before it gets a chance to spread here. > I agree, and I support your struggles. > We often hear criticism that this is not only a North American list. Well, > it is not only a European one either. Once a discussion is begun that is > read by many in authority in the ACBL, we have a right and duty to > contribute our concerns. Else we ignore the lessons of history and are > doomed to repeat it...(Durand I think). > > Now please don't be silly, take offense, and deprive us of your usually > interesting comments. You play a valuable part in discussions here on the > list...we would miss you. > Thank you. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 20 23:21:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:32:57 +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 WAA09140 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:32:44 +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 116Z4R-00064m-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:32:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:25:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: <01bed24e$18c1f900$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <37944BDD.E21F24E5@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37944BDD.E21F24E5@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Anne Jones wrote: (twice) > >> Anne >> (pwuioa) > >Is this Welsh ? Considering the number of vowels, it is >more likely Hawaiian. > It is Welsh for PWD. I pray that Kojak is *not* reading 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 Wed Jul 21 00:24:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:32:58 +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 WAA09139 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:32:43 +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 116Z4Q-000641-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:32:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:47:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Visual impairment and other disabilities MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Comments on the following set of recommended regulations are sought. 1. Bidding 1.1 Bidding boxes are to be used when this is possible. 1.2 If the use of bidding boxes by one or more players is not possible, then all players should call their own bids (where this is possible). 1.3 The opponents of any player unable to use a bidding box have the option to require that bidding boxes are used in addition to spoken bids, in which case the bidding box of the player unable to use it should be operated by one of the opponents. 2. Play 2.1 When all players except dummy can see cards played normally, play continues as normal. 2.2 When a player, other than dummy, is unable to see cards played normally, then (subject to the option in 2.3) all players are to call their own cards as played. 2.3 The opponents of a player unable to see cards played normally have the option to require that all cards (but not the cards of one or more players to the exclusion of the others) are called by dummy as played. 2.4 Cards must be named in full and in a consistent manner. 3. General 3.1 If it is impracticable for these regulations to be followed in whole or in part, the TD is authorised to specify the manner in which the bidding and play shall proceed. -- 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 Jul 21 00:47:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:31:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09128 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:31:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.106]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.5/64) id 4978300 ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:27:05 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990720083222.0085cdc0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:32:22 -0400 To: "Grattan" From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199907162246.3049200@cshore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >+++ I think a special partnership understanding is >one that the partnership has which is not part of the >general expectations of all players and to be >aware of which opponents are entitled by law. The >place to look to understand what is required is >Law 40 A & B. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ This is fine, so far as it goes, but there is practically speaking a wide variety of interpretations of what constitutes special partnership understanding under L40. There can be little question that some pairs are far less forthcoming than others, and it is imo highly undesirable that other players who are actively attentive to their disclosure obligations should be disadvantaged. Indeed, were it not for the specific language of L75 requiring disclosure of implicit as well as explicit agreements, it seems plausible that some pairs might claim to have no agreements whatsoever. ;) Imo, it is L75 that provides the necessary guidance as to what is meant by special partnership understanding, by explicitly including implicit agreement and by contrasting special partnership agreement or experience with inferences drawn from general knowledge and experience. Nonetheless, despite these clarifications, the word "special" remains problematic in practice, as some seem to imbue it with a meaning more akin to "highly unusual" rather than to its intended meaning. As an aside, I would echo the sentiments of those who express reservations about reliance on a broad interpretation of what constitutes general bridge knowledge. The proliferation of systems, conventions and treatments is staggering, and their acceptance and incorporation into the mainstream varies tremendously even within subcommunities in large states or small countries. When "general" is in the eye of the beholder, it can get pretty specific sometimes. Whether a strong player may be reasonably expected to be au courant is an interesting question; whether he may be reasonably expected to know what's general knowledge this month in Los Angeles is not, but players and directors still get it wrong. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 01:13:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:13:12 +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 BAA09593 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:13:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegnn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.247]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA07748 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:12:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990720111046.012129b4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:10:46 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements In-Reply-To: <199907192146.RAA01772@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:46 PM 7/19/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> OK, I'll bite. No, they do not have an alertable agreement, at least not >> until they have either discussed the inferences or developed sufficient >> experience with the methods to have come to an understanding about all the >> inferences available, including negative inferences. > >Interesting. > >> With my favorite partner, I play a 2/1 style with a 12-14 NT. > >Suppose you play with a stranger and agree "2/1, 12-14 NT," no time for >any other discussion. On the first board, your unopposed auction goes >1C-1H-1NT. Don't you think you have to alert 1NT because it shows >15-17, even though you have never discussed it? > To be honest, I would generally be reluctant to play this method with a stranger, precisely because of the myriad inferences which require discussion and agreement. But to try and be responsive to your question, yes, I should (and would) alert the 1nt rebid, because I would expect anyone who played this system to know that it shows a strong nt rather than the 12-14 point range which standard players would expect. Certainly I have played this method long enough to be confident of this inference myself, which is the key distinction with the young scientists in the original article. My point is not that the YS' pass shouldn't be alerted in general, but rather that until they have either discussed the implications of the pass or attained sufficient experience with it to understand its nuances, they cannot be said to have an "agreement" of any kind. Even if after-the-fact analysis by stronger players reveals logical implications of the pass, these implications don't constitute an agreement per se. Players cannot be expected to alert "agreements" which they don't even know about themselves, and no law requires them to do so. >[Precision pair] >> "...never discuss exactly which hands open 1D?" Does this mean that they >> a) Have no explicit or implicit rules about opening 1D except that such >> bids have fewer than 15 HCP? >> b) Only have implicit rules, basically lumping into 1D all opening hands >> which fail to meet the explicit requirements for 1C, 1M, 1NT, or 2C? >> c) Have explicit rules, but have not made a complete catalog of hands which >> meet those rules? >> >> a) seems silly, and although c) comes closest to the precise meaning of >> your words, I am guessing you mean b). > >Yes, I meant b (except less than 16 HCP); sorry for the confusion. >Assume there has been no discussion, for whatever reason. Perhaps they >have an agreement that 2D is natural and weak. Regular Precision >players will know that this forces a 1D opening on 4414 distribution. >Even if not, 1D with longer clubs is possible. Precision players might >not all agree on what to do with 11-12 balanced, but surely they >wouldn't be astonished to find an unknown partner opening 1D. > >> Yes, they have an agreement, which >> can best be explained as "opening hand, usually unbalanced with no 5-card >> major. States nothing about diamond length." This is obviously alertable in >> the ACBL, and I suspect in most other jurisdictions as well. > >I agree that the 1D bid under all such conditions is alertable, even >if never discussed. > >So how is this different from the young scientists' pass of 1H? > >I'm arguing that the unusual pass is alertable, even if not discussed, >because its unusual features are a _direct_ consequence of explicit >agreements. Michael seems to agree in the Precision 1D case, and I >hope he will agree in the 1NT rebid case. So what is different about >the pass? > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 01:21:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:21:35 +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 BAA09646 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:21:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegnn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.247]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA21651 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:21:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990720111908.0120bfdc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:19:08 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) In-Reply-To: <379449CF.4CCDB0EE@village.uunet.be> References: <008001bed213$bff700c0$35b420cc@host> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 7/20/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >Now personally, I don't advocate any regulation that >suggests that players should have agreements. That is >against the Laws. >OTOH I feel strongly that at some level of competition, for >some sort of bidding, it is unacceptible that no agreements >exist. > >I feel that this is universal, and is within the spirit of >Bridge and even the Laws of Bridge. > >I don't believe that regulations should be written to >explicitely describe what level of agreement should exist >for a particular tournament. I feel every AC can decide >this after the facts and I don't believe any AC would put >the bar higher than what players might expect. >I even believe that the bar can be set higher for more >experienced pairs and lower for pick-up partnerships, even >within one tournament. IMO, you have confused the roles of the AC and SO. It is the legitimate province of the SO to decide the conditions of contest, in which the expectations about bidding systems and the means of disclosure can be expressed. It is completely inappropriate for the AC to set or revise these after the fact, which seems exactly like what you have described. To allow this latitude for an AC means that players can never be confident about what is expected of them. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 01:21:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:32:57 +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 WAA09141 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:32:45 +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 116Z4R-00064n-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:32:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:23:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) References: <008001bed213$bff700c0$35b420cc@host> <379449CF.4CCDB0EE@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <379449CF.4CCDB0EE@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Now personally, I don't advocate any regulation that >suggests that players should have agreements. That is >against the Laws. >OTOH I feel strongly that at some level of competition, for >some sort of bidding, it is unacceptible that no agreements >exist. This is illogical. If it is against the Laws then it cannot be enforced. Either it is acceptable to enforce this provision, or it isn't. >I feel that this is universal, and is within the spirit of >Bridge and even the Laws of Bridge. No. Saying something is universal which is not accepted by everyone is not correct. >I don't believe that regulations should be written to >explicitely describe what level of agreement should exist >for a particular tournament. I feel every AC can decide >this after the facts and I don't believe any AC would put >the bar higher than what players might expect. >I even believe that the bar can be set higher for more >experienced pairs and lower for pick-up partnerships, even >within one tournament. This is worrying. You are now suggesting that ACs should work above the Law. If it is acceptable that players are required to conform to a certain standard for a particular tournament then it should be a matter of a CoC - and if a CoC is not legal, then an AC cannot enforce it. One of the complaints made about NAmerican ACs is that they make decisions without regard for the Laws [please note: I am not saying they do, I am saying people say they do]. Now you are suggesting that European ACs *should* do so. If you go to a tourney, you should know what to expect in the way of Rules. To say that you will also be subject to the whims of an AC [who you cannot ask in advance] who is making up its own rules 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 Wed Jul 21 01:34:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:39:47 +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 WAA09182 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:39:40 +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 IAA16172 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:39:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:49 PM 7/19/99 +0200, Jesper wrote: >Fine: if you haven't noticed your partner's actions, there is no >agreement. The problem with this is that it adds a new dimension to the serious game. On which auctions should you notice what partner holds? On an auction like 1NT-P-3NT, you will gain less in the long run from knowing something about partner's likely holdings on those rare deals where you wind up defending than you will lose by occasionally providing useful information to the opponents defending 3NT. So you gain an advantage by being careful *not* to notice what partner holds when he bids 3NT. That just doesn't seem sensible. >Imagine that after such an auction you find yourself defending a >contract, and that it soon turns out that one defensive plan is >correct if partner has 4 hearts and another is correct if partner >has less than 4 hearts. From the fall of the cards, disregarding >the auction, it seems probable but far from certain that partner >does have 4 hearts. > >Might not your flimsy recollection of whether or not your partner >sometimes has 4 hearts in this kind of auction have some >influence on your choice of action? Of course it might. But is a "flimsy recollection" really an agreement? "Flimsy" suggests a recollection based on impressions from a small and likely biased (probably in favor of the unusual cases) sample of the few cases you happen to remember, and carries a lot of uncertainty. When you have to guess what partner's call means, you don't flip a coin; you use whatever odd bits and pieces of recall you can bring to bear, with very little if any confidence that your recall is either correct or significant. If this is "agreement", we would have an obligation to disclose our entire thought processes -- or, rather, the impossible-to-meet obligation to determine which feelings or intuitions are based on "flimsy recollection" and which on such things as our holdings, so we can disclose only the former, as is appropriate. >If you can answer "no" to that, then I agree that you have no >agreement and no obligation to disclose your "non-agreement". > >Otherwise, you have an agreement, and your opponents have a right >to know it. I would not find it a problem if you did not go out >of your way to remember partner's habits just because you were >asked about a bid, but if it seems probable that the opponent who >asks if specifically interested in the lengths of the majors, >then you must explain your partnership experience as well as you >can. So how do we draw a reasonable line between vague impressions and agreements? One fear is that, in practice, the only possible test will turn out to be whether or not you guess right. Another is that, over time, this will grow into some presumed ethical obligation to notice what partner has when he bids 3NT, so that the opponents can be "properly" informed (and thereby create a new infraction, which we could call "implicit agreement disruption"). 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 Jul 21 02:18:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:18:01 +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 CAA09983 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:17:54 +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 RAA27861 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:18:07 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA21541 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:17:45 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:17:44 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA19504 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:17:43 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:17:43 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199907201617.RAA19504@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:10:46 -0400 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements > > My point is not that the YS' pass shouldn't be alerted in general, but > rather that until they have either discussed the implications of the pass > or attained sufficient experience with it to understand its nuances, they > cannot be said to have an "agreement" of any kind. Even if after-the-fact > analysis by stronger players reveals logical implications of the pass, > these implications don't constitute an agreement per se. Players cannot be > expected to alert "agreements" which they don't even know about themselves, > and no law requires them to do so. > > The EBU requires a call to be alerted if "it is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect." The fact that the a player does not know what to expect from partner's pass of an opening bid (because "its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect") then this surely applies and the YSP (Young Scientist's Pass) is alertable. The player would then explain what bids in response to an opening bid meant and tell the opponents that a pass shows what's left. So "no law requires them to do so" but a NCBO regulation might. 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 Jul 21 02:21:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:48:43 +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 AAA09468 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:48:35 +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 JAA59048 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:48:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0DRQL00C Tue, 20 Jul 99 09:48:08 Message-ID: <9907200948.0DRQL00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 20 Jul 99 09:48:08 Subject: BOOK ON MOVEMENTS (A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Hello Craig, list, B>Craig Senior wrote: B>> B>> Calm yourself. My post was in response to one that suggested that such B>a > policy could or should be applied to ACBL events in general and NABC B>> contests specifically. If we are to ban silly posts, some of us should B>look > in the mirror perhaps. B>> B>I am sorry if I misunderstood what you were replying to. B>Your post was in reply to someone who suggested that such B>and such a regulation might be implemented, and you carried B>the regulation to the extreme. B>You were not the only one doing so. B>I suspect (and I don't believe I am wrong) that this was B>triggered by the Malta-AC decision on which I reported at B>length. B>And I got mad at the length the discussion took. B>Sorry, I'm only human too. B>Now personally, I don't advocate any regulation that B>suggests that players should have agreements. That is B>against the Laws. B>OTOH I feel strongly that at some level of competition, for B>some sort of bidding, it is unacceptible that no agreements B>exist. I think it is far better for a partnership to decide for themselves what agreements they have- or don't have. However, if they decide on agreements that often prove to be beyond their ability to properly disclose, it seems quite suitable that they be restricted solely to natural agreements for some length of time- such as the duration of the event. In other words, the consequence of not selecting agreements wisely would be a self regulating factor in the game and a strong inducement to learn one's lessons well before subjecting others to chaos. The benefits would be great. The field would get the disclosure they are entitled and the pair's scores would more often reflect their skill than their accidents and unfair results from improper disclosure. Such a mechanism would place the ball in the partnership's court to decide which agreements they believe they can disclose appropriately. Of course, no such mechanism is currently in place. Roger Pewick B>I feel that this is universal, and is within the spirit of B>Bridge and even the Laws of Bridge. B>I don't believe that regulations should be written to B>explicitely describe what level of agreement should exist B>for a particular tournament. I feel every AC can decide B>this after the facts and I don't believe any AC would put B>the bar higher than what players might expect. B>I even believe that the bar can be set higher for more B>experienced pairs and lower for pick-up partnerships, even B>within one tournament. To me this does not seem to be a good idea. -s- B>Thank you. B>-- B>Herman DE WAEL B>Antwerpen Belgium B>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 02:30:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:49:50 +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 AAA09483 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:49:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegnn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.247]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA10099 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990719192915.0120878c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:29:15 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:49 PM 7/19/99 +0200, Jesper wrote: >Imagine that after such an auction you find yourself defending a >contract, and that it soon turns out that one defensive plan is >correct if partner has 4 hearts and another is correct if partner >has less than 4 hearts. From the fall of the cards, disregarding >the auction, it seems probable but far from certain that partner >does have 4 hearts. > >Might not your flimsy recollection of whether or not your partner >sometimes has 4 hearts in this kind of auction have some >influence on your choice of action? > >If you can answer "no" to that, then I agree that you have no >agreement and no obligation to disclose your "non-agreement". > >Otherwise, you have an agreement, and your opponents have a right >to know it. I would not find it a problem if you did not go out >of your way to remember partner's habits just because you were >asked about a bid, but if it seems probable that the opponent who >asks if specifically interested in the lengths of the majors, >then you must explain your partnership experience as well as you >can. But it is not quite so simple as either/or: either I remember partner's tendencies or I don't, and moreover the obligation for full disclosure has various facets to it, as a function of Regional requirements for alerts, cc notification, or responses to opponents' questions. In the context of our two specific examples (partner's tendency to avoid opening 1nt with a 6-card minor and partner's tendency to skip Stayman on certain hands containing 4-card majors), I hope we are in agreement that there is in general no affirmative obligation to bring these types of issues to the attention of the opponents, within any jurisdiction with which I am familiar. So we are, presumably, concerned with a situation where the opponents have sought out, via legal questions, information on these subjects. 1."Does your partner's 1nt opening deny a 6-card minor holding?" or 2."Does the direct jump to 3nt deny a 4-card major?" 1. I've played with partner dozens of times, and I don't recall him ever opening 1nt with a 6-card minor. But we've never actually discussed it. Certainly I would open 1nt with a suitable hand containing a 6-card minor, and would assume that my partner (who's almost as strong as I am) would be willing to do so. But in responding to this question, it seems that the most honest and helpful answer I can give is "we have no agreement." 2. Any half-way decent player (and we've already stipulated that for this partner) recognizes that some hands should not inquire about a 4-card major suit-fit, especially at matchpoints, so I would never say that partner's bid _denies_ a 4-card major. But I do seem to recall a couple of times in the past year where I thought partner should not have inquired, when he did. Is this a tendency? Again, the most truthful answer here is probably "No, it doesn't" but that is neither particularly more forthcoming nor helpful than the non-commital "No agreement" answer above. It's not that I disagree that partnership experience can establish usages which must be disclosed-- it can, and it doesn't necessarily require explicit agreement. But the duty to inform the opponents is, IMO, less pressing than the obligation not to mis-inform. Explanations based on vague, half-remembered "tendencies" of partner's style carry a significant risk of the latter, and do little to advance the former. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 03:35:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 03:35:30 +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 DAA10138 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 03:35:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA11230; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:34:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.69) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011107; Tue Jul 20 12:33:36 1999 Message-ID: <008201bed2d6$6ad30080$45b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:36:33 -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 I think what is intended here is not to slight the TD but to provide an orderly means to continue the event on a timely basis while providing no incentive to the BLs. Both teams being matched as though they had won the appeal means that both will have to face theoretically tougher opposition than had they lost the appeal. This provides no incentive to appeal in the hope of getting a more favourable pairing because that will not happen. It eliminates the customer badwill of forcing everyone to wait while a determination...possibly rushed because of the time pressure...is made. To allow the matching to be made on the basis that the TD ruling will be upheld is not so bad as to wait and wait...but it could provide aid and comfort to the BLs who can profit from an easier pairing while the appeal is being heard then still gain back the lost vps when the decision comes down. We want an efficiently run contest and we want appeals to be made based on merit not BL considerations. While imperfect this approach does seem to meet these criteria. Also, until a decision is reached, both sides are matched as though they had won any appeal and face the tougher opposition this entails. It at least has the meritorious effect of not unfairly harming some other team in contention by giving an appeal-bound team a free ride in the matchups. -- Craig Senior DWS wrote: > When a TD gives a ruling outside the ACBL there is a presumption that >he has done his best, and unless the AC sees it differently, that his >result will be accepted. This leads to a faith in TDs, and in many >countries, TDs are well trained, make good decisions, and do not get >routinely appealed. > > In the ACBL, there is a presumption that the TD is a mindless puppet >who cannot make a decision, so it must be left to ACs who do not know >the Laws and are the only people capable of making a decision. And >where does this lack of faith come from? From the ACBL itself! Come now David, have you not ventured into the realm of hyperbole here...I thought that was My failing. :-) It really is not so bad as "mindless puppets"...how about "well-meaning but sometimes under-trained" > What does it mean when a player appeals in the ACBL? It means one of >the following: > >[1] He does not trust the TD >[2] He thinks the gamble worth it against losing his deposit, or these >days, acquiring an AWMP [Appeal Without Merit Point]. >[3] He thinks it is the way to win at Bridge >[4] He has got a good case > > Now, [1][2] and [3] describe what is wrong with the ACBL, and they >need to get things back on the rails. Appeals should not be automatic, >there needs to be faith in the TDs, and we need to stamp out BLs [bridge >lawyers]. > > So how does the ACBL go about it? They show that they have complete >and total faith in their TDs by having a regulation that if there is an >appeal in a Swiss match, the matching is done on the basis that the TD >has got it wrong. > > I cannot believe it. You evidently need to read more Dodgson until you are able to...and before breakfast at that. :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 03:49:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 03:49:01 +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 DAA10173 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 03:48:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt096n55.san.rr.com [24.94.9.85]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA24918 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <09a001bed2d7$51e33940$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <08c501bed164$8c3e9900$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <37998108.4905283@post12.tele.dk> Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:28:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >This was an auction that was never discussed, and to my memory had never > >occurred before with that partner. How could I disclose an agreement when > >there was none? I told the pro, "You know as much as I do," which was > >true, and she did not accept that answer, nor would the idiot TD. "You > >must disclose what 2NT means." No, I don't. All I knew about the bid came > >from my general knowledge and experience, not from any special partnership > >agreement. > > Fine. > > >Now, what if the same auction occurs again with the same partner? Has it > >become a *special* partnership agreement? Not to my mind. > > > >If people confuse a player's "general knowledge and experience" with > >"universal treatment," they are writing a new Law. > > When it happens again, you have specific knowledge of how a > specific partner uses that bid: that is not "general bridge > knowledge" - it is an implicit partnership agreement. I had the knowledge before he/she made the bid, it was not knowledge that I gained from partner's use of the bid. L75C does not use the unqualified phrase "general bridge knowledge," that comes from you. It refers to a *player's* general knowledge and experience, not to a knowledge that is universal. > > You _know_ what your partner's bid means, but you want your > opponents to guess. > > I will not try to convince you of any specific meaning of the > word "special", since I do not really understand why it is there, Then let me tell you. It means that if information about the meaning of a call (or play) is not conveyed to me through special partnership agreement or from partnership experience, but comes from my general knowledge and experience, then the source of the information *remains* general knowledge and experience even if partner repeats the bid (or play) 50 times. It is an agreement of sorts, but nothing "special." A call or play that constitutes a convention, however, is always "special," IMO, and L75 should say so. > but I will point out that if that word were to mean that you > could keep your opponents in the dark while knowing perfectly > well yourself what partner's bid means, then the Laws would IMO > be basically and intolerably unfair. Well, write a new L75C that accords with your opinion: L75C: Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements A player shall explain the significance of partner's call or play whenever asked to do so. Give it to Grattan and maybe he can slip it in. And while you're at it, get 20F1 revised accordingly. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Off to San Antonio NABC July 21, returning July 30 / From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 04:07:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 04:07:28 +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 EAA10244 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 04:07:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:06:23 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990720200629.007d31a0@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, 20 Jul 1999 20:06:29 +0200 To: bridge-laws From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: <008201bed2d6$6ad30080$45b420cc@host> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:36 20.07.99 -0400, Craig Senior wrote: >I think what is intended here is not to slight the TD but to provide an >orderly means to continue the event on a timely basis while providing no >incentive to the BLs. > > Both teams being matched as though they had won the appeal means that both >will have to face theoretically tougher opposition than had they lost the >appeal. This provides no incentive to appeal in the hope of getting a more >favourable pairing because that will not happen. It eliminates the customer >badwill of forcing everyone to wait while a determination...possibly rushed >because of the time pressure...is made. > In principle I like this. The only problem I can see is the fact that there are often more than 2 ways to decide. And you have to assume that the AC is thinking only of 2 different decisions. But that may be marginal. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 04:21:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:27:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA10025 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:27:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-111.uunet.be [194.7.145.111]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA19226 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:27:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37949F7D.B7178066@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:10:37 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Visual impairment and other disabilities References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Comments on the following set of recommended regulations are sought. > > 1. Bidding > > 1.1 Bidding boxes are to be used when this is possible. > > 1.2 If the use of bidding boxes by one or more players is not > possible, then all players should call their own bids (where this is > possible). > No, split this in : if one player cannot see, then all should call - if one player cannot handle, someone should handle for him. No need to call out if all 4 players can see. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 05:18:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 05:18:56 +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 FAA10579 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 05:18:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 4079 invoked from network); 20 Jul 1999 19:18:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO total.net) (216.210.52.39) by smtp.total.net with SMTP; 20 Jul 1999 19:18:41 -0000 Message-ID: <3794CAFA.E977F8E5@total.net> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:16:13 -0400 From: Andre Pion X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridgelist Subject: Re: Visual impairment and other disabilities References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Comments on the following set of recommended regulations are sought. ............. > 2.3 The opponents of a player unable to see cards played normally > have the option to require that all cards (but not the cards of one or > more players to the exclusion of the others) are called by dummy as > played. > > 2.4 Cards must be named in full and in a consistent manner. > I have a lady not legally blind but close coming to my club. I believe you should add to what is called or named out loud : vulnerability on the played board and who is the dealer when the dealer is the handicapped person. André Pion From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 05:21:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:27:29 +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 CAA10023 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:27:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-111.uunet.be [194.7.145.111]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA19222 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:27:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37949EBA.819E59C9@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:07:22 +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 (and very nasty question) References: <008001bed213$bff700c0$35b420cc@host> <3.0.1.32.19990720111908.0120bfdc@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > > >I feel that this is universal, and is within the spirit of > >Bridge and even the Laws of Bridge. > > > >I don't believe that regulations should be written to > >explicitely describe what level of agreement should exist > >for a particular tournament. I feel every AC can decide > >this after the facts and I don't believe any AC would put > >the bar higher than what players might expect. > >I even believe that the bar can be set higher for more > >experienced pairs and lower for pick-up partnerships, even > >within one tournament. > > IMO, you have confused the roles of the AC and SO. It is the legitimate > province of the SO to decide the conditions of contest, in which the > expectations about bidding systems and the means of disclosure can be > expressed. It is completely inappropriate for the AC to set or revise these > after the fact, which seems exactly like what you have described. To allow > this latitude for an AC means that players can never be confident about > what is expected of them. > In my opinion, this principle is already part of the Laws. It is then up to the AC to determine what is "sufficient". Even if it were not within the current laws, but some SO (say the EBL ?) decides to put it in the regulations, those regulations would still include some words like "sufficient". It is then up to the TD and AC to determine what is sufficient. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 06:02:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:27:24 +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 CAA10019 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:27:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-111.uunet.be [194.7.145.111]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA19208 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:27:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37949E21.7B81F41B@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:04:49 +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: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) References: <008001bed213$bff700c0$35b420cc@host> <379449CF.4CCDB0EE@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here we go again ! David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Now personally, I don't advocate any regulation that > >suggests that players should have agreements. That is > >against the Laws. > >OTOH I feel strongly that at some level of competition, for > >some sort of bidding, it is unacceptible that no agreements > >exist. > > This is illogical. If it is against the Laws then it cannot be > enforced. Either it is acceptable to enforce this provision, or it > isn't. > It is not illogical. I believe it is already within the spirit of the game. So I don't think regulations should be needed. That is why I feel that such regulation would go against the Law. But please, strike my argument that such a regulation would be against the Laws and move on. > >I feel that this is universal, and is within the spirit of > >Bridge and even the Laws of Bridge. > > No. Saying something is universal which is not accepted by everyone > is not correct. > I (stress I) believe the principle that some agreements must exist (at a different level for each tournament, applies universally, not just to EBL-top level championships. Of course the level of agreements that are required would be somewhat less (downto almost nonexistant) in club tournaments. But I don't believe you should sit down at a table and state that you have not agreed on the strength of the 1NT opening. It is not fair on opponents. > >I don't believe that regulations should be written to > >explicitely describe what level of agreement should exist > >for a particular tournament. I feel every AC can decide > >this after the facts and I don't believe any AC would put > >the bar higher than what players might expect. > >I even believe that the bar can be set higher for more > >experienced pairs and lower for pick-up partnerships, even > >within one tournament. > > This is worrying. You are now suggesting that ACs should work above > the Law. > No, since I am saying that this is within the Law, I am merely saying that one does not need well-defined regulations for an AC to apply this principle. It would be largely impossible to write such regulations! > If it is acceptable that players are required to conform to a certain > standard for a particular tournament then it should be a matter of a CoC > - and if a CoC is not legal, then an AC cannot enforce it. > > One of the complaints made about NAmerican ACs is that they make > decisions without regard for the Laws [please note: I am not saying they > do, I am saying people say they do]. Now you are suggesting that > European ACs *should* do so. > Well, doesn't every AC have decisions to make ? Is such a bid a logical alternative ? Does such an UI suggest a particular action ? Is this play normal ? and so on ... Since I am saying that this principle is within the Laws, I don't see what your argument is. You have stated once that you agree with the penalty. I am not holding you to that statement. > If you go to a tourney, you should know what to expect in the way of > Rules. To say that you will also be subject to the whims of an AC [who > you cannot ask in advance] who is making up its own rules is not > acceptable. > No indeed. But for the fourth time: since I think this is within the Laws, it is just of the same order as not knowing how strict the AC will be in its rulings on MI, UI and so forth. You are talking about "whims of the AC". Did you really find the application of the penalty "whimsical" in this case ? Let's just one moment take for granted that this is within the Laws. Did the AC in this particular case get it wrong at saying that this agreement should really have existed ? I am willing to continue to argue the legality of the principle of "low level agreements being obligatory", but I am not agreeing with you on any of the four paragraphs above. And none of those tackled the real question, only it's possible misapplication by the AC. Give the AC's some credit, will you ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 06:52:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 06:52:02 +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 GAA10759 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 06:51:53 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id 5RARa27989 (3944); Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:49:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:49:42 EDT Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/20/99 4:04:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > Give the AC's some credit, will you ? > Sorry, I can't keep quiet any longer. To me it seems that Herman has a much grander view of what an AC's job is than either DWS or I have (I don't mean to speak for DWS. He has demonstrated his ability to speak for himself beyond a doubt.) It reminds me of the old Kaplan days, when I first was DIC of a World Championship, and he and others in the Appeals Committee - TD meeting, tried to instruct me on how the TDs would rule. Sounded to me like the AC was somehow above and before the TD in a ruling. I posited TDs would rule UNDER THE LAWS AS WRITTEN and thanked them for their interest, but assured them I would not deviate from the Laws. (i.e. "always rule against the offenders, then we'll work it out later." were their words). If they found this was not acceptable, why heck, just say so and get another Chief TD! For some reason I'm still around 10 years later. The AC has an important job to do in review of TD Rulings. It may also have other assigned duties by Rules and Regulations and Conditions of Contest, but you are not talking about those. So, on the subject of a player(s) appeal of a ruling by a TD, there are clear constraints on the ACs powers. Seeing the Laws differently from the TD is possible - BUT in that case - the TD needs to be convinced to change his/her ruling. When the TD considers the AC wrong in the interpretation of the Laws it is the TDs judgement that rules. In the case where there is no dispute of TD facts and applicable Law, and bridge judgement is the deciding factor, the ACs ruling is final. If the AC and TD do not agree on the Laws then there is further appeal possible to the "national authority" according to Law 93C. For a tournament AC to sit as both the tournament AC and the National Authority at the same time defeats the intent of this Law for there to be a FURTHER review and decision. As far as the sequence provided for in Law it is 1. occurence. 2. TD ruling. 3. AC review of ruling on appeal. Of course, none of this is new to anyone, right? But it underlines what I have been trying to put across. The AC's need to have a Law Reference and consultable individual is very important. The Chief TD is that person, by Law in the structure of that tournament. To arrogate this to another individual is a dangerous undertaking...as is evident when the AC makes the "proper" ruling using the "improper" Law reference. Doesn't make them look very good, does it? Cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 08:22:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:22:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail110.worldonline.dk (mail110.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA11039 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:22:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 16757 invoked by uid 0); 20 Jul 1999 22:15:28 -0000 Received: from 50.ppp1-27.image.dk (212.54.68.242) by mail010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 20 Jul 1999 22:15:28 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Visual impairment and other disabilities Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:47:48 GMT Message-ID: <37ade067.2298780@mail.image.dk> References: <3794CAFA.E977F8E5@total.net> In-Reply-To: <3794CAFA.E977F8E5@total.net> 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, 20 Jul 1999 15:16:13 -0400 skrev Andre Pion: >I have a lady not legally blind but close coming to my club. I believe you >should add to what is called or named out loud : vulnerability on the played >board and who is the dealer when the dealer is the handicapped person. The dealer should be announced every time. She (and/or others) will want to know if somebody bids out of turn. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 08:36:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:36:18 +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 IAA11064 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:36:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg0a.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.10]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA27138 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:36:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990720183351.01215444@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:33:51 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> References: <3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:39 AM 7/20/99 -0400, Eric wrote: >So how do we draw a reasonable line between vague impressions and >agreements? One fear is that, in practice, the only possible test will >turn out to be whether or not you guess right. And I suppose that as a player, it is precisely this fear which inclines me toward erring on the side of conservatism in asserting agreements. When I say "no agreement", the only way I can be penalized is if there really is a fairly concrete agreement which partner (correctly) brings to the opponents' attention. Vague tendencies will not generally fall into that category. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 08:36:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:36:55 +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 IAA11078 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:36:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg0a.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.10]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA21336 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990720183429.012184f8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:34:29 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements In-Reply-To: <199907201617.RAA19504@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:17 PM 7/20/99 +0100, Robin wrote: > >> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:10:46 -0400 >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements >> >> My point is not that the YS' pass shouldn't be alerted in general, but >> rather that until they have either discussed the implications of the pass >> or attained sufficient experience with it to understand its nuances, they >> cannot be said to have an "agreement" of any kind. Even if after-the-fact >> analysis by stronger players reveals logical implications of the pass, >> these implications don't constitute an agreement per se. Players cannot be >> expected to alert "agreements" which they don't even know about themselves, >> and no law requires them to do so. >> >> > >The EBU requires a call to be alerted if >"it is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your >opponents are unlikely to expect." > And perhaps this is the nub of the issue. "Meaning" is not inherent in a particular call, but is given to that call by the players who use it. If they don't understand that a particular call carries implications that should be alerted, then it doesn't, for them, and even under the above EBU regulation you have cited, they cannot be faulted for failing to alert such a meaning. Are these players aware that this pass has the unusual meanings we have identified? Then they have a duty to alert such a meaning if this is required under their SO. If not, then it is silly to expect them to do so. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 12:01:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:01:32 +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 MAA11459 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:01:18 +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 116lgr-000IRX-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:01:02 +0000 Message-ID: <1W8JoxA25Rl3Ew69@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:12:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:49 PM 7/19/99 +0200, Jesper wrote: > >>Fine: if you haven't noticed your partner's actions, there is no >>agreement. > >The problem with this is that it adds a new dimension to the serious game. >On which auctions should you notice what partner holds? On an auction like >1NT-P-3NT, you will gain less in the long run from knowing something about >partner's likely holdings on those rare deals where you wind up defending >than you will lose by occasionally providing useful information to the >opponents defending 3NT. So you gain an advantage by being careful *not* >to notice what partner holds when he bids 3NT. That just doesn't seem >sensible. Oh great. Please explain to me how you can not notice what is in the dummy when you are declarer. Is this discussion in the real world? We have Marv trying to misinform people by hiding behind a technicality that we all know is nonsense, and you talking about not noticing dummy when you are declarer. It may be the way some people want to play the game, but I hope and trust that the majority do not, and that TDs and ACs will hit such people as hard and as often as they can. Whatever the niceties of the wording of the Laws, the intent is clear: if you know what partner has because of discussion and/or experience then your oppos have a right to know. Now, as always, I have sympathy for people who transgress these Laws accidentally. That is the way it is, and is the main reason for TDs and ACs. But people who are looking at the niceties of the wording to see if they can get round the basic principle of full disclosure are a liability to the game of bridge. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 12:01:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:01:32 +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 MAA11460 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:01:18 +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 116lgr-000BTu-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:01:03 +0000 Message-ID: <22HJQ3AY7Rl3Ew5q@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:14:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990720183351.01215444@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990720183351.01215444@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 08:39 AM 7/20/99 -0400, Eric wrote: >>So how do we draw a reasonable line between vague impressions and >>agreements? One fear is that, in practice, the only possible test will >>turn out to be whether or not you guess right. > >And I suppose that as a player, it is precisely this fear which inclines me >toward erring on the side of conservatism in asserting agreements. When I >say "no agreement", the only way I can be penalized is if there really is a >fairly concrete agreement which partner (correctly) brings to the >opponents' attention. Vague tendencies will not generally fall into that >category. Which is more important to you, a belief that you have been as helpful as possible to oppos who have a right to know your agreements, or avoiding an occasional ruling against you? I hope it is the former. -- 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 Jul 21 12:01:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:01:32 +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 MAA11461 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:01:18 +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 116lgq-000IRW-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:01:04 +0000 Message-ID: <5G0KsvAXyRl3Ewax@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:04:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) References: <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.1.32.19990719192915.0120878c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990719192915.0120878c@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 09:49 PM 7/19/99 +0200, Jesper wrote: >>Imagine that after such an auction you find yourself defending a >>contract, and that it soon turns out that one defensive plan is >>correct if partner has 4 hearts and another is correct if partner >>has less than 4 hearts. From the fall of the cards, disregarding >>the auction, it seems probable but far from certain that partner >>does have 4 hearts. >> >>Might not your flimsy recollection of whether or not your partner >>sometimes has 4 hearts in this kind of auction have some >>influence on your choice of action? >> >>If you can answer "no" to that, then I agree that you have no >>agreement and no obligation to disclose your "non-agreement". >> > >>Otherwise, you have an agreement, and your opponents have a right >>to know it. I would not find it a problem if you did not go out >>of your way to remember partner's habits just because you were >>asked about a bid, but if it seems probable that the opponent who >>asks if specifically interested in the lengths of the majors, >>then you must explain your partnership experience as well as you >>can. > >But it is not quite so simple as either/or: either I remember partner's >tendencies or I don't, and moreover the obligation for full disclosure has >various facets to it, as a function of Regional requirements for alerts, cc >notification, or responses to opponents' questions. In the context of our >two specific examples (partner's tendency to avoid opening 1nt with a >6-card minor and partner's tendency to skip Stayman on certain hands >containing 4-card majors), I hope we are in agreement that there is in >general no affirmative obligation to bring these types of issues to the >attention of the opponents, within any jurisdiction with which I am >familiar. So we are, presumably, concerned with a situation where the >opponents have sought out, via legal questions, information on these subjects. >1."Does your partner's 1nt opening deny a 6-card minor holding?" > or >2."Does the direct jump to 3nt deny a 4-card major?" > >1. I've played with partner dozens of times, and I don't recall him ever >opening 1nt with a 6-card minor. But we've never actually discussed it. >Certainly I would open 1nt with a suitable hand containing a 6-card minor, >and would assume that my partner (who's almost as strong as I am) would be >willing to do so. But in responding to this question, it seems that the >most honest and helpful answer I can give is "we have no agreement." You are required to tell your oppos the effects of your partnership experience. you say that you do not ever recall him opening 1NT with a six-card minor - so tell your oppos that. The fact that you have never discussed it is not relevant: implicit agreements are to be disclosed as well as explicit. >2. Any half-way decent player (and we've already stipulated that for this >partner) recognizes that some hands should not inquire about a 4-card major >suit-fit, especially at matchpoints, so I would never say that partner's >bid _denies_ a 4-card major. But I do seem to recall a couple of times in >the past year where I thought partner should not have inquired, when he >did. Is this a tendency? Again, the most truthful answer here is probably >"No, it doesn't" but that is neither particularly more forthcoming nor >helpful than the non-commital "No agreement" answer above. You have partnership experience that partner enquires more than might be considered the norm - why not tell your oppos so? It is part of your partnership experience. >It's not that I disagree that partnership experience can establish usages >which must be disclosed-- it can, and it doesn't necessarily require >explicit agreement. But the duty to inform the opponents is, IMO, less >pressing than the obligation not to mis-inform. Explanations based on >vague, half-remembered "tendencies" of partner's style carry a significant >risk of the latter, and do little to advance the former. When you have a lot of experience, as in common sequences, then you are required to tell the oppos about its effects - so do so. -- 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 Jul 21 12:01:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:01:32 +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 MAA11462 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:01:18 +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 116lgr-000MIG-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:01:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:32:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) References: <008001bed213$bff700c0$35b420cc@host> <379449CF.4CCDB0EE@village.uunet.be> <37949E21.7B81F41B@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37949E21.7B81F41B@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> Herman De Wael wrote: >But please, strike my argument that such a regulation would >be against the Laws and move on. OK. >> >I feel that this is universal, and is within the spirit of >> >Bridge and even the Laws of Bridge. >> >> No. Saying something is universal which is not accepted by everyone >> is not correct. >> > >I (stress I) believe the principle that some agreements must >exist (at a different level for each tournament, applies >universally, not just to EBL-top level championships. Of >course the level of agreements that are required would be >somewhat less (downto almost nonexistant) in club >tournaments. >But I don't believe you should sit down at a table and state >that you have not agreed on the strength of the 1NT opening. >It is not fair on opponents. Why not? I would find it much easier to play against opponents who have no agreements. In practice, it never happens: even if two Belgians who have never met sit down with no discussion, there will in effect be some agreements in place from their general knowledge of what is normal in Belgium. >> >I don't believe that regulations should be written to >> >explicitely describe what level of agreement should exist >> >for a particular tournament. I feel every AC can decide >> >this after the facts and I don't believe any AC would put >> >the bar higher than what players might expect. >> >I even believe that the bar can be set higher for more >> >experienced pairs and lower for pick-up partnerships, even >> >within one tournament. >> >> This is worrying. You are now suggesting that ACs should work above >> the Law. >No, since I am saying that this is within the Law, I am >merely saying that one does not need well-defined >regulations for an AC to apply this principle. It would be >largely impossible to write such regulations! I do not believe there is any Law that states you have to have an agreement. L74B1 won't do, I am sorry, because it refers to something different, and I think you will find nil support for you as far as that Law is concerned. >> If it is acceptable that players are required to conform to a certain >> standard for a particular tournament then it should be a matter of a CoC >> - and if a CoC is not legal, then an AC cannot enforce it. >> >> One of the complaints made about NAmerican ACs is that they make >> decisions without regard for the Laws [please note: I am not saying they >> do, I am saying people say they do]. Now you are suggesting that >> European ACs *should* do so. >Well, doesn't every AC have decisions to make ? >Is such a bid a logical alternative ? >Does such an UI suggest a particular action ? >Is this play normal ? >and so on ... They are within the Laws, and players know what to expect. You are suggesting something that the players will not expect, governed by the ACs. >Since I am saying that this principle is within the Laws, I >don't see what your argument is. You have given no justification for this. >You have stated once that you agree with the penalty. >I am not holding you to that statement. You may hold me to it: after I considered the matter, I assumed that it was a CoC. Remember, I was not at Malta, and did not have a copy of the CoC. You said it was an accepted principle for that level of tourney: good, that makes it a CoC. >> If you go to a tourney, you should know what to expect in the way of >> Rules. To say that you will also be subject to the whims of an AC [who >> you cannot ask in advance] who is making up its own rules is not >> acceptable. >> > >No indeed. >But for the fourth time: since I think this is within the >Laws, it is just of the same order as not knowing how strict >the AC will be in its rulings on MI, UI and so forth. > >You are talking about "whims of the AC". Did you really >find the application of the penalty "whimsical" in this case >? No, I thought they were following the CoC. >Let's just one moment take for granted that this is within >the Laws. >Did the AC in this particular case get it wrong at saying >that this agreement should really have existed ? Apparently so: apparently it is not within the CoC. It is not up to you to decide the policy of a tourney: it is up to the SO. You have decided to assume the burden of the SO. >I am willing to continue to argue the legality of the >principle of "low level agreements being obligatory", but I >am not agreeing with you on any of the four paragraphs >above. >And none of those tackled the real question, only it's >possible misapplication by the AC. >Give the AC's some credit, will you ? I consider the AC exceeded its authority in this appeal. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 13:22:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:31:21 +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 MAA11568 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:31:10 +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 116m9p-000DPY-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:30:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 03:30:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals 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 <2gzH+3AB5mk3EwBv@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson >> writes >>>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> >>>>DWS: >>>>> Excuse me? We are not to hold up the tournament, so to continue the >>>>>tournament we assume that the TD is going to be overruled? Why does >>>>>this make the tournament run faster, please? sigh. in the uk we make no such presumption. We sit around and wait. ... and wait ... and wait ... and wait ... and wait ... and wait spoiler follows ... and wait ... and wait ... and wait ... and wait ... and wait ... and wait ... and wait ... and wait ... and wait ... and wait ... but in the states they create some pseudo-scientific numbers and play bridge immediately snip >> >>To hold up 100 tables unnecessarily is *bad* Customer relations. > > Agreed, of course. What has this got to do with my posting? > We (the EBU) don't assume that the TD will be over-ruled. We wait for the AC to deliberate. David, it happened. I was there. It was appalling. The States don't. This makes the tournament go faster. Maybe we're having a Hermanesque disagreement we can drag out for 77 postings. -- 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 Jul 21 14:22:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA11878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:22:26 +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 OAA11872 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:22:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehor.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.27]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA14013 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990721001945.01219fe0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:19:45 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <5G0KsvAXyRl3Ewax@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990719192915.0120878c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.1.32.19990719192915.0120878c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:04 AM 7/21/99 +0100, David S wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>But it is not quite so simple as either/or: either I remember partner's >>tendencies or I don't, and moreover the obligation for full disclosure has >>various facets to it, as a function of Regional requirements for alerts, cc >>notification, or responses to opponents' questions. In the context of our >>two specific examples (partner's tendency to avoid opening 1nt with a >>6-card minor and partner's tendency to skip Stayman on certain hands >>containing 4-card majors), I hope we are in agreement that there is in >>general no affirmative obligation to bring these types of issues to the >>attention of the opponents, within any jurisdiction with which I am >>familiar. So we are, presumably, concerned with a situation where the >>opponents have sought out, via legal questions, information on these subjects. >>1."Does your partner's 1nt opening deny a 6-card minor holding?" >> or >>2."Does the direct jump to 3nt deny a 4-card major?" >> >>1. I've played with partner dozens of times, and I don't recall him ever >>opening 1nt with a 6-card minor. But we've never actually discussed it. >>Certainly I would open 1nt with a suitable hand containing a 6-card minor, >>and would assume that my partner (who's almost as strong as I am) would be >>willing to do so. But in responding to this question, it seems that the >>most honest and helpful answer I can give is "we have no agreement." > > You are required to tell your oppos the effects of your partnership >experience. you say that you do not ever recall him opening 1NT with a >six-card minor - so tell your oppos that. The fact that you have never >discussed it is not relevant: implicit agreements are to be disclosed as >well as explicit. > But it is not an agreement, implicit or otherwise. I don't recall that he has done so, but that does not mean that he either has not or would not do so. I have no basis for assuming that he would not, since I would do so, given the right hand, and would expect my partner to to bid similarly, absent any specific discussion to the contrary. To suggest to the opponents, by way of a half-baked impression, that partner would not bid this way does them no favors when it turns out that this time he does hold the 6-card minor. Moreover, it subjects me to the jeopardy of an MI penalty, when partner indignantly insists that we have no such agreement, and anyway he distinctly remembers opening just such a hand 1nt only last March. >>2. Any half-way decent player (and we've already stipulated that for this >>partner) recognizes that some hands should not inquire about a 4-card major >>suit-fit, especially at matchpoints, so I would never say that partner's >>bid _denies_ a 4-card major. But I do seem to recall a couple of times in >>the past year where I thought partner should not have inquired, when he >>did. Is this a tendency? Again, the most truthful answer here is probably >>"No, it doesn't" but that is neither particularly more forthcoming nor >>helpful than the non-commital "No agreement" answer above. > > You have partnership experience that partner enquires more than might >be considered the norm - why not tell your oppos so? It is part of your >partnership experience. > Who said "more than the norm"? I just happened to think on those two occasions that he should have bid differently. At least I think it was two...but it might've been with someone else.... Again, if I suggest by my comments that partner's bid denies a 4-card major, and he happens to have one then I have: 1. Made a fool of myself and partner. 2. Undermined partner's confidence in my understanding of our methods. 3. Misled the opponents, possibly causing them to misplay. 4. Subjected myself to a possible MI penalty. >>It's not that I disagree that partnership experience can establish usages >>which must be disclosed-- it can, and it doesn't necessarily require >>explicit agreement. But the duty to inform the opponents is, IMO, less >>pressing than the obligation not to mis-inform. Explanations based on >>vague, half-remembered "tendencies" of partner's style carry a significant >>risk of the latter, and do little to advance the former. > > When you have a lot of experience, as in common sequences, then you >are required to tell the oppos about its effects - so do so. > And a lot of experience means what, exactly? If I play with this partner once a week for a year and a half, that is surely a fairly regular partnership, and yet the expected frequency of potential 6-card minor 1nt openings over that period is probably not more than eight or ten instances. My inability to recall any particular instance of this action on partner's part is simply not dispositive of a pattern or tendency, and it would be MI to suggest otherwise. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 14:23:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:50:32 +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 MAA11607 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:50:21 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id MAA22073; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:49:44 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma021880; Wed, 21 Jul 99 12:49:19 +1000 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.40.224]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA29437 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:49:18 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA20234; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:53:05 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19990721123721.009dc5e0@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:46:51 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <1W8JoxA25Rl3Ew69@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:12 21-07-99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Whatever the niceties of the wording of the Laws, the intent is clear: >if you know what partner has because of discussion and/or experience >then your oppos have a right to know. > > Now, as always, I have sympathy for people who transgress these Laws >accidentally. That is the way it is, and is the main reason for TDs and >ACs. But people who are looking at the niceties of the wording to see >if they can get round the basic principle of full disclosure are a >liability to the game of bridge. Hear, hear. I have been reading with growing irritation this thread. It is so simple IMHO - tell the opponents as much as you can. In the 4D bid after 2NT opening (raised by John Probst) I would have no problem saying something like: "We have no specific agreement about this auction but we tend to cue bid at the 4 level rather than bid new suits". It feels so wrong to me to just say "No agreement" even though that is the literal truth. It reminds me of the fact that they had to change the law so you could ask about a bid that hadn't been made in an auction. It was ridiculous that such a change was necessary because there were some people who were unwilling to help their opponents. If there is UI/MI caused because of your explanation then you live with it. You don't win this game by obfuscating. Though I am not quite sure what can be done about the expert asking questions for the benefit of their sponsor - but it is a DIFFERENT problem and not to be resolved by not giving full disclosure. Cheers, Peter Webmaster NSWBA http://www.nswba.com.au -- Peter Newman Fujitsu Australia Limited +61-2-9452-9111 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 14:27:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA11908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:27:03 +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 OAA11903 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:26:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehor.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.27]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA15307 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:26:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990721002428.01215e84@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:24:28 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <22HJQ3AY7Rl3Ew5q@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990720183351.01215444@pop.mindspring.com> <3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990720183351.01215444@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:14 AM 7/21/99 +0100, David S wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>At 08:39 AM 7/20/99 -0400, Eric wrote: >>>So how do we draw a reasonable line between vague impressions and >>>agreements? One fear is that, in practice, the only possible test will >>>turn out to be whether or not you guess right. >> >>And I suppose that as a player, it is precisely this fear which inclines me >>toward erring on the side of conservatism in asserting agreements. When I >>say "no agreement", the only way I can be penalized is if there really is a >>fairly concrete agreement which partner (correctly) brings to the >>opponents' attention. Vague tendencies will not generally fall into that >>category. > > Which is more important to you, a belief that you have been as helpful >as possible to oppos who have a right to know your agreements, or >avoiding an occasional ruling against you? > > I hope it is the former. Of course. But advising the opponents about partner's "tendencies" based on imprecise recollection of a few limited data points is not particularly helpful, which is exactly why I would be subjecting myself to the adverse ruling: for giving MI. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 14:59:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA11992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:59:38 +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 OAA11987 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:59:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt096n55.san.rr.com [24.94.9.85]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA04261 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 21:59:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0ac501bed334$d952e080$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com><3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk><3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <1W8JoxA25Rl3Ew69@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 21:51:48 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Is this discussion in the real world? We have Marv trying to > misinform people by hiding behind a technicality that we all know is > nonsense, One man's law is another man's technicality. I won't comment on the rest of the sentence, except to say that Edgar Kaplan agreed with my position, in a postcard that I have saved. Yes, David, I did have the benefit of EK's knowledge, contrary to what you wrote elsewhere, through occasional correspondence and his writings on the Laws in *The Bridge World.* > > Whatever the niceties of the wording of the Laws, the intent is clear: So ignore the words, see what you want to see, as with 20F1 and other niceties. Clear vision is such a blessing. > if you know what partner has because of discussion and/or experience > then your oppos have a right to know. If you know what partner has *because of* discussion and/or *partnership* (you left out a word there) experience, that must be disclosed, agreed. And that is all that must be disclosed, after convention card regulations, Alert rules, and questions regarding style have been satisfied. That really doesn't leave much, after all. You are not required to teach bridge to those who have been too lazy to learn the game. It is understandable that most TDs and pros don't like the "niceties" of L75C and L20F1, since they make their jobs more difficult. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Gone to San Antonio NABC until 30 July From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 15:21:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:31:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11569 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:31:10 +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 116m9p-000HBg-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:30:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 03:26:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Visual impairment and other disabilities In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > Comments on the following set of recommended regulations are sought. > >1. Bidding > >1.1 Bidding boxes are to be used when this is possible. > >1.2 If the use of bidding boxes by one or more players is not >possible, then all players should call their own bids (where this is >possible). > >1.3 The opponents of any player unable to use a bidding box have the >option to require that bidding boxes are used in addition to spoken >bids, in which case the bidding box of the player unable to use it >should be operated by one of the opponents. > >2. Play > >2.1 When all players except dummy can see cards played normally, >play continues as normal. >2.2 When a player, other than dummy, is unable to see cards played >normally, then (subject to the option in 2.3) all players are to call >their own cards as played. I think I'd prefer to see separate regulations for declarer and defenders. I'm not sure they have to be different, but if declarer can't see the cards then I'd prefer dummy to call them (pretty well kills off UI from inflection), and if a defender can't see the cards then I'd prefer each to call his own (not a lot we can do here). In any event I'm not so sure that 2.2 and 2.3 need be separated the way you have done so but perhaps by seat instead, with a preference for method therein stated. > >2.3 The opponents of a player unable to see cards played normally >have the option to require that all cards (but not the cards of one or >more players to the exclusion of the others) are called by dummy as >played. > >2.4 Cards must be named in full and in a consistent manner. What do we do about players who habitually name only the value of a card when following "Spade Queen, four, spade three, ruff six". That is consistent. > >3. General > >3.1 If it is impracticable for these regulations to be followed in >whole or in part, the TD is authorised to specify the manner in which >the bidding and play shall proceed. > I think that the TD has the absolute right to establish special conditions and need not be bound by these regulations. Law 80E applies. perhaps No 3 should be No 1. Viz 1. General 1.1 In carrying out his duties under Law 80E the TD *may*, where in his opinion appropriate, specify that one or more of the following methods or any other method of calling or playing be adopted. 1.2 Dealer where appropriate, if possible and otherwise in rotation, shall before any call is made state the dealer and vulnerability (Courtesy Andre) 2. Calls 2.1 Bidding boxes *shall* be used where possible (I have a personal translator's dislike of the germanic 'mussen' translated as must, and far prefer 'shall' as being entirely unambiguous. It was severely beaten in) 2.2 Additionally when any player at a table cannot use a bidding box all players shall, if possible, speak their calls (calls not bids or I'll tell you I don't have to speak my passes) (there are several reasons why we cannot use a bidding box, starting with the fact we don't have any) etc It's an analogy to the first introduction of bid boxes when there were no rules governing their use. Regulations followed, and were refined. They are now sufficiently good that one would not want to override them, particularly as such regulations are often part of the CoC. Thus the regulations should accept that Law 80E is supreme, but establish good practice for those hard of hearing or sight impaired or suffering osteoarthritis There are minor things like [1.2] " ... shall, if possible, call ..." as being more cogent, or the slightly haphazard use of "are to be" "must" "should" but it's nit-picking as I'd prefer to see the major bits fixed first. They're an excellent start point David. Their intent is clear chs 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 Jul 21 19:56:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 19:56:38 +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 TAA12624 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 19:56:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id LAA21605; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:56:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JDTN10W8TS0000EZ@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:29:28 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GS5VHC>; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:17:31 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:17:29 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: CTD-AC authority To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1DD@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 Good morning, Why do we have subject titles for? As I told you before I have some other things to do, so there is some selection work done,for which I also would like to use the subject titles given. Which is impossible because most of you are too lazy to look at it. Yes, Kojak too. How can you use 'book on movements' for these considerations (and don't tell me you didn't start this abberation. Happily enough the subject is not the only criterium, so I found you, but don't count on it for ever. When the TD considers the AC wrong in the interpretation of the Laws it is the TDs judgement that rules. In the case where there is no dispute of TD facts and applicable Law, and bridge judgement is the deciding factor, the ACs ruling is final. If the AC and TD do not agree on the Laws then there is further appeal possible to the "national authority" according to Law 93C. Is that what law 93C says? No, it doesn't. There is no restriction given for further appeals to be brought to the Nath.Auth. Are you saying that either the TD or the AC can appeal the decision taken? I know that in the ACBL further appeal is only (?) possible on an interpretation of the laws, but this is not what the laws say. Please explain. Interesting to recall the discussion in the WBFLC about the authority of the body that should interpret the laws, take that into account too. Of course, none of this is new to anyone, right? It is not too old for me. But it underlines what I have been trying to put across. The AC's need to have a Law Reference and consultable individual is very important. The Chief TD is that person, by Law in the structure of that tournament. To arrogate this to another individual is a dangerous undertaking...as is evident when the AC makes the "proper" ruling using the "improper" Law reference. Here I do not agree with you. No doubt the CTD knows the laws, but since there is no unique interpretation I like an AC with good expertise about the laws. That makes it independent and a good sparring partner when the interpretation of the laws is necessary. What harm does it do to have an law-expert in the AC. Wasn't Edgar one of those? Yes it is not so easy to uphold your view when the AC has its own well-fundamented one. But both being wise you get the best out of it, and that still might be yours (the CTD's)but not automatically. Cheers, Kojak Cheers too, ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 22:26:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:26:25 +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 WAA13014 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:26:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-79-49.uunet.be [194.7.79.49]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA18388 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:25:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37959114.442B01E4@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:21:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) 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 7/20/99 4:04:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > Give the AC's some credit, will you ? > > > > Sorry, I can't keep quiet any longer. > I think you did an admirable job so far. I was wondering where you were. > To me it seems that Herman has a much grander view of what an AC's job is > than either DWS or I have I certainly don't, and I fully agree with everything that you state. [read with interest and snipped] > > The AC has an important job to do in review of TD Rulings. It may also have > other assigned duties by Rules and Regulations and Conditions of Contest, but > you are not talking about those. So, on the subject of a player(s) appeal of > a ruling by a TD, there are clear constraints on the ACs powers. Seeing the > Laws differently from the TD is possible - BUT in that case - the TD needs to > be convinced to change his/her ruling. When the TD considers the AC wrong in > the interpretation of the Laws it is the TDs judgement that rules. In the > case where there is no dispute of TD facts and applicable Law, and bridge > judgement is the deciding factor, the ACs ruling is final. If the AC and TD > do not agree on the Laws then there is further appeal possible to the > "national authority" according to Law 93C. agreed. > For a tournament AC to sit as > both the tournament AC and the National Authority at the same time defeats > the intent of this Law for there to be a FURTHER review and decision. Well, the CoC at Malta (and all EBL tournaments) clearly state that the AC is also the national authority referred in L93C. > As far as the sequence provided for in Law it is > 1. occurence. > 2. TD ruling. > 3. AC review of ruling on appeal. > > Of course, none of this is new to anyone, right? But it underlines what I > have been trying to put across. The AC's need to have a Law Reference and > consultable individual is very important. The Chief TD is that person, by > Law in the structure of that tournament. To arrogate this to another > individual is a dangerous undertaking...as is evident when the AC makes the > "proper" ruling using the "improper" Law reference. Doesn't make them look > very good, does it? > Well, none of that is new, as you said. There are really two issues here : - did the AC in Malta act outside of its powers ? - did the AC in Malta get it right ? I am not convinced of the second one (well, I am convinced, but I agree it is a worthy point of discussion). I am convinced on the first one : YES. The AC acted on the (silent) advice of its member trusted with the reading of the Laws, and acted according to what it thought the Laws said. The individual may have been wrong, in which case the decision was wrong, but the AC acted completely correctly. Most of the discussion in the last few posts have focused on the AC acting outside the Law. That is simply not the case. If this decision was wrong, I am solely to blame, not the AC for accaparating powers it did not have. I would like to stop this discussion. We may return to the discussion about whether or not this "obligation" can be put under L74B1, but I feel that is a losing battle. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 22:30:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:30:23 +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 WAA13031 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:30:15 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id 5IORa24012 (14452); Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:29:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:29:29 EDT Subject: Re: CTD-AC authority (was Book on Movements) To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, gester@globalnet.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/21/99 5:56:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl writes: > Good morning, > Why do we have subject titles for? As I told you before I have some other > things to do, so there is some selection work done,for which I also would > like to use the subject titles given. Which is impossible because most of > you are too lazy to look at it. Yes, Kojak too. How can you use 'book on > movements' for these considerations (and don't tell me you didn't start this > abberation. Happily enough the subject is not the only criterium, so I found > you, but don't count on it for ever. Your words. You should notice that the normal BLML practice is to indicate which are your words and which are the words being replied to. I find the practice of identifying the message being replied to with the >>>>>'s to be extremely helpful. For easy of the reader I have identified your words with ">" and mine with ">>>" Besides, it reduces the horrible chance that someone may be attributed to have said something they didn't! Wish you would do the same. Coupled with the subject line originally assigned by the first poster, I find it helps me maintain continuity. The time spent sorting out side issues does mean that I sometimes have to use the arrow keys to pass over the not relevant portions and snip my references in replies.. When you change the subject line, it would be appreciated if you would reference the original one, I think. >>> (ME) When the TD considers the AC wrong in >>> the interpretation of the Laws it is the TDs judgement that rules. In the >>> case where there is no dispute of TD facts and applicable Law, and bridge >>> judgement is the deciding factor, the ACs ruling is final. If the AC and TD >>> do not agree on the Laws then there is further appeal possible to the >>> "national authority" according to Law 93C. My words. > (YOU) Is that what law 93C says? No, it doesn't. There is no restriction given for > further appeals to be brought to the Nath.Auth. Are you saying that either > the TD or the AC can appeal the decision taken? I know that in the ACBL > further appeal is only (?) possible on an interpretation of the laws, but > this is not what the laws say. Please explain. Interesting to recall the > discussion in the WBFLC about the authority of the body that should > interpret the laws, take that into account too. I fell into the trap of my experience, and your reading of my words. Please tell me where in my words you find that I restricted the further appeal to Laws only? I was talking about Laws Appeals at the time, I didn't feel it necessary to include the (to me) obvious other appeals. Yes, the ACBL has a procedure wherein the National Authority reserves the right to not comment upon appeals based on bridge judgement. However in addition to the Laws Appeals they do in fact comment on appeals as to bias, competency, and membership of the AC in question. That does not negate the right to appeal, just tells you what the ACBL feels is the proper finality to put upon rulings, appeals, and the process. Sort of puts a different light on the ACBL's procedure, doesn't it? That was not meant to indicate that ALL of the previous paragraphs of Law 93 are not directly included in 93C. Sorry. >>> Of course, none of this is new to anyone, right? > It is not too old for me. I would hope not!!! >>> But it underlines what I >>> have been trying to put across. The AC's need to have a Law Reference and >>> consultable individual is very important. The Chief TD is that person, by >>> Law in the structure of that tournament. To arrogate this to another >>> individual is a dangerous undertaking...as is evident when the AC makes the >>> "proper" ruling using the "improper" Law reference. > Here I do not agree with you. No doubt the CTD knows the laws, but since > there is no unique interpretation I like an AC with good expertise about the > laws. That makes it independent and a good sparring partner when the > interpretation of the laws is necessary. What harm does it do to have an > law-expert in the AC. Wasn't Edgar one of those? Yes it is not so easy to > uphold your view when the AC has its own well-fundamented one. But both > being wise you get the best out of it, and that still might be yours (the > CTD's)but not automatically. I fail to see your disagreement, unless it is because I did not spell out that the TD and AC need to consult, discuss, explain, etc., while arriving at the "final" (at this time of the process) Laws decision by the CTD. Are you saying that after thorough discussion, arguments, and opinions, that the CTDs interpretation of the Law can be superceded by the AC when they cannot come to agreement? This is a process that I had assumed rational people would undertake, to do otherwise would be stupid. I may be as you put....... it lazy...... (you could probably get an argument on that from others)...but not stupid. However, even the Great Guru has been found to be wrong (on FURTHER APPEAL to the Tournament Committee sitting jointly with the Rules and Regulations Committee as the "National Authority) as you should remember from Geneva, and the CTDs ruling was affirmed in face of Edgar's arguments as the appellant. I don't see the entire process as a place to look for sparring partners - that makes it an adversarial arrangement - there we do disagree. We do have the right to opinions, founded on our experience and expertise, but the Laws pretty clearly indicate where "The buck stops" to partially quote President Truman. Cheers, off to the Keys and fishing, be back in three days.. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 21 23:06:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:06:21 +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 XAA13125 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:06:13 +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 JAA22839 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:18:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990721090523.006eae90@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:05:23 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <1W8JoxA25Rl3Ew69@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:12 AM 7/21/99 +0100, David wrote: > Oh great. Please explain to me how you can not notice what is in the >dummy when you are declarer. I'll try, although I admit that "notice" may not have been the best-chosen word. When I first started playing seriously (longer ago than I care to admit) I had, as so many young players do, a case of "postmortemitis" -- a dreaded disease which causes players to make mistakes because they're worrying about what happened on the last hand rather than paying attention to the one in front of them. So I trained myself quite deliberately to "blank out" hands as soon as they were done, clear my mind, and start fresh on the next hand. This habit has stayed with me all my life, and I believe it has made me a much better player, although it is a weakness in my game that I cannot adjust my bidding and play according to how well I'm doing in an event, because I never know. My partners have learned the futility of asking me questions like "Why did you bid 2H on the second board of the last round?"; they have learned to ask "Why did you bid 2H when you held... and the auction went...?, which is a question I can answer. Do I know what's in dummy when I'm playing the hand? Of course. Could I tell you what was in dummy after the round is over? Only if the auction had taken a course in which it would be useful to make to a special effort to notice and remember because it might affect my bidding in the future -- something which I wouldn't bother to do after 1NT-P-3NT. If an AC asked me how many times out of the last 10 auctions in which it went 1NT by me -P-3NT partner held a four-card major, I would be clueless. Now I consider myself rather hard-core when it comes to full disclosure. Unlike Marv, I *do* believe that the laws require me to give my opponents lessons in (what I consider to be) basic bridge in response to an inquiry, and would consider it ethically inappropriate to let the words "it's just bridge" pass my lips, even if that's what I'm thinking. But I don't believe that the laws do, or should, require me to take note of and remember information that I do not consider useful and would not otherwise bother to just so I can meet some imputed obligation to disclose it. (I admit that this view is self-serving, inasmuch as I believe that such a requirement would adversely affect the quality of my game.) 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 Jul 21 23:22:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:22:23 +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 XAA13157 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:22:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA24090; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:21:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JDTX9HRG400002NJ@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:21:09 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GS5826>; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:21:09 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:21:08 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: CTD-AC authority (was Book on Movements) To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, gester@globalnet.co.uk Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1DF@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am procedurally lost. Always thought that some clever software during the sending process did the >> work, adding one each time. Am I wrong? Then at last I found out why nobody seems to understand my messages. Dear Kojak, you are not lazy, I am quite sure about that (going out fishing again). Please allow me my sick jokes, that is my way to survive these battlefields. Yes I remember well the Geneva case. I didn't want to say that the AC should become the authority to decide the meaning of the laws. The only thing I am still convinced of is that an appeal committee with expert knowledge about the laws is a better one than a committee without. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Schoderb@aol.com [mailto:Schoderb@aol.com] Verzonden: woensdag 21 juli 1999 14:29 Aan: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; gester@globalnet.co.uk Onderwerp: Re: CTD-AC authority (was Book on Movements) In a message dated 7/21/99 5:56:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl writes: > Good morning, > Why do we have subject titles for? As I told you before I have some other > things to do, so there is some selection work done,for which I also would > like to use the subject titles given. Which is impossible because most of > you are too lazy to look at it. Yes, Kojak too. How can you use 'book on > movements' for these considerations (and don't tell me you didn't start this > abberation. Happily enough the subject is not the only criterium, so I found > you, but don't count on it for ever. Your words. You should notice that the normal BLML practice is to indicate which are your words and which are the words being replied to. I find the practice of identifying the message being replied to with the >>>>>'s to be extremely helpful. For easy of the reader I have identified your words with ">" and mine with ">>>" Besides, it reduces the horrible chance that someone may be attributed to have said something they didn't! Wish you would do the same. Coupled with the subject line originally assigned by the first poster, I find it helps me maintain continuity. The time spent sorting out side issues does mean that I sometimes have to use the arrow keys to pass over the not relevant portions and snip my references in replies.. When you change the subject line, it would be appreciated if you would reference the original one, I think. >>> (ME) When the TD considers the AC wrong in >>> the interpretation of the Laws it is the TDs judgement that rules. In the >>> case where there is no dispute of TD facts and applicable Law, and bridge >>> judgement is the deciding factor, the ACs ruling is final. If the AC and TD >>> do not agree on the Laws then there is further appeal possible to the >>> "national authority" according to Law 93C. My words. > (YOU) Is that what law 93C says? No, it doesn't. There is no restriction given for > further appeals to be brought to the Nath.Auth. Are you saying that either > the TD or the AC can appeal the decision taken? I know that in the ACBL > further appeal is only (?) possible on an interpretation of the laws, but > this is not what the laws say. Please explain. Interesting to recall the > discussion in the WBFLC about the authority of the body that should > interpret the laws, take that into account too. I fell into the trap of my experience, and your reading of my words. Please tell me where in my words you find that I restricted the further appeal to Laws only? I was talking about Laws Appeals at the time, I didn't feel it necessary to include the (to me) obvious other appeals. Yes, the ACBL has a procedure wherein the National Authority reserves the right to not comment upon appeals based on bridge judgement. However in addition to the Laws Appeals they do in fact comment on appeals as to bias, competency, and membership of the AC in question. That does not negate the right to appeal, just tells you what the ACBL feels is the proper finality to put upon rulings, appeals, and the process. Sort of puts a different light on the ACBL's procedure, doesn't it? That was not meant to indicate that ALL of the previous paragraphs of Law 93 are not directly included in 93C. Sorry. >>> Of course, none of this is new to anyone, right? > It is not too old for me. I would hope not!!! >>> But it underlines what I >>> have been trying to put across. The AC's need to have a Law Reference and >>> consultable individual is very important. The Chief TD is that person, by >>> Law in the structure of that tournament. To arrogate this to another >>> individual is a dangerous undertaking...as is evident when the AC makes the >>> "proper" ruling using the "improper" Law reference. > Here I do not agree with you. No doubt the CTD knows the laws, but since > there is no unique interpretation I like an AC with good expertise about the > laws. That makes it independent and a good sparring partner when the > interpretation of the laws is necessary. What harm does it do to have an > law-expert in the AC. Wasn't Edgar one of those? Yes it is not so easy to > uphold your view when the AC has its own well-fundamented one. But both > being wise you get the best out of it, and that still might be yours (the > CTD's)but not automatically. I fail to see your disagreement, unless it is because I did not spell out that the TD and AC need to consult, discuss, explain, etc., while arriving at the "final" (at this time of the process) Laws decision by the CTD. Are you saying that after thorough discussion, arguments, and opinions, that the CTDs interpretation of the Law can be superceded by the AC when they cannot come to agreement? This is a process that I had assumed rational people would undertake, to do otherwise would be stupid. I may be as you put....... it lazy...... (you could probably get an argument on that from others)...but not stupid. However, even the Great Guru has been found to be wrong (on FURTHER APPEAL to the Tournament Committee sitting jointly with the Rules and Regulations Committee as the "National Authority) as you should remember from Geneva, and the CTDs ruling was affirmed in face of Edgar's arguments as the appellant. I don't see the entire process as a place to look for sparring partners - that makes it an adversarial arrangement - there we do disagree. We do have the right to opinions, founded on our experience and expertise, but the Laws pretty clearly indicate where "The buck stops" to partially quote President Truman. Cheers, off to the Keys and fishing, be back in three days.. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 01:24:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 01:24:18 +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 BAA13363 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 01:24:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:24:28 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <37959114.442B01E4@village.uunet.be> References: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:21:21 -0400 To: Herman De Wael From: Ed Reppert Subject: Can CoC Contravene the Laws? [was: Book on Movements, etc.] Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:21 AM -0400 7/21/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >> For a tournament AC to sit as >> both the tournament AC and the National Authority at the same time defeats >> the intent of this Law for there to be a FURTHER review and decision. > >Well, the CoC at Malta (and all EBL tournaments) clearly >state that the AC is also the national authority referred in >L93C. I don't see how CoC can contravene the Laws. And it seems non-sensical to me to set things up so that either (1) the NA should be considered to have reviewed _all_ appeals or (2) the AC must revisit, as NA, any decision which is further appealed (not sure which the CoC at Malta intended). I think this particular CoC is illegal. 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/AwUBN5XmAr2UW3au93vOEQIT1QCgg37XsIlh/kSWptKPf0lWLHWIkKQAn3xk t1aJ7btjGyncfGVrXiBhVfLg =1LCN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 01:58:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 01:58:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk ([195.147.248.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA13436 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 01:58:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc4s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.197] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 116ykF-0002wU-00; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:57:24 +0100 Message-ID: <015e01bed391$2900f5c0$c58493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Any title you like or Book on Movements (and very nasty question) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:36:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 21 July 1999 07:29 Subject: Re: Book on Movements (and very nasty question) ------------------------- \x/ ------------------ >>I am willing to continue to argue the legality of the >>principle of "low level agreements being obligatory", but I >>am not agreeing with you on any of the four paragraphs >>above. >>And none of those tackled the real question, only it's >>possible misapplication by the AC. >>Give the AC's some credit, will you ? > > I consider the AC exceeded its authority in this appeal. > +++ This discussion is now at the level of fantasy. There is no point arguing with H any longer. I agree with David that, if the 'reason' for the penalty has been accurately recorded by Herman there is no basis for it in law. But I suspect Herman has not understood what the committee was actually saying - Herman is not the safest interpreter of the English language. If the AC believed that in truth the pair did have an understanding, as a regular partnership would have for almost any common sequence by way of its partnership experience, and the AC believed they had failed to recognize an implicit agreement, then the PP would be lawful. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 02:22:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 02:22:28 +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 CAA13679 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 02:22:10 +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 MAA02349 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA02932 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:22:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907211622.MAA02932@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Malta Appeals X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I sweated blood to rule *right* and that is the way it should be. Perhaps the absence of appeals had something to do with the above? Furthermore, I'd be willing to wager that David _explained_, not just _delivered_, his rulings to the players concerned. Perhaps he thinks that's too obvious to be worth mentioning, but I regret to report that there are some TD's who do not find it obvious that rulings should be explained. While no doubt some appeals are instigated by BL's hoping to win something in committee, I believe that almost all are by players who genuinely, if mistakenly, believe that the TD ruled wrong. If we wish to decrease the numbers of appeals, it is the _perceived_ quality of TD rulings that will have to improve. Improving the _actual_ quality of rulings is IMHO a necessary but not sufficient condition. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 04:01:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:01:57 +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 EAA15453 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:01:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-1-11.ac.net [205.138.47.40]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id OAA11553 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:01:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:51:50 -0700 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990718172702.00731fe4@pop.cais.com> References: <077201becff5$cd6d92c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <008301becee6$58a104a0$7084d9ce@host> <069901becf15$caef5d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >But... but... bububuh... if the scale is 1.0 to 3.0, that wouldn't yield >percentages 0-100; it would yield percentages 33.3-100. Have they really >rigged the formula so that the minimum possible score is 33.3% (hmm... >perhaps there's a future for that in the matchpoint formula)? Yes... we have.... INTENTIONALLY!!! .... do we really need to embarass anyone by giving out zeros? That is not the purpose. The only purpose of the ratings is to give the reader a "flavor" of what is coming. Don't forget, there are people who are really bad at laws applications that read these things and without the ratings, they would have no clue of the flavor of the panelists positions.... that is all the ratings are for... folks that read this mail list can figure out for themselves what is going on... >The one meaningless decimal place is a separate issue. For doing that, >they should be sentenced to sit through my five-minute lecture on the >difference between "accuracy" and "precision". > >>Maybe the math types can help out here? I think a whole number scale of 0 >>to 10 would be sufficient, and more easily converted to percentage scores. > We have tried that and find the answers we get are more skewed than using our 3 point scale. The instructions are basically 1 is bad, 2 is okay, 3 is perfect. We already ask enough of these folks - they often give 1.2, 2,7, etc type ratings where they think appropriate, and if anyone goes out of there way to put "0" we count that, too. >If they want a scale with 21 possible scores, I'd tell 'em to try 0-20. >But my brain has been tampered with by those Europeans, who don't do 10 >tops with halves. > > >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 Jul 22 04:02:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:02:53 +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 EAA15469 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:02:44 +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 1170hN-0008sc-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 18:02:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:57:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: CTD-AC authority (was Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1DF@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1DF@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> , "Kooijman, A." writes >I am procedurally lost. Always thought that some clever software during the >sending process did the >> work, adding one each time. >Am I wrong? Then at last I found out why nobody seems to understand my >messages. > >Dear Kojak, you are not lazy, I am quite sure about that (going out fishing >again). Please allow me my sick jokes, that is my way to survive these >battlefields. > >Yes I remember well the Geneva case. I didn't want to say that the AC should >become the authority to decide the meaning of the laws. The only thing I am >still convinced of is that an appeal committee with expert knowledge about >the laws is a better one than a committee without. > It has been my experience that an AC constituted of good players with poor knowledge of the Laws can produce aberrant rulings. In a sense I am very lucky that the clubs where I direct have several members of County or National L&E Cttees and so my objective in forming an AC is to find a Chairman with good knowledge of the Law (so that as TD I can explain my ruling to him, and he will understand it) together with an "expert" player and a player with good common sense of about similar standard to the offenders. This combination allows for all the issues to be explored. Sensible player "But we all bid that way". Expert player "I don't but there are plenty who do" Chairman "In this field, given the quality of the player concerned, is 'X' an LA?". Such ACs hand down sound judgements a lot of the time. ACs consisting entirely of BLs seem to me to be inhabiting another planet. Those consisting of good players will frequently find an equitable ruling at variance with the Laws, and those consisting of players of similar standing to the offenders fail completely both to understand the laws, or to produce an adequate ruling. I'll stick with Ton. Have one member (I like it to be the Chairman) who is a BL, but don't let him bully the others. chs 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 Jul 22 04:21:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:06:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA14474 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:05:50 +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 116zo7-0003ZU-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:05:29 +0000 Message-ID: <58VlzWAypel3EwIW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:42:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: National authority in EBL tournaments MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Well, the CoC at Malta (and all EBL tournaments) clearly >state that the AC is also the national authority referred in >L93C. I would like to probe this a little further. I expect European organisations to follow the Laws of bridge, and am worried by this statement. Now, before I make my pitch in this matter, would someone who has a copy of the CoC please post the actual wording of the authority of the Appeals Committee in Malta. -- 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 Jul 22 04:33:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:33:27 +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 EAA15585 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:33:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.84]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990721183355.DALO10427.fep2@jd-private.internal> for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:33:55 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:32:57 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <379f1087.3389213@post12.tele.dk> References: <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com><199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <08c501bed164$8c3e9900$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <37998108.4905283@post12.tele.dk> <09a001bed2d7$51e33940$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <09a001bed2d7$51e33940$f5075e18@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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id EAA15592 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:28:12 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >> When it happens again, you have specific knowledge of how a >> specific partner uses that bid: that is not "general bridge >> knowledge" - it is an implicit partnership agreement. > >I had the knowledge before he/she made the bid, it was not knowledge that >I gained from partner's use of the bid. L75C does not use the unqualified >phrase "general bridge knowledge," that comes from you. It refers to a >*player's* general knowledge and experience, not to a knowledge that is >universal. There is a difference between the first and the second time: the first time you can only guess (though possibly with a high probability), the second time you know for certain. And the reason that you know it for certain is partnership experience, not general bridge knowledge. >Well, write a new L75C that accords with your opinion: > >L75C: Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements > > A player shall explain the significance of partner's call or play >whenever asked to do so. That is going to far. I do not want you to explain your guesses based on general bridge knowledge, but I do want you to explain anything that you know or have had confirmed through partnership discussion or experience. The opponents should preferably be in a position as if they had been present every time you and partner played or discussed the system. So my version would be the existing text without the word "special". -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 04:33:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:33:25 +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 EAA15587 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:33:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.84]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990721183402.DALX10427.fep2@jd-private.internal> for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:34:02 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:33:03 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37a210d9.3472122@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990719192915.0120878c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990719192915.0120878c@pop.mindspring.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 EAA15588 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:29:15 -0400, "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: >But it is not quite so simple as either/or: either I remember partner's >tendencies or I don't, and moreover the obligation for full disclosure has >various facets to it, as a function of Regional requirements for alerts, cc >notification, or responses to opponents' questions. In the context of our >two specific examples (partner's tendency to avoid opening 1nt with a >6-card minor and partner's tendency to skip Stayman on certain hands >containing 4-card majors), I hope we are in agreement that there is in >general no affirmative obligation to bring these types of issues to the >attention of the opponents, within any jurisdiction with which I am >familiar. So we are, presumably, concerned with a situation where the >opponents have sought out, via legal questions, information on these subjects. >1."Does your partner's 1nt opening deny a 6-card minor holding?" > or >2."Does the direct jump to 3nt deny a 4-card major?" > >1. I've played with partner dozens of times, and I don't recall him ever >opening 1nt with a 6-card minor. But we've never actually discussed it. >Certainly I would open 1nt with a suitable hand containing a 6-card minor, >and would assume that my partner (who's almost as strong as I am) would be >willing to do so. But in responding to this question, it seems that the >most honest and helpful answer I can give is "we have no agreement." You can give a much more honest and helpful answer by saying "I've played with partner dozens of times, and I don't recall him ever opening 1nt with a 6-card minor. But we've never actually discussed it." Or start by saying that you have no (explicit) agreement and then add that you don't recall him ever opening 1nt with a 6-card minor. >2. Any half-way decent player (and we've already stipulated that for this >partner) recognizes that some hands should not inquire about a 4-card major >suit-fit, especially at matchpoints, so I would never say that partner's >bid _denies_ a 4-card major. But I do seem to recall a couple of times in >the past year where I thought partner should not have inquired, when he >did. Is this a tendency? Again, the most truthful answer here is probably >"No, it doesn't" but that is neither particularly more forthcoming nor >helpful than the non-commital "No agreement" answer above. > >It's not that I disagree that partnership experience can establish usages >which must be disclosed-- it can, and it doesn't necessarily require >explicit agreement. But the duty to inform the opponents is, IMO, less >pressing than the obligation not to mis-inform. Explanations based on >vague, half-remembered "tendencies" of partner's style carry a significant >risk of the latter, and do little to advance the former. If you honestly disclose what you believe you know about partner's style in these situations, then you will only be giving MI if partner disagrees strongly (e.g., "Wrong, partner, I often open 1nt with a 6-card minor"). If what he said afterwards was instead "Well, I did it once before", then I would definitely not rule that you had given MI by saying that you did not recall any such occasion. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 05:19:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:06:02 +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 DAA14472 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:05:50 +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 116zo7-0003ZV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:05:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:55:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Malta Appeals References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a private fight [feel free to join in] John and David said: >>>>>> Excuse me? We are not to hold up the tournament, so to continue the >>>>>>tournament we assume that the TD is going to be overruled? Why does >>>>>>this make the tournament run faster, please? > sigh. in the uk we make no such presumption. We sit around and wait. I don't. I start the next round. > ... but in the states they create some pseudo-scientific numbers > and play bridge immediately ... which is no quicker than in England where we proceed with the Director's ruling in place. >We (the EBU) don't assume that the TD will be over-ruled. We wait for >the AC to deliberate. David, it happened. I was there. It was appalling. So, it happened once. Who cares? It is not our normal approach. How many Swiss Teams have you been at in England? How many have been stopped for an appeal? >The States don't. This makes the tournament go faster. Maybe we're >having a Hermanesque disagreement we can drag out for 77 postings. No, when I disagree with Herman, I say one thing, and he disagrees. in this case, I have made no such statement. In the EBU we do not hold up the next round for ACs: more importantly, I certainly did not say so, so why are you picking on me? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 05:21:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:34:07 +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 EAA15630 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:33:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.84]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990721183418.DAMX10427.fep2@jd-private.internal> for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:34:18 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:33:20 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37a511af.3685549@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990721090523.006eae90@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990721090523.006eae90@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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id EAA15631 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:05:23 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >But I don't >believe that the laws do, or should, require me to take note of and >remember information that I do not consider useful and would not otherwise >bother to just so I can meet some imputed obligation to disclose it. They don't. If you haven't noticed your partner's style, then your non-knowledge can hardly be called an agreement. But if you do happen to have noticed, then you have an obligation to disclose your knowledge. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 05:29:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 05:29:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA15764 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 05:29:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([195.89.178.71]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 9485900 ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 19:28:11 -0000 Message-ID: <010e01bed3af$4928c9e0$47b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: Statistics Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:28:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No, please. But try to agree with Mr de Wael all the time so that he cuts his down. mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 18 July 1999 05:15 Subject: Re: Statistics >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >600 David Stevenson >> >> Perhaps I should cut down! >> From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 06:21:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:33:48 +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 EAA15606 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:33:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.84]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990721183413.DAMJ10427.fep2@jd-private.internal> for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:34:13 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:33:15 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37a4114b.3585245@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990720183351.01215444@pop.mindspring.com> <3798809d.4798059@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990720183351.01215444@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990721002428.01215e84@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990721002428.01215e84@pop.mindspring.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 EAA15607 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:24:28 -0400, "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: >But advising the opponents about partner's "tendencies" based on >imprecise recollection of a few limited data points is not particularly >helpful, which is exactly why I would be subjecting myself to the adverse >ruling: for giving MI. Your partnership experience should make your advice advantageous more often than it is disadvantageous. So by not giving the advice, you are giving "more" MI than by giving the advice. (It is of course true that when you give advice it may be easier for the TD to determine whether you have given MI, but I am confident that we are discussing how best to follow the laws rather than how best to avoid being caught.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 06:33:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:05:58 +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 DAA14470 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:05:47 +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 116zo7-0002tT-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:05:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:49:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Visual impairment and other disabilities References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> >> Comments on the following set of recommended regulations are sought. >> >>1. Bidding >> >>1.1 Bidding boxes are to be used when this is possible. >> >>1.2 If the use of bidding boxes by one or more players is not >>possible, then all players should call their own bids (where this is >>possible). >> >>1.3 The opponents of any player unable to use a bidding box have the >>option to require that bidding boxes are used in addition to spoken >>bids, in which case the bidding box of the player unable to use it >>should be operated by one of the opponents. >> >>2. Play >> >>2.1 When all players except dummy can see cards played normally, >>play continues as normal. > >>2.2 When a player, other than dummy, is unable to see cards played >>normally, then (subject to the option in 2.3) all players are to call >>their own cards as played. >I think I'd prefer to see separate regulations for declarer and >defenders. I'm not sure they have to be different, but if declarer >can't see the cards then I'd prefer dummy to call them (pretty well >kills off UI from inflection), and if a defender can't see the cards >then I'd prefer each to call his own (not a lot we can do here). > >In any event I'm not so sure that 2.2 and 2.3 need be separated the way >you have done so but perhaps by seat instead, with a preference for >method therein stated. I do not understand this paragraph at all. Please elucidate. >>2.3 The opponents of a player unable to see cards played normally >>have the option to require that all cards (but not the cards of one or >>more players to the exclusion of the others) are called by dummy as >>played. >> >>2.4 Cards must be named in full and in a consistent manner. > >What do we do about players who habitually name only the value of a card >when following "Spade Queen, four, spade three, ruff six". That is >consistent. Act as a TD in the normal way, I should imagine. Not take much trouble with enforcement in the absence of a problem, with the comfort of a regulation to fall back on when a problem occurs. >>3. General >> >>3.1 If it is impracticable for these regulations to be followed in >>whole or in part, the TD is authorised to specify the manner in which >>the bidding and play shall proceed. >> >I think that the TD has the absolute right to establish special >conditions and need not be bound by these regulations. Law 80E applies. My goodness! First the AC wants to run the European Bridge League, then the Directors want to run the English Bridge Union! Of all the suggestions made so far, this is the only one that looks completely wrong to me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 06:38:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:33:31 +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 EAA15596 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:33:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.84]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990721183408.DAMG10427.fep2@jd-private.internal> for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:34:08 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:33:10 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37a3110f.3526130@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990720083937.006e8008@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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id EAA15598 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:39:37 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >So how do we draw a reasonable line between vague impressions and >agreements? Whenever your knowledge of partner's habits is of a kind that might in some situations give you an advantage, then the opponents have a right to the same knowledge. Whenever I say "We have no explicit agreement" I try to add whatever possibly useful knowledge of past equivalent situations I have. That provides the opponent with the same basis for guessing as I have, and that basis will typically be better than no basis at all. >One fear is that, in practice, the only possible test will >turn out to be whether or not you guess right. I would hope not. I have never encountered an opponent who was in any way negative towards my attempts to explain partnership experience, even when it turned out that the actual hand was different from the experience I remembered. >Another is that, over time, >this will grow into some presumed ethical obligation to notice what partner >has when he bids 3NT, so that the opponents can be "properly" informed (and >thereby create a new infraction, which we could call "implicit agreement >disruption"). You have an obligation to disclose whatever knowledge and experience you have, but your obligation to _have_ knowledge and experience is limited to whatever explicit agreements you have. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 07:13:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:13:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (IDENT:exim@sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15944 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:13:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from p06s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.7] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 1173cj-0007du-00; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:09:57 +0100 Message-ID: <000501bed3bc$d2004ce0$078193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "David W Stevenson" , "Kooijman, A." , "paul endicott" , "Valerie Rippon" , "Lynn & Dan Hunt" , "Patricia Davidson" Subject: general grief Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:04:45 +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; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:28:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from pdas04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.219] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 1173uP-0008Ks-00; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:28:13 +0100 Message-ID: <000201bed3bf$5f64ac00$db8493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , Cc: Subject: Re: CTD-AC authority (was Book on Movements) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:20:48 +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: 'Schoderb@aol.com' ; Kooijman, A. Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; gester@globalnet.co.uk Date: 21 July 1999 15:35 Subject: RE: CTD-AC authority (was Book on Movements) >APPEAL to the Tournament Committee sitting jointly with the Rules and >Regulations Committee as the "National Authority) as you should remember >from >Geneva, and the CTDs ruling was affirmed in face of Edgar's arguments as the +++ By my recollection it was the *WBF Executive* sitting jointly with the Rules and Regulations Committee to hear an appeal in respect of regulations. An appeal concerning a matter of law would have been handled by the Laws Committee. The arrangements were defined in the regulations and I do not think the term 'national authority' was present in them. ~Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 08:27:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:14:22 +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 IAA16168 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:14:09 +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 1174cb-000E1O-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:13:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:18:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Statistics References: <010e01bed3af$4928c9e0$47b259c3@default> In-Reply-To: <010e01bed3af$4928c9e0$47b259c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda.thain wrote: >No, please. But try to agree with Mr de Wael all the time so that he cuts his >down. Now that's an idea! -- 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 Jul 22 09:24:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:14:22 +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 IAA16169 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:14:09 +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 1174cb-000E1N-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:13:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:16:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: CTD-AC authority (was Book on Movements) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1DF@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >ACs consisting entirely of BLs seem to me to be inhabiting another >planet. Those consisting of good players will frequently find an >equitable ruling at variance with the Laws, and those consisting of >players of similar standing to the offenders fail completely both to >understand the laws, or to produce an adequate ruling. > >I'll stick with Ton. Have one member (I like it to be the Chairman) who >is a BL, but don't let him bully the others. I take it that you are not using BL in its normal application of a player who wishes to make three attempts at a good score, at the table, in front of the TD and in front of the 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 Thu Jul 22 09:37:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:14:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16167 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:14:08 +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 1174cb-000A9S-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:13:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:14:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News References: <077201becff5$cd6d92c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <008301becee6$58a104a0$7084d9ce@host> <069901becf15$caef5d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718172702.00731fe4@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: >> >>But... but... bububuh... if the scale is 1.0 to 3.0, that wouldn't yield >>percentages 0-100; it would yield percentages 33.3-100. Have they really >>rigged the formula so that the minimum possible score is 33.3% (hmm... >>perhaps there's a future for that in the matchpoint formula)? >Yes... we have.... INTENTIONALLY!!! .... do we really need to embarass >anyone by giving out zeros? That is not the purpose. The only purpose of >the ratings is to give the reader a "flavor" of what is coming. Don't >forget, there are people who are really bad at laws applications that read >these things and without the ratings, they would have no clue of the flavor >of the panelists positions.... that is all the ratings are for... folks >that read this mail list can figure out for themselves what is going on... Not if they did not know this, they couldn't. Let us get this straight: if there is a ruling where the AC is completely 100% wrong, probably ignoring the Law, and not using commonsense at all, I am actually giving the AC 33.3% "correctness" in my assessment? How can anyone "work this out" until they know it? >>The one meaningless decimal place is a separate issue. For doing that, >>they should be sentenced to sit through my five-minute lecture on the >>difference between "accuracy" and "precision". >> >>>Maybe the math types can help out here? I think a whole number scale of 0 >>>to 10 would be sufficient, and more easily converted to percentage scores. >We have tried that and find the answers we get are more skewed than using >our 3 point scale. The instructions are basically 1 is bad, 2 is okay, 3 >is perfect. We already ask enough of these folks - they often give 1.2, >2,7, etc type ratings where they think appropriate, and if anyone goes out >of there way to put "0" we count that, too. Oh great. So someone who obeys the rules [me] has to give 1.0 to 3.0, assuming that 1.0 is 0%, while it isn't: and someone who does not obey the rules gets a chance to influence the rating in a way that I am not allowed to? Are you sure this is the best way? When I gave a 1.0 the AC was so bad that ... Do we really want to encourage wrong decisions by giving them [wait for it!] "cosmetic leeway"? [I like that term: I have just invented it!] -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 10:44:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:44:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1.mail.telepac.pt (mail1.telepac.pt [194.65.3.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA16427 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:44:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([194.65.226.154]) by mta1.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail v03.02.07 118-124-101) with SMTP id <19990722004450.DPWJ9887@default> for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 01:44:50 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: RE: National authority in EBL tournaments Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 01:44:30 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01BED3E3.BD92BD20" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <58VlzWAypel3EwIW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BED3E3.BD92BD20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The AC, also acting as the national authority as meant in Law 93c, shall have the power to determine all facts and decide all questions of law, whether under the Laws, the Propierties or these Rules, arising from any appeal or investigation and its findings and decisions will be final. The AC may confirm, reverse, vary or modify the findings or decisions of a TD (except those foreseen by Law 93b3) and remove, increase or vary any penalty which may have been imposed, or substitute a different class of penalty or an adjusted score. David Stevenson wrote: > I would like to probe this a little further. I expect European > organisations to follow the Laws of bridge, and am worried by this > statement. Now, before I make my pitch in this matter, would someone > who has a copy of the CoC please post the actual wording of the > authority of the Appeals Committee in Malta. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BED3E3.BD92BD20 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="winmail.dat" eJ8+Ih4AAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEGgAMADgAAAM8HBwAWAAEAJwAAAAQAHwEB A5AGAPgHAAAnAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADAC4AAAAAAAMANgAA AAAAHgBwAAEAAAAmAAAATmF0aW9uYWwgYXV0aG9yaXR5IGluIEVCTCB0b3VybmFtZW50cwAAAAIB cQABAAAAFgAAAAG+09q6LvjKSuc/1BHTlhHaWLMLuDEAAAIBHQwBAAAAHAAAAFNNVFA6TlA5M0pF QE1BSUwuVEVMRVBBQy5QVAALAAEOAAAAAEAABg4AqteW2tO+AQIBCg4BAAAAGAAAAAAAAADr6S1k JJe+EYmUfjQZteMywoAAAAsAHw4BAAAAAgEJEAEAAABUAwAAUAMAAG8EAABMWkZ1tvhBOAMACgBy Y3BnMTI18jIA+zM2AegCpAPkBxNPAoMAUAPUAgBjaArAc6hldDAQpn0KgXYIkKR3awuAZDQMYGMA UIsLAwtgbg4QMDMzC6YQIFRoZRCgQywgSQdAc28V4GN0C4BnyxXgBCB0FYFuYRZgAiAbB0AV4HUW 4AWwaXR5HxaiB4AAcAVAC4AgTGFRB+A5M2MV0HMSAGwbAyASAHYVkBbicG93rwSQFtAWIAEAdASQ bQuAuxWQGcJmFkEEIABwZBsRrGNpAQAbs3EKUHMXQlEEIG9mIAtgdxXQd/cVgBbhBcB1E5AawhWB GRHWcxXQFuJQA2BwCJEWYJ8HkQWxFuESMAfwdWwHkH8V0QUQAJAWgQNSHFEYMXB+cBiQAyAFsQuA GiAdgWfvFzMcUxgQBCBmE4EWcRxI7wCQHbID8BnRYhWQJQEHQLYuFWUYcGEYMAWgbiUAvxtgFdAJ cBogEiEV0HYKwP8YMAWxBGEGkBgwFuIlBwWxCyXYHfFhFWBEIChl+HhjZQUxF9EhUQIQCXC/EjAJ 8CawGDAZFA8gKRxT/wlwBGAaIBXQC4AFABiQIVH/BbEpMyLCIyAXcRghHnAN4P5oJ8MaAybALYEH cBqQEjBGZBXQBbFzdWIdgXTvF8AboRsQBpBmBJAJ8AVAfmMLYAQRHfEwlgWxA5FheGRqdR2ACYAZ kAWhZR4uCqIKhAqEFEFpMTG6NBJgRBoQHNARMSADMX0SYFMbQBogAIACIDjDd7sDYBtAOgKyNvQ4 0T45Em048EkeYAhgbByAOABr+xoxFiBwA2AmwRbgBAAr4f84AAJAIaAb8AhwHqInQDvB5yxQIyAW UCBFCHAgUBiR3zrJOQMFsCQQAwBzFzMWwb8WIAIQGdAaoB9HHeJiBRBsZGcpARxiYSKgO/By/wiB HIAtsT0yP84dgBcwLtD7NEE+gU4aoBXQJsAtIjvB+wDAPHFtMHEYEDFBGOE9M/8AwAJABJAeUTwD FhAHgAIgfmU/zh5wFiASAD1iBaBw/ylhHgAW4ghQJ7ALUC+DMnH3LKIboRZQdReBQ/ElMkwVdz/O F7hMJUEjEwQgCFBtrxtwSQEVkBjhTTDBYTbbBRLxAFPgHgBCEAEAAAAnAAAAPDU4Vmx6V0F5cGVs M0V3SVdAYmxha2phay5kZW1vbi5jby51az4AAAsAAYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAOFAAAA AAAAAwADgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEIUAAAAAAAADAAeACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAA AABShQAAJ2oBAB4ACYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFSFAAABAAAABAAAADkuMAAeAAqACCAG AAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA2hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgALgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAA N4UAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4ADIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADiFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAL AA2ACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAACChQAAAQAAAAsAOoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAA6F AAAAAAAAAwA8gAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEYUAAAAAAAADAD2ACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAA RgAAAAAYhQAAAAAAAAMAaIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAGFAAAAAAAACwB5gAggBgAAAAAA wAAAAAAAAEYAAAAABoUAAAAAAAACAfgPAQAAABAAAADr6S1kJJe+EYmUfjQZteMyAgH6DwEAAAAQ AAAA6+ktZCSXvhGJlH40GbXjMgIB+w8BAAAAggAAAAAAAAA4obsQBeUQGqG7CAArKlbCAABQU1RQ UlguRExMAAAAAAAAAABOSVRB+b+4AQCqADfZbgAAAEM6XFdJTkRPV1NcTG9jYWwgU2V0dGluZ3Nc QXBwbGljYXRpb24gRGF0YVxNaWNyb3NvZnRcT3V0bG9va1xvdXRsb29rLnBzdAAAAAMA/g8FAAAA AwANNP03AAACAX8AAQAAADYAAAA8TE9CQklKSkVKRk5OREVOQk1IS0ZJRUVLQ0lBQS5ucDkzamVA bWFpbC50ZWxlcGFjLnB0PgAAAAMABhAJaEZRAwAHEMQCAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERABAAAAHgAIEAEA AABlAAAAVEhFQUMsQUxTT0FDVElOR0FTVEhFTkFUSU9OQUxBVVRIT1JJVFlBU01FQU5USU5MQVc5 M0MsU0hBTExIQVZFVEhFUE9XRVJUT0RFVEVSTUlORUFMTEZBQ1RTQU5EREVDSURFQQAAAACA3A== ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BED3E3.BD92BD20-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 11:29:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:29:14 +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 LAA16523 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:29:00 +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 1177fD-0001JR-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 01:28:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 02:23:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: National authority in EBL tournaments References: <58VlzWAypel3EwIW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <58VlzWAypel3EwIW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id LAA16525 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: > >>Well, the CoC at Malta (and all EBL tournaments) clearly >>state that the AC is also the national authority referred in >>L93C. > I would like to probe this a little further. I expect European >organisations to follow the Laws of bridge, and am worried by this >statement. Now, before I make my pitch in this matter, would someone >who has a copy of the CoC please post the actual wording of the >authority of the Appeals Committee in Malta. Thanks to the two people who sent me the CoC. I have read it carefully, and I do think the wording is slightly worrying. The relevant paragraph [as it seems to me]: 2.3 Judgement The Appeals Committee, also acting as the national authority as meant in Law 93.c. shall have the power to determine all facts and decide all questions of law, whether under the Laws, the Proprieties or these Rules, arising from any appeal or investigation and its findings and decisions will be final. The Appeals Committee may confirm, reverse, vary or modify the findings or decisions of a Tournament Director (except those foreseen by Law 93.B.3.) and remove, increase or vary any penalty which may have been imposed, or substitute a different class of penalty or an adjusted score. Let me explain the workings of the Law as it seems to me. When there is a possible infraction a TD is summoned, and gives a ruling, as described in various Laws, such as L9, L10, L84 and L85. Within the period specified by L92B a contestant may appeal a ruling, and a decision is given by an AC. Note that frivolous appeals are subject to penalty: this is made clear by the footnote to L92A. L93C then says After the preceding remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may be taken to the national authority. While this appears to be a right, there are a number of points. First, there is no mention of how the NA should deal with it: in effect that is left up to the NA. Second, there is no mention of what matters the NA will deal with: it really is not suitable for the NA to merely act as a second AC taking the same evidence and seeing whether they copme to the same solution. Accordingly, therefore, the NA should decide what matters it will deal with. Third, it only applies after an appeal has been heard ["After the preceding remedies have been exhausted ...."]. Of course, there are obvious matters for an NA to deal with. If an AC was drunk, malicious, or totally ignored the Laws of the game, we would trust that L93C and the NA provide the backstop to see that justice is done. It is also interesting where an interpretation of Law is concerned: since the NA is usually the correct body to make or to promulgate such an interpretation, it is suitable for them to look at decisions which involve such an interpretation. It may interest you to see the relevant Regulations for the EBU [and thus for the WBU] taken from the Orange book. 8.2 Appeals to the National Authority 8.2.1 These are settled by the Laws & Ethics Committee and must be submitted in writing to the Secretary of the Committee, enclosing a deposit - at the time of going to print - of £50. You should inform the TD of your intention to appeal, since the Committee may want information from him, as well as the comments of the Referee or the Appeals Committee which heard the original appeal. 8.2.2 No Appeal to the National Authority will be allowed if there was not a request for an appeal against the TD's ruling under Law 92A. (Law 93C) 8.2.3 The deposit will normally be returned only if the Laws & Ethics Committee considers the appeal to involve either a question of principle, an error of direction, or an error in the application of Law or Regulation. The Committee does not revise value judgements unless they are grossly inappropriate 8.2.4 The outcome of an appeal to the National Authority, or some other intervention by the Laws & Ethics Committee, will affect the result of a match in a knock-out competition only if the decision is made before the publication of the draw for the next round. For the process to work there is therefore a three-part method: ruling by a TD: decision by an AC: decision by the NA. Now, I was surprised to find that one European country had a National Appeals Committee which decided all major appeals by post, so they players did not get a chance to talk to the AC. OK, I am not arguing about that now [though I expressed an opinion to them, and am pleased to say that there has been some change in policy moving towards on-site Committees] but what I also found worrying was that the NAC and the NA were the same body, so after a L93B AC decision, there was no separate body to consider an appeal under L93C. You could argue it may not matter since they will already have considered matters as both an AC and a NA. I do not like it one bit. They are second-guessing the Law-makers, suggesting that with *their* set-up the distinction in the laws between L93B and L93C does not matter, but what right have they to presume they are above the Laws? I suggested to them that even if the bodies were relatively the same, that they used not all members on any appeal, and effectively left sufficient people to form an NA if it was ever necessary. [As I mentioned, they are now working to a different method, but I have heard of at least one more European NCBO that acts similarly.] What about the EBL? The CoC says "The Appeals Committee, also acting as the national authority as meant in Law 93.c. shall have the power to determine ....". There are two ways to read this. One way, as Anton and others have suggested, is that any appeal is dealt with under L93C. I hope this is not the way the EBL acts, because that is clearly in breach of the Laws. However, there is another possible reading, which is similar to what I recommended in the country I have quoted: that the composition of the whole Appeals Committee is defined by the CoC, and they will act either under L93B or L93C as required. If we read it this way, then all the appeals at Malta were heard under L93B, and could have been appealed under L93C: however, the same overall group of people would have heard them, presumably excluding those who sat one the first appeal [but it would be legal even if they did not]. I wonder whether this has really been considered by those who drafted the CoC for the EBL? I doubt it, because I think that the CoC would have a rather more extensive statement on the subject, however if you accept this interpretation then at least the Law would be followed. I believe that NAs should consider their procedures about L93C, including the EBL [and the ACBL]. I believe that players have rights under L93C, which should not extend to merely re-hearing the same evidence in front of different people, but should cover certain matters such as the EBU has designated after consideration. I should be very happy to discuss this matter with the representatives of any NA that needs advice on the subject, as would Grattan: as you will realise, the EBU has looked into this matter extensively. Let us presume that the EBL would be prepared to read their CoC in the way I prefer, and convene a L93C appeals hearing if necessary: are there any matters that properly should have been considered by them? I believe the answer to be: Yes. There has been a long thread here on an appeal in Malta where a team was fined a PP of 0.5 VP for making a bid that was not an agreed part of their system. BLML readers will realise that the legalities of this are still being argued, but I believe it to be illegal unless there is a CoC to cover this [and there isn't: thanks to the correspondent who sent me the whole CoC from Malta]. This is exactly the sort of item that is a suitable L93C matter: it would have been entirely suitable for the team who were fined 0.5 VP to have appealed it to the NA ion the basis that it was not a legal PP. I think the wording of the CoC ambiguous, and hope that future EBL tournaments are run with a CoC that makes the method of appealing under L93C clearer, and I trust that it will allow for such appeals. cc Rich Colker -- 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 Jul 22 11:47:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:47:07 +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 LAA16555 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:47:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn1p20.ozemail.com.au [210.84.9.20]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA15227 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:46:35 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:46:35 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199907220146.LAA15227@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: Just checking L26 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following auction occurred the other night: South West North East 1C pass 1H 2D 2S 3D 3D..5C 5D all pass North's insufficient cue bid of 3D, asking for a stopper, was not accepted, and was changed to 5C. For the lead penalties on South I ruled under L26B. Undoubtedly, 3D relates to a specified suit, so should I have ruled under L26A2 instead? Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 13:18:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:18:17 +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 NAA16728 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:18:07 +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 1179Mh-000BHg-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:17:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:04:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Visual impairment and other disabilities 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 >>> >>> Comments on the following set of recommended regulations are sought. >>> >>>1. Bidding >>> >>>1.1 Bidding boxes are to be used when this is possible. >>> >>>1.2 If the use of bidding boxes by one or more players is not >>>possible, then all players should call their own bids (where this is >>>possible). >>> >>>1.3 The opponents of any player unable to use a bidding box have the >>>option to require that bidding boxes are used in addition to spoken >>>bids, in which case the bidding box of the player unable to use it >>>should be operated by one of the opponents. >>> >>>2. Play >>> >>>2.1 When all players except dummy can see cards played normally, >>>play continues as normal. >> >>>2.2 When a player, other than dummy, is unable to see cards played >>>normally, then (subject to the option in 2.3) all players are to call >>>their own cards as played. > >>I think I'd prefer to see separate regulations for declarer and >>defenders. I'm not sure they have to be different, but if declarer >>can't see the cards then I'd prefer dummy to call them (pretty well >>kills off UI from inflection), and if a defender can't see the cards >>then I'd prefer each to call his own (not a lot we can do here). >> >>In any event I'm not so sure that 2.2 and 2.3 need be separated the way >>you have done so but perhaps by seat instead, with a preference for >>method therein stated. > > I do not understand this paragraph at all. Please elucidate. > 2.2 when declarer is unable to see the cards played normally it is preferred for dummy to call them all but by agreement each player may call his own 2.3 when a defender is unable to see the cards played normally it is preferred for each player to call his own but by agreement dummy may call them all was the sort of thing I had in mind. What I wanted to do was separate declarer and the defenders, rather than the callers into different clauses. snip >>I think that the TD has the absolute right to establish special >>conditions and need not be bound by these regulations. Law 80E applies. > > My goodness! First the AC wants to run the European Bridge League, >then the Directors want to run the English Bridge Union! oops. Sponsoring organisation is the heading, not TD, duties and powers sorry. > > Of all the suggestions made so far, this is the only one that looks >completely wrong to me. > sigh. yes -- 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 Jul 22 13:18:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:18:11 +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 NAA16724 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:18:03 +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 1179Mh-000JPA-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:17:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:06:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: CTD-AC authority (was Book on Movements) 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: > >>ACs consisting entirely of BLs seem to me to be inhabiting another >>planet. Those consisting of good players will frequently find an >>equitable ruling at variance with the Laws, and those consisting of >>players of similar standing to the offenders fail completely both to >>understand the laws, or to produce an adequate ruling. >> >>I'll stick with Ton. Have one member (I like it to be the Chairman) who >>is a BL, but don't let him bully the others. > > I take it that you are not using BL in its normal application of a >player who wishes to make three attempts at a good score, at the table, >in front of the TD and in front of the AC? > Yes, I was using it to indicate one who knows the Laws well, not in its perjorative sense. The top class BLs btw will have a fourth go in the bar :)) chs 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 Jul 22 13:18:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:18:17 +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 NAA16730 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:18:09 +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 1179Mh-000JHb-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:17:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:11:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Malta Appeals In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >In a private fight [feel free to join in] John and David said: > > > No, when I disagree with Herman, I say one thing, and he disagrees. >in this case, I have made no such statement. In the EBU we do not hold >up the next round for ACs: more importantly, I certainly did not say so, >so why are you picking on me? > public apology. I misinterpreted David's reply. Both he and I would start the next round with the TD's ruling in place. His view, with which I concur, is that to change our method would require the EBU to hand down a regulation that we should use the ACBL style. I would prefer this. chs 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 Jul 22 15:06:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA16908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:06:05 +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 PAA16903 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:05:57 +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 117B3E-0002YR-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 05:05:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:26:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Just checking L26 References: <199907220146.LAA15227@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199907220146.LAA15227@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >The following auction occurred the other night: > South West North East > 1C pass 1H 2D > 2S 3D 3D..5C 5D > all pass > >North's insufficient cue bid of 3D, asking for a stopper, was not accepted, >and was changed to 5C. For the lead penalties on South I ruled under L26B. >Undoubtedly, 3D relates to a specified suit, so should I have ruled under >L26A2 instead? I believe you were right. "Related to a specific suit" means in effect that it showed something in that suit, as a natural bid of 2H or a transfer of 2D: both relate to hearts. In the case of a bid of the oppos' suit, I do not see it relates to that suit in the same way, so I would agree to treat it as a L26B case. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 19:23:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:23:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17342 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:23:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117F4D-0000JE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:23:05 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA6F32 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:22:10 +0200 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl ([192.168.17.19]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAG4284 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:18:00 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 1141W9-0007VH-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:18:38 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:43:05 +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 VAA06578 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:42:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-12.uunet.be [194.7.148.12]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18299 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:42:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378B1278.441BE7F1@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:18:32 +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: Malta Appeals References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > If they (the AC) make > a decision which is based upon a law not introduced by > the Director it is appropriate for them to add the > reference, and this is what I would like to see - the scribe > should probably inform himself whilst still with the > Committee - I do not think it is correct for the > scribe to add something subsequently of his own > volition - he has no authority to commit the Committee > to a reference it has not stated. I don't see it that way, Grattan. It is my task, among others, to inform the AC, if I feel the need, of the Laws involved. Some members there are less informed than myself about the actual wording of the Laws. But I don't feel the need at all times to explicitely tell the AC what Laws they are using, expecially if I find that they are ruling in a manner that is consistent with the Law I have in mind. Yet, when telling the world about the ruling, it is deemed necessary to mention the specific Laws, and I do so whether or not the Law was actually read in Committee. Indeed, when I feel that a literal reading of the Law was necessary, not only did I read it in the Committee, but also I included it complete in the report. So in all, I feel it is my duty to mention Law numbers even if the AC did not specify them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 19:28:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:28:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17365 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:28:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117F9L-0000No-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:28:23 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAAB4C for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:27:29 +0200 Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl ([192.168.18.20]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAH48DE for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:22:01 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp2.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 1141aA-0003yf-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:22:47 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:43:19 +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 VAA06607 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:43:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-12.uunet.be [194.7.148.12]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18322 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:42:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378B2434.F4CFA5D9@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:34:12 +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: Split Scores References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hallo Clemens, nice to see a new name here, and welcome ! CLEMENS.OELKER@DLH.DE wrote: > > > > This suggestion has two disadvantages: > First, the minor one, both Pairs are penalized by a very small extra points > (just 0.5), in addition to their bad "artificial" score. I name that a consequence of them playing even worse than the opponents of their opponents (they got -500, but the opponents of their opponents got +650 !) > And second, the major disadvantige results when describing your new > scoring-method in terms of a formular. That is not a big disadvantage, the formulae are difficult enough as it is, and I believe that including this version in some regulations is no more complicated than including the "traditional" version. > The solution for this has to be: > You get 2 MP for each result you have beaten and 1 MP for each result which > equals your own (as in common scoring), but now you have to substract 0.5 > MP from that sum, which can be explained by "your own result has only have > the weight, so you are handled only as have a pair". > So what is the result if you get an artificial BOTTOM as split score from > the AC? Then the formular would give you a score of -0.5 on the board, which > is also necissary to score the rest of the board correctly. This can't > hardly be fair, can it? > Very well, Clemens, you spotted it. I had deliberately included both a +850 and a -800 to avoid this seeming irregularity. But I don't believe it is a problem. These pairs have played worse than some others, and should get less points. The fact that less than 0 is negative is a consequence of the counting system, to which I have given an alternative, if needed. But there are other cases in which a negative score can arise, well within currently accepted regulations. > And the last comment on your suggestion: the fact that some scores are > influenced by 2 MP from other results at the same board isn't a fault, > that's just the principle of scoring!!! > But the fact that NS scores are influenced and EW are not, is a fault IMO. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 19:40:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:40:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17396 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:40:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117FKX-0000cY-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:39:57 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA331E for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:39:02 +0200 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl ([192.168.17.19]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAO5187 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:27:32 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 1141cL-00002l-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:25:02 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:43:08 +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 VAA06585 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:42:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-12.uunet.be [194.7.148.12]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18303 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:42:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <378B151A.6B5DDF24@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:29:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements References: <3.0.1.32.19990711150527.0071c2b8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990712135214.007136cc@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 01:23 PM 7/12/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >You don't agree that a higher level of "attention to the > >game" should be asked from people who are going to play 500+ > >hands together at the highest level they will ever attain in > >their lives ? > > I don't disagree, but I do agree with Michael and others who believe that > L74 governs conduct at the table, not away from it, and would no more apply > L74B1 to a partnership's prior discussion of their methods than I would, > say, L74A1. > You may believe this, but it is not what this Law states. > >I have never understood the term 'convention disruption' but > >this was certainly not it. > > I may not understand it either, but I am under the impression that it means > agreeing to play a conventional sequence without making agreements as to > the meanings of the possible follow-up actions. My understanding is that > the penalty being discussed was levied for exactly that. > If that is the definition, then yes, this is convention disruption. But that is one possible definition I had never thought of. > >Remember that the word used in the Laws is "insufficient". > >It is up to the TD or AC to determine what is sufficient. > > I entirely agree. The issue here isn't what constitutes "insufficient > attention", but rather what constitutes "the game". IMO "the game" refers > to the game we're playing at the table, not to whatever we may do in the > course of our lives that pertains to the game of bridge. > Well, again, that is not clear from the text of the Laws. I think there is another matter of importance. Whether or not attention to the game includes actions prior to sitting at the table (and I repeat that I don't see why not), but if this (a matter of courtesy) is possible to incur a PP. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 19:41:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:41:41 +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 TAA17410 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:41:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-41-54.uunet.be [194.7.41.54]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA09724 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:41:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:06:34 +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: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Seems like a strange quesion, doesn't it ? Yet I have two cases where it is the core of the problem. Number one is the "insufficient agreement". You all know the case by now. A pair state in the AC that they have no firm agreement over a simple auction. The AC finds that this is unacceptable. I'm not going any further at the moment. Unacceptable. Some of you have stated that they agree with this. Many others may well also agree. So far, no-one has stated they did not agree (always with the notion of unacceptability, I'm not talking about the penalty - yet). In any case, the AC in question must be the final judge as to what constitutes unacceptable behaviour. A second case can be found in appeal 27. A player had, behind screens, explained a double in a loud voice. These facts were not relevant to the rest of the appeal, and so the AC decided to instruct the Director to investigate further and award a penalty if he deemed necessary. The words of the AC : "the Committee found the alleged facts disturbing". Again I doubt if few would argue that such behaviour is unacceptable. Which leads me to my question : is this punishable. We want to apply procedural penalties, and thus we must read L90A: "The Director ... may also assess penalties for any offense that ... - unduly delays or obstructs the game, - inconveniences other contestants, - violates correct procedure, or - requires the award of an adjusted score at another table" (new indentation mine) OK, there are two elements here : The second is part of my indentation. We can safely say that both examples above violate one or more of these four points : the first case inconveniences the opponents, the second case violates correct procedure. But there is a first element : There must be an "offense". Which is (or should be) at the core of our discussion around Appeal 25. Consider that we are unable to agree on the fact that "insufficient agreements" violates Law 74B1. Neither do we find another Law (or regulation) that seems to be violated. Which is why many of you find the penalty in appeal 25 wrong. Now consider appeal 27 : which offense was committed ? Speaking behind screens is not covered in the Laws, and the regulations only state that all explanations should be written. Yet many explanations are given by hand signalsn, nods, raised eyebrows, or by muted voice and whispers. None of those lead to penalties, nor should they. The particular "offense" that was committed here was speaking at a loud voice, in a specific situation which might convey valuable information to partner. The best I can find is L73B (and A). Yet it would not be wise to invoke L73B2 : that is downright cheating and we would not want to use that Law. Now read L73B1 again. A bridge Lawyer might argue that none of the methods described in this article applies to the case of speaking behind screens. Which again prompts my question. If a particular form of behaviour is deemed unacceptable, and it results in one of the four types described in L90A, do we then really need some other law or regulation that defines the action as an offense, before we are allowed to award a PP ? Please don't reply in the sense that we cannot trust TD's or AC's to correctly define "unacceptable". Both cases above show that it is quite common for an AC to get the right feel of what is acceptable or not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 19:55:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:55:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17432 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:55:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117FZP-0000v9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:55:19 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA6821 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:54:24 +0200 Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl ([192.168.18.20]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAG62D7 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:38:31 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp2.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 1141mw-0004m9-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:35:59 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:50:29 +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 VAA06659 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:50:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u3.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id HAA20628 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 07:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 07:45:39 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: establishment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > > So, I ask again, is it a good thing for the WBFLC to get rid of > differing interpretations of the Laws in different parts of the world? > Should the line as to what RAs [regulating authorities] may regulate be > moved to give the WBFLC more power in decisions and the various RAs > less? > I believe it is a good thing. Most of the time it does not matter, because most people only play within one jurisdiction. The problems really only turn up in international events where you have tournament officials from different cultures who are interpreting the laws in different ways. Possibly only an academic point--I've never been near an international event, much less participated in one. Other organizations have had this problem. FIFA had a major training session for its game officials before the 1970(?) World Cup _because_ of the perception of different interpretations of soccer laws in different parts of the world. FIFA was not concerned that the officials were inconsistent, but did want the whole event run in the same way and believed the players should know what to expect without having to know refereeing style in various parts of the world. -- Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 20:23:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA17504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:18:35 +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 UAA17488 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:18:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-220.uunet.be [194.7.145.220]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA16421 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:18:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3796EFE1.B3E71962@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:18:09 +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: National authority in EBL tournaments References: <58VlzWAypel3EwIW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Well, the CoC at Malta (and all EBL tournaments) clearly > >state that the AC is also the national authority referred in > >L93C. > > I would like to probe this a little further. I expect European > organisations to follow the Laws of bridge, and am worried by this > statement. Now, before I make my pitch in this matter, would someone > who has a copy of the CoC please post the actual wording of the > authority of the Appeals Committee in Malta. > regulation G.2.3. Judgment The Appeals Committee, also acting as the national authority as meant in Law 93.c. shall have the power to determine all facts and decide all questions of law, whether under the Laws, the Proprieties or these Rules, arising fro any appeal or ivestigation and its findings and decisions will be final. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 21:23:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA17502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:18:34 +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 UAA17486 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:18:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-220.uunet.be [194.7.145.220]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA16393 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:18:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3796EAD2.E8822570@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:56:34 +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: Can CoC Contravene the Laws? [was: Book on Movements, etc.] References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > >Well, the CoC at Malta (and all EBL tournaments) clearly > >state that the AC is also the national authority referred in > >L93C. > > I don't see how CoC can contravene the Laws. And it seems non-sensical to > me to set things up so that either (1) the NA should be considered to have > reviewed _all_ appeals or (2) the AC must revisit, as NA, any decision > which is further appealed (not sure which the CoC at Malta intended). I > think this particular CoC is illegal. > > Regards, > Please realise, Ed, that this is not the ACBL. In the ACBL, the national authority and the zonal authority are one and the same. The ACBL, as national authority, has installed a particular body to cope with L93C. In the EBL, there are several national authorities, to which L93C can refer. Yet this is an EBL event, so what national authority ? That is why the EBL has to nominate a specific authority to deal with L93C appeals. Which is (indeed) the same AC. I don't see how this contravenes the Laws. When you are, by the nature of your appeal, already at the highest possible authority, there seems to me no need to be able to go even higher. I believe L93C exists to allow a contestant to seek the best advice possible, in case a SO selects a below-par AC. I believe that best advice possible was achieved here. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 21:45:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA17748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 21:45:15 +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 VAA17743 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 21:45:02 +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 117HHK-000J0k-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:44:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:16:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? References: <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Seems like a strange quesion, doesn't it ? > >Yet I have two cases where it is the core of the problem. > >Number one is the "insufficient agreement". > >You all know the case by now. A pair state in the AC that >they have no firm agreement over a simple auction. > >The AC finds that this is unacceptable. > >I'm not going any further at the moment. Unacceptable. > >Some of you have stated that they agree with this. Many >others may well also agree. So far, no-one has stated they >did not agree (always with the notion of unacceptability, >I'm not talking about the penalty - yet). >In any case, the AC in question must be the final judge as >to what constitutes unacceptable behaviour. I do not think that describing something as unacceptable is sufficient because the term means different things to different people. Some people find it unacceptable to play bridge against players wearing a T- shirt and jeans, others don't, and CoC often include a dress code. An AC would be expected to follow the CoC even if, as people, they found the players' dress unacceptable. >A second case can be found in appeal 27. > >A player had, behind screens, explained a double in a loud >voice. >These facts were not relevant to the rest of the appeal, and >so the AC decided to instruct the Director to investigate >further and award a penalty if he deemed necessary. >The words of the AC : "the Committee found the alleged facts >disturbing". > >Again I doubt if few would argue that such behaviour is >unacceptable. > >Which leads me to my question : is this punishable. This one is, of course, punishable: there is a procedure and they failed to follow it. Violations of procedure are specifically mentioned in L90 - in fact you quote that below. >We want to apply procedural penalties, and thus we must read >L90A: >"The Director ... may also assess penalties for any offense >that ... >- unduly delays or obstructs the game, >- inconveniences other contestants, >- violates correct procedure, or ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >- requires the award of an adjusted score at another table" >(new indentation mine) > >OK, there are two elements here : > >The second is part of my indentation. >We can safely say that both examples above violate one or >more of these four points : the first case inconveniences >the opponents, the second case violates correct procedure. > >But there is a first element : > >There must be an "offense". > >Which is (or should be) at the core of our discussion around >Appeal 25. > >Consider that we are unable to agree on the fact that >"insufficient agreements" violates Law 74B1. Neither do we >find another Law (or regulation) that seems to be violated. >Which is why many of you find the penalty in appeal 25 >wrong. Exactly. >Now consider appeal 27 : which offense was committed ? >Speaking behind screens is not covered in the Laws, and the >regulations only state that all explanations should be >written. Yet many explanations are given by hand signalsn, >nods, raised eyebrows, or by muted voice and whispers. None >of those lead to penalties, nor should they. The particular >"offense" that was committed here was speaking at a loud >voice, in a specific situation which might convey valuable >information to partner. What do you mean, "the regulations only state that all explanations should be written"? That is the regulation, failure to follow the regulation is a violation of procedure, there is your infraction. The Rules [1] of bridge are to be followed, and we can always penalise players who do not. You do not need a rule that says failure to follow a rule is illegal! When the Law says that bidding goes clockwise, we do not need another Law that says bidding anti-clockwise is illegal! [1] Rules = Laws + Regulations > >The best I can find is L73B (and A). >Yet it would not be wise to invoke L73B2 : that is downright >cheating and we would not want to use that Law. >Now read L73B1 again. A bridge Lawyer might argue that none >of the methods described in this article applies to the case >of speaking behind screens. > >Which again prompts my question. > >If a particular form of behaviour is deemed unacceptable, >and it results in one of the four types described in L90A, >do we then really need some other law or regulation that >defines the action as an offense, before we are allowed to >award a PP ? Yes, we do. We have Rules as to what is permitted, and we should not penalise someone for doing something which a particular group thinks is wrong if they have no evidence that the whole community does. In the case of convention disruption and similar practices there are differing views and therefore to be illegal it needs a CoC. -- 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 Jul 22 21:51:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA17766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 21:51:50 +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 VAA17761 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 21:51:38 +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 117HNk-000Jp0-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:51:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:50:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Can CoC Contravene the Laws? [was: Book on Movements, etc.] References: <3796EAD2.E8822570@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3796EAD2.E8822570@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 4.01 <2OJHte1h6NfDfVYysuS9F4Lowp> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >When you are, by the nature of your appeal, already at the >highest possible authority, there seems to me no need to be >able to go even higher. So we ignore the Laws then? The Laws provide a three-part process. Are you also saying an individual AC in Malta can not make a mistake? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 22:22:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:22:47 +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 WAA17916 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:22:37 +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 IAA04607 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990722082154.006e8644@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:21:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) In-Reply-To: <379f1087.3389213@post12.tele.dk> References: <09a001bed2d7$51e33940$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907162340.QAA09259@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990718114612.01212088@pop.mindspring.com> <08c501bed164$8c3e9900$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <37998108.4905283@post12.tele.dk> <09a001bed2d7$51e33940$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:32 PM 7/21/99 +0200, Jesper wrote: >On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:28:12 -0700, "Marvin L. French" > wrote: > >>Well, write a new L75C that accords with your opinion: >> >>L75C: Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements >> >> A player shall explain the significance of partner's call or play >>whenever asked to do so. > >That is going to far. I do not want you to explain your guesses >based on general bridge knowledge, but I do want you to explain >anything that you know or have had confirmed through partnership >discussion or experience. You shouldn't be required to reveal your guesses. But I see nothing wrong in principle with being helpful to the opponents by disclosing what you do know that is relevant to formulating your guess, even if that qualifies as "general bridge knowledge". Indeed, one can imagine an alternative approach under which the laws did require you to reveal your guesses, clearly labeled as such. That would eliminate the fine line between what must be revealed and what need not be, effectively requiring players to be as forthcoming as they possibly can, period. We'd have a lot more trouble with UI, but MI would be virtually eliminated; I'd guess it to be about a wash in terms of generating adjudications. 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 Jul 22 22:40:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:40:52 +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 WAA17979 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:40:45 +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 IAA05482 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990722084005.006e8644@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:40:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990718172702.00731fe4@pop.cais.com> <077201becff5$cd6d92c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <008301becee6$58a104a0$7084d9ce@host> <069901becf15$caef5d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:51 PM 7/19/99 -0700, Linda wrote: >>But... but... bububuh... if the scale is 1.0 to 3.0, that wouldn't yield >>percentages 0-100; it would yield percentages 33.3-100. Have they really >>rigged the formula so that the minimum possible score is 33.3% (hmm... >>perhaps there's a future for that in the matchpoint formula)? > >Yes... we have.... INTENTIONALLY!!! .... do we really need to embarass >anyone by giving out zeros? That is not the purpose. The only purpose of >the ratings is to give the reader a "flavor" of what is coming. Don't >forget, there are people who are really bad at laws applications that read >these things and without the ratings, they would have no clue of the flavor >of the panelists positions.... that is all the ratings are for... folks >that read this mail list can figure out for themselves what is going on... And we have... you really have rigged the formula, hoping that your readers will (as David did) take the numbers as "percentages", which they are not. You'd think that intelligent adults would be just as embarrassed to receive a worst possible score of 1 as a worst possible score of 0, but David is an intelligent adult, and was confused (as we now know, intentionally), and I'm an intelligent adult, but had to dig out a book and look through it carefully to convince myself that the word "percentage" never actually appears, and Linda is an intelligent adult, but it didn't occur to her not to agree to my (mis-) statement that "the minimum possible score is 33.3%", so it seems as though the obfuscation accomplishes its objective. How many readers of these books do you expect understand that if the raters agree unanimously that a particular ruling is the worst they've ever seen, that ruling scores 33.3, albeit not, note, 33.3%, which would be a flat-out lie? 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 Jul 22 22:54:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA17503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:18:34 +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 UAA17487 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:18:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-220.uunet.be [194.7.145.220]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA16403 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:18:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3796EF2C.3D42E3DE@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:15:08 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Any title you like or Book on Movements (and very nasty question) References: <015e01bed391$2900f5c0$c58493c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > I consider the AC exceeded its authority in this appeal. > > > +++ This discussion is now at the level of fantasy. There > is no point arguing with H any longer. I agree with David > that, if the 'reason' for the penalty has been accurately > recorded by Herman there is no basis for it in law. But I > suspect Herman has not understood what the committee > was actually saying - Herman is not the safest interpreter > of the English language. The Committee consisted of two Danish speakers, two Dutch speakers and one Italian speaker. I don't see how I can be to blame for interpreting from the common language we were all using, which was the official language of bridge, broken english. I am fairly confident that the text : "The Committee did not find it normal that a pair come to European Championships without an understanding about the second level bidding of a quite normal, uncontested bidding sequence." and "North/South fined half a VP for different explanation in a simple auction" reflect in a correct way the findings of the Committee. I have since conversed with Jens Auken on the matter and he confirms that this is the official text from the Committee. > If the AC believed that in truth > the pair did have an understanding, as a regular > partnership would have for almost any common sequence > by way of its partnership experience, and the AC believed > they had failed to recognize an implicit agreement, then > the PP would be lawful. ~ Grattan ~ +++ OK, what you are saying is that the Committee found that it was impossible to have this auction without an agreement, and that therefore the pair were lying when they stated "no agreement". But they did not ! At the table, both players tried to explain the bidding, but gave completely opposite answers. In the Committee, they stated that this was because they had failed to discuss the matter beforehand. It is my opinion that we gave the penalty for that. I may be wrong and I may have misunderstood the intention of my colleagues. Anyway, what would be the reason for giving a PP for misinformation? Now that is one penalty I don't like. We adjust scores for misinformation. (as we in fact would have done in appeal 25 were it not for some bad bidding by opponents). But maybe I am wrong a second time, and the other members of the AC did not give the PP for not having agreements, but for the simple fact of different explanations. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 22 23:20:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:20:46 +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 XAA18088 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:20:39 +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 JAA07810 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:33:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990722091958.006a2668@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:19:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements In-Reply-To: <378B151A.6B5DDF24@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19990711150527.0071c2b8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990712135214.007136cc@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:29 PM 7/13/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> I may not understand it either, but I am under the impression that it means >> agreeing to play a conventional sequence without making agreements as to >> the meanings of the possible follow-up actions. My understanding is that >> the penalty being discussed was levied for exactly that. > >If that is the definition, then yes, this is convention >disruption. But that is one possible definition I had never >thought of. The definition actually seems to be a bit stonger than that, at least as the term is used around here. It covers all situations in which you have agreed to play a conventional sequence but do not know the meaning of some subseqent follow-up action, whether because you have not agreed on it or because you have forgotten your agreement. Which is even more Draconian than I had imagined before I started asking around. (Of course, our TDs have been taught that "convention disruption" is not covered by the rules as things now stand.) >> >Remember that the word used in the Laws is "insufficient". >> >It is up to the TD or AC to determine what is sufficient. >> >> I entirely agree. The issue here isn't what constitutes "insufficient >> attention", but rather what constitutes "the game". IMO "the game" refers >> to the game we're playing at the table, not to whatever we may do in the >> course of our lives that pertains to the game of bridge. > >Well, again, that is not clear from the text of the Laws. It is equally unclear from the text of L74A1 whether it applies only to conduct at the event or may apply to conduct prior to arriving at the event, but I doubt that I'll ever see a TD or AC issue a penalty to a player for being nasty to his wife on the day before the event started. 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 Jul 22 23:29:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:29:34 +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 XAA18114 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:29:27 +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 JAA08510 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990722092845.006ed434@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:28:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? In-Reply-To: <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:06 AM 7/22/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >The best I can find is L73B (and A). >Yet it would not be wise to invoke L73B2 : that is downright >cheating and we would not want to use that Law. >Now read L73B1 again. A bridge Lawyer might argue that none >of the methods described in this article applies to the case >of speaking behind screens. IMO he'd simply be wrong. L73B1 prohibits communications to partner "through... explanations given". It does not limit itself to the substance of those explanations; the manner in which the explanation is given can "communicate" quite effectively by itself entirely apart from the substance. 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 Jul 23 00:14:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:14:41 +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 AAA18229 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:14:33 +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 117Jc8-000EIh-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:14:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:12:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Just checking L26 In-Reply-To: <199907220146.LAA15227@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199907220146.LAA15227@oznet15.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >The following auction occurred the other night: > South West North East > 1C pass 1H 2D > 2S 3D 3D..5C 5D > all pass > >North's insufficient cue bid of 3D, asking for a stopper, was not accepted, >and was changed to 5C. For the lead penalties on South I ruled under L26B. >Undoubtedly, 3D relates to a specified suit, so should I have ruled under >L26A2 instead? > >Cheers, > >Tony > IMO Yes. The 3D call "relates" presumably to diamonds asking for a stopper. The law does not suggest that the suit "related to" needs to be an actual "suit" I note that DWS and I disagree here chs 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 Jul 23 00:23:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:23:25 +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 AAA18275 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:23:16 +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 117JkW-000G7C-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:23:05 +0000 Message-ID: <8IkGg6B5jyl3EwKp@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:21:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? In-Reply-To: <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes Like I said 100+ posts ago Law 72B1 is the one to use. provided 1) There is an infraction 2) the offender could have known the requirements are met so "loud voice" is an infraction against the screen regulations failure to know ones system thereby giving different explanations either side of a screen is an infraction Law 74 is all about wearing deoderant, turning off your mobile phone, not screwing the proprietor's wife and not spitting on the table. chs john >Seems like a strange quesion, doesn't it ? > >Yet I have two cases where it is the core of the problem. > >Number one is the "insufficient agreement". > >You all know the case by now. A pair state in the AC that >they have no firm agreement over a simple auction. > >The AC finds that this is unacceptable. > >I'm not going any further at the moment. Unacceptable. > >Some of you have stated that they agree with this. Many >others may well also agree. So far, no-one has stated they >did not agree (always with the notion of unacceptability, >I'm not talking about the penalty - yet). >In any case, the AC in question must be the final judge as >to what constitutes unacceptable behaviour. > >A second case can be found in appeal 27. > >A player had, behind screens, explained a double in a loud >voice. >These facts were not relevant to the rest of the appeal, and >so the AC decided to instruct the Director to investigate >further and award a penalty if he deemed necessary. >The words of the AC : "the Committee found the alleged facts >disturbing". > >Again I doubt if few would argue that such behaviour is >unacceptable. > >Which leads me to my question : is this punishable. > >We want to apply procedural penalties, and thus we must read >L90A: >"The Director ... may also assess penalties for any offense >that ... >- unduly delays or obstructs the game, >- inconveniences other contestants, >- violates correct procedure, or >- requires the award of an adjusted score at another table" >(new indentation mine) > >OK, there are two elements here : > >The second is part of my indentation. >We can safely say that both examples above violate one or >more of these four points : the first case inconveniences >the opponents, the second case violates correct procedure. > >But there is a first element : > >There must be an "offense". > >Which is (or should be) at the core of our discussion around >Appeal 25. > >Consider that we are unable to agree on the fact that >"insufficient agreements" violates Law 74B1. Neither do we >find another Law (or regulation) that seems to be violated. >Which is why many of you find the penalty in appeal 25 >wrong. > >Now consider appeal 27 : which offense was committed ? >Speaking behind screens is not covered in the Laws, and the >regulations only state that all explanations should be >written. Yet many explanations are given by hand signalsn, >nods, raised eyebrows, or by muted voice and whispers. None >of those lead to penalties, nor should they. The particular >"offense" that was committed here was speaking at a loud >voice, in a specific situation which might convey valuable >information to partner. > >The best I can find is L73B (and A). >Yet it would not be wise to invoke L73B2 : that is downright >cheating and we would not want to use that Law. >Now read L73B1 again. A bridge Lawyer might argue that none >of the methods described in this article applies to the case >of speaking behind screens. > >Which again prompts my question. > >If a particular form of behaviour is deemed unacceptable, >and it results in one of the four types described in L90A, >do we then really need some other law or regulation that >defines the action as an offense, before we are allowed to >award a PP ? > >Please don't reply in the sense that we cannot trust TD's or >AC's to correctly define "unacceptable". Both cases above >show that it is quite common for an AC to get the right feel >of what is acceptable or not. > -- 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 Jul 23 00:42:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:42:12 +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 AAA18333 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:42:00 +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 KAA08854 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:41:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA03807 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:41:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:41:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907221441.KAA03807@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > them [wait for it!] "cosmetic leeway"? [I like that term: I have just > invented it!] You have a brilliant (and lucrative) future in political consulting, should you need a new career. Or is that already your day job? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 01:37:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:37:50 +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 BAA18503 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:37:39 +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 AA222447843; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:37:23 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA202477842; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:37:22 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:37:13 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Just checking L26 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 BAA18505 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Laval Dubreuil] I think you were right ruling under Law 26B. Law 26A reads "If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits and 1. Suit Specified if that suit was specified by the same player, there is no lead penalty, but see Law 16C." "Related to a specific suit" should have been more clear but I think means "a call (natural or conventionnal) showing that suit in hand. "If that suit was specified by the same player" reinforces my perception. Law 26A should apply when a defender illlegally knows his partner has one or many suits in hands. Law 26B when an illegal call shows no suit. Once again, the text is not so clear but the logic is there. Here, 3D says nothing about D in N hand but ask for a stopper in S hand. No suit specified. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City [Laval Dubreuil] The following auction occurred the other night: South West North East 1C pass 1H 2D 2S 3D 3D..5C 5D all pass North's insufficient cue bid of 3D, asking for a stopper, was not accepted, and was changed to 5C. For the lead penalties on South I ruled under L26B. Undoubtedly, 3D relates to a specified suit, so should I have ruled under L26A2 instead? Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 01:38:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:38:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA18511 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:37:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-109.uunet.be [194.7.150.109]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA14861 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 17:37:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3796F70E.52663DCB@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:48:47 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Split Scores References: <378B2434.F4CFA5D9@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have no idea how four messages of mine from the 13th of July came back to haunt us! (it was not a friday) I have deleted the messages again and will not count them in the statistics ! (can I count this one ?) Herman De Wael wrote: > > Hallo Clemens, nice to see a new name here, and welcome ! > > CLEMENS.OELKER@DLH.DE wrote: > > > > > > > This suggestion has two disadvantages: > > First, the minor one, both Pairs are penalized by a very small extra points > > (just 0.5), in addition to their bad "artificial" score. > > I name that a consequence of them playing even worse than > the opponents of their opponents (they got -500, but the > opponents of their opponents got +650 !) > > > And second, the major disadvantige results when describing your new > > scoring-method in terms of a formular. > > That is not a big disadvantage, the formulae are difficult > enough as it is, and I believe that including this version > in some regulations is no more complicated than including > the "traditional" version. > > > The solution for this has to be: > > You get 2 MP for each result you have beaten and 1 MP for each result which > > equals your own (as in common scoring), but now you have to substract 0.5 > > MP from that sum, which can be explained by "your own result has only have > > the weight, so you are handled only as have a pair". > > > So what is the result if you get an artificial BOTTOM as split score from > > the AC? Then the formular would give you a score of -0.5 on the board, which > > is also necissary to score the rest of the board correctly. This can't > > hardly be fair, can it? > > > > Very well, Clemens, you spotted it. > I had deliberately included both a +850 and a -800 to avoid > this seeming irregularity. > But I don't believe it is a problem. These pairs have > played worse than some others, and should get less points. > The fact that less than 0 is negative is a consequence of > the counting system, to which I have given an alternative, > if needed. > But there are other cases in which a negative score can > arise, well within currently accepted regulations. > > > And the last comment on your suggestion: the fact that some scores are > > influenced by 2 MP from other results at the same board isn't a fault, > > that's just the principle of scoring!!! > > > > But the fact that NS scores are influenced and EW are not, > is a fault IMO. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 01:38:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:38:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA18517 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:38:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA25066 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:37:30 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:37 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements 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: <3.0.1.32.19990722091958.006a2668@pop.cais.com> Eric Landau wrote: > It is equally unclear from the text of L74A1 whether it applies only to > conduct at the event or may apply to conduct prior to arriving at the > event, but I doubt that I'll ever see a TD or AC issue a penalty to a > player for being nasty to his wife on the day before the event started. My wife might suggest that attending an event (instead of spending the weekend with her) is, in itself, sufficient grounds for a PP. On a more serious note I could see a penalty being issued to the captain of a Gold Cup team who was outrageously rude while trying to organise a match. What would happen if a host hotel provided evidence of a player severely abusing one of their staff when making a room booking? Perhaps these cases would be handled outside the laws, maybe L74A1 would be used. Indeed I would have more sympathy with a PP in Herman's case based on - The AC has determined that starting play at a tournament of this stature without discussing basic bidding sequences is "taking an action that might...interfere with the enjoyment of the game." under the reasonable expectations of L74a2. I'm still not sure I would agree with their judgement that this particular sequence was basic enough, and common enough, to be in breach but I wouldn't quibble if a seasoned pair hadn't agreed what 2C meant in response to 1NT. (I'd expect even a pickup partnership to have an agreement on the 1NT range except in the most exceptional circumstances). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 01:44:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:44:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA18552 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:44:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117L1I-0003iw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 17:44:28 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA49B3 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 17:43:34 +0200 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl ([192.168.17.19]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAK242F for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:48:14 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 1123o5-000713-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 04:21:02 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:35:51 +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 LAA10345 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:35:44 +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 112366-000118-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 01:35:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 01:42:32 +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 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >+++++ We are *all* to blame for the chaos in the practice of law in >world bridge. It is no good slating the ACBL or the EBL or anyone >else for their divergence. The straight truth is that the one thing >Edgar would never do was to stand up to a Zone (or for that matter >to his colleagues at the top of the WBF pyramid) and say 'you cannot >do that' AND dog it out until he won. And the rest of us let it >happen because Edgar was such a towering figure that it would have >taken the united strength of all to demand it of him - and we were >never quite that united. > Now we have to use all our persuasive skills, every art of >diplomacy and compromise, in the effort to bring the fleet back onto >a single course. The need has been asserted, what we do not know is >whether the captains are large enough to overcome pride and >preconception and so achieve, or whether they will dig trenches in >the ocean. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ Why is it desirable that we resolve the differences? I know that people have asserted that it is desirable, and it sounds correct, but I wonder if it is really such a good idea. There are not really that many differences where the Laws are concerned. Regulations are a different matter: presumably they will continue to differ, though where the line should be drawn between Laws and Regulations is a question. But I am not sure that I see why it is that bad that [for example] Europe and North America have a different interpretation of a Logical Alternative. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 02:11:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 02:11:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18775 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 02:11:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117LR4-0004He-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:11:06 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA367C for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:10:11 +0200 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl ([192.168.17.19]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAB315C for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:52:36 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 1122Vo-0000Hc-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 02:58:05 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:27:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10058 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:27:17 +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 11221p-0004UJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 00:27:07 +0000 Message-ID: <1JOWG0Ac51g3EwSK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:04:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- References: <199907061416.KAA19854@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00e101bec7de$06c51900$f5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00e101bec7de$06c51900$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> I can think of another rationale. A villain is playing happily >along >> when Meckwell (or another top pair) sit down at his table. They are >> probably having a 70% game in an average field. "What to do?" he >> thinks. "I know... I'll foul the boards and take 40%. That may not >be >> great, but at least it will beat what I probably would have gotten >if >> we had played the boards." >> >> The ACBL rule removes any possible benefit from the above ploy. >That >> is not to say the rule is wise or fair or correct, but it's not >> ridiculous either. >I'm getting that *deja vue* feeling all over again. Steve made this >point a while back, on rgb I think, but I forgot about it. I very much >doubt that this is what the LC had in mind, but it's possible. > >Legislating against the possibility of gross cheating by creating such >a gross rule is indeed neither wise nor fair nor correct. I thought everyone would like to know that Quango and I are in total agreement with Marvin on this. I think, Steve, that we might manage to find another rule to deal with this pair. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 02:32:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 02:32:33 +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 CAA18822 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 02:32:24 +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 117LlX-0006aF-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:32:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 17:08:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Just checking L26 References: <199907220146.LAA15227@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <199907220146.LAA15227@oznet15.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove > writes >>The following auction occurred the other night: >> South West North East >> 1C pass 1H 2D >> 2S 3D 3D..5C 5D >> all pass >> >>North's insufficient cue bid of 3D, asking for a stopper, was not accepted, >>and was changed to 5C. For the lead penalties on South I ruled under L26B. >>Undoubtedly, 3D relates to a specified suit, so should I have ruled under >>L26A2 instead? >> >>Cheers, >> >>Tony >> >IMO Yes. The 3D call "relates" presumably to diamonds asking for a >stopper. The law does not suggest that the suit "related to" needs to be >an actual "suit" > >I note that DWS and I disagree here Primarily over the meaning of 3D. it never occurred to me as a stopper ask but as a general force. I think you are right *if* it specifically asks for a diamond stopper, and I am right otherwise. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 02:51:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 02:51:21 +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 CAA18860 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 02:51:11 +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 JAA20079; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:50:31 -0700 Message-Id: <199907221650.JAA20079@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Just checking L26 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Jul 1999 17:08:24 PDT." Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:50:31 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >In article <199907220146.LAA15227@oznet15.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove > > writes > >>The following auction occurred the other night: > >> South West North East > >> 1C pass 1H 2D > >> 2S 3D 3D..5C 5D > >> all pass > >> > >>North's insufficient cue bid of 3D, asking for a stopper, was not accepted, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>and was changed to 5C. For the lead penalties on South I ruled under L26B. > >>Undoubtedly, 3D relates to a specified suit, so should I have ruled under > >>L26A2 instead? > >> > >>Cheers, > >> > >>Tony > >> > >IMO Yes. The 3D call "relates" presumably to diamonds asking for a > >stopper. The law does not suggest that the suit "related to" needs to be > >an actual "suit" > > > >I note that DWS and I disagree here > > Primarily over the meaning of 3D. it never occurred to me as a > stopper ask but as a general force. I think you are right *if* it > specifically asks for a diamond stopper, and I am right otherwise. Now I'm confused---didn't Tony say 3D specifically asked for a diamond stopper? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 03:43:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:43:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA19148 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:43:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117Ms8-0004wL-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:43:08 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA568A for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:42:11 +0200 Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl ([192.168.18.20]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAE2385 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:41:45 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp2.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112EFJ-0005fI-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:29:50 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA12787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:35:21 +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 WAA12780 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:35:13 +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 IAA00532 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 08:47:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990708083450.007146ac@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 08:34:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI In-Reply-To: <37834B1C.C3D2ADD4@village.uunet.be> References: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00f101bec7e0$d67bec80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:42 PM 7/7/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >It is easy to argue that someone who botches up 5HX would >play more at ease in 4H. >Thus the actual play is in some way affected by the >infraction. Easy to argue, but opens up a can of worms. Ultimately, it would mean that the NOs in adjustment situations will always be deemed to have played perfectly -- it's a hell of a lot easier to find the right play in a post-mortem in front of an AC than it is at the table. Of course, if the AC believes that there is some "bridge reason" why the NO might have played differently in 4H, they should give them the benefit of the doubt and award whatever additional tricks they might have made. But I'm not sympathetic to an NO who claims he would have played better absent the infraction for purely psychological reasons ("I misplayed because having the director at the table [or being doubled, or whatever] made me nervous, and would have found the right play otherwise"). 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 Jul 23 04:23:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:17 +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 DAA18935 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-199.uunet.be [194.7.150.199]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA22536 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:09:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <379743A3.CA87DE20@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:15:31 +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: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? References: <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As usual, one post of David's requires several answers of mine : David Stevenson wrote: > > > I do not think that describing something as unacceptable is sufficient > because the term means different things to different people. Some > people find it unacceptable to play bridge against players wearing a T- > shirt and jeans, others don't, and CoC often include a dress code. An > AC would be expected to follow the CoC even if, as people, they found > the players' dress unacceptable. > And you don't think that even without a dress code, it would be unacceptable to play in the nude ? As you say, some people have different notions of unacceptability. That is why there is more than one member on any AC. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 05:07:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 05:07:42 +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 FAA19432 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 05:07:30 +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 PAA18866 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:07:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA04165 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:07:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907221907.PAA04165@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Any title you like or Book on Movements (and very nasty question) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > "North/South fined half a VP for different explanation in a > simple auction" > > reflect in a correct way the findings of the Committee. > I have since conversed with Jens Auken on the matter and he > confirms that this is the official text from the Committee. ... > At the table, both players tried to explain the bidding, but > gave completely opposite answers. > In the Committee, they stated that this was because they had > failed to discuss the matter beforehand. > It is my opinion that we gave the penalty for that. > I may be wrong and I may have misunderstood the intention of > my colleagues. You might confer with Jens about the law number. I think most of us here on BLML would consider L75A or L40B or the CoC section requiring disclosure of agreements to be adequate basis for a fine. L74B1 is much more controversial, as we have seen. It probably is worth taking the trouble to make sure the writeup reflects the real reasoning of the AC. As others have emphasized, this is what readers of the cases will want to know. I suppose it's possible that some members used one reason and others a different one. If so, it would be good if the writeup reflected that, but it may be too hard to poll all the members. [In another message:] > A player had, behind screens, explained a double in a loud > voice. ... > Speaking behind screens is not covered in the Laws, and the > regulations only state that all explanations should be > written. "only?!" > Yet many explanations are given by hand signalsn, > nods, raised eyebrows, or by muted voice and whispers. None > of those lead to penalties, nor should they. They are violations. If the event organizers don't intend to enforce the CoC, why write them? Or if the above are acceptable, why not say so in the CoC? Put in "by agreement of the players on one side of the screen" if you like. But if the CoC require written explanations, the above are violations. > The particular > "offense" that was committed here was speaking at a loud > voice, in a specific situation which might convey valuable > information to partner. > > The best I can find is L73B (and A). > Yet it would not be wise to invoke L73B2 : that is downright > cheating and we would not want to use that Law. > Now read L73B1 again. A bridge Lawyer might argue that none > of the methods described in this article applies to the case > of speaking behind screens. I hope that's an argument the BL would lose, as Eric (I think) said. Also, L73A2 "special emphasis" could cover the matter. But the real violation is of the CoC language requiring written, not oral, explanations. Perhaps screen regulations need a written statement that the most serious violations are ones that improperly transmit information to the other side of the screen, but really this should be obvious. An oral explanation in a whisper is a violation but a mild one. A loud oral explanation is a serious violation. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 05:23:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:25:34 +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 DAA19036 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:25:19 +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 NAA15386 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:25:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA04018 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:25:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907221725.NAA04018@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Just checking L26 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > North's insufficient cue bid of 3D, asking for a stopper, We need to be clear on the facts here. Does 3D specifically ask for a diamond stopper and nothing else? Or does it say "I have a good hand, likely with no diamond stopper myself. Do something intelligent." Of course bridge logic tells us that in the latter case, partner will normally look first for a diamond stopper (Hamman's rule), but it isn't a command. I would expect most pairs to play the second meaning. If it's the first meaning, I'd use L26A. If the second, L26B. Maybe this is too subtle. > From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA > Here, 3D says nothing about D in N hand but ask for a stopper > in S hand. No suit specified. The test is whether the withdrawn call "related to" a specific suit, not whether it "shows values" in a specific suit. A call seeking a diamond stopper "specifies" diamonds even though it doesn't show (and generally denies) values there. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 05:32:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 05:32:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA19547 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 05:32:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA00904; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:31:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-18.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.50) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma000848; Thu Jul 22 14:30:45 1999 Message-ID: <007a01bed479$230ae340$32b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: establishment Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:33:53 -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 I am willing to live with the difference over "having no spades partner", I think not delimiting the definition of logical alternative is...well, not logical. To allow free reign to define as an infraction with ethical implications the selection of an alternative that no one would actually adopt in our venue whilst it would require that three players in ten to be expected to adopt it in yours (with row mostly one in 4) is such a sea change in the appication of the Law as to fundamentally change the nature of the game in my view. Somehow we managed quite well when the 1 in 4 rule was universal. ((Or shall we allow zones to deterrmine that weak 2's, multi and mini no trumps are illegal despite 40A and the wishes of those who would play such? What next...will Stayman and Jacoby be banned? Oops...that's been done, hasn't it!)) I would much prefer delimiting the variance in a game that is more and more being played across international boundaries, especially online. My last three partners have been from New Zealand, Austria, and California. Had opps in those games from Poland, Canada, UK, France and China. Significant differences in the regulation of the game may seriously hamper the development of serious competition even when the problems of providing a director and prevention of cheating are solved. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, July 22, 1999 11:44 AM Subject: Re: establishment > >Grattan wrote: > >>+++++ We are *all* to blame for the chaos in the practice of law in >>world bridge. It is no good slating the ACBL or the EBL or anyone >>else for their divergence. The straight truth is that the one thing >>Edgar would never do was to stand up to a Zone (or for that matter >>to his colleagues at the top of the WBF pyramid) and say 'you cannot >>do that' AND dog it out until he won. And the rest of us let it >>happen because Edgar was such a towering figure that it would have >>taken the united strength of all to demand it of him - and we were >>never quite that united. >> Now we have to use all our persuasive skills, every art of >>diplomacy and compromise, in the effort to bring the fleet back onto >>a single course. The need has been asserted, what we do not know is >>whether the captains are large enough to overcome pride and >>preconception and so achieve, or whether they will dig trenches in >>the ocean. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ > > Why is it desirable that we resolve the differences? I know that >people have asserted that it is desirable, and it sounds correct, but I >wonder if it is really such a good idea. > > There are not really that many differences where the Laws are >concerned. Regulations are a different matter: presumably they will >continue to differ, though where the line should be drawn between Laws >and Regulations is a question. > > But I am not sure that I see why it is that bad that [for example] >Europe and North America have a different interpretation of a Logical >Alternative. > >-- >David Stevenson > >Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: >http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 05:39:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA19576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 05:39:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA19571 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 05:39:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA02055 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:38:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-18.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.50) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002006; Thu Jul 22 14:38:19 1999 Message-ID: <007f01bed47a$3185bf20$32b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:41:27 -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 It depends on the venue. In a nudist colony or on certain French or Brazilian beaches I would suspect no one would be offended and it would be quite acceptable. In fact nudity might be de rigeur in such a setting...rather a CoC, or a legitimate option to grant to the SO. On the other hand playing with a 50 card deck, having a concealed partnership understanding or loudly berating partner or opponents would be wrong in any venue and should be covered generally under the laws. -- Craig Senior >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> I do not think that describing something as unacceptable is sufficient >> because the term means different things to different people. Some >> people find it unacceptable to play bridge against players wearing a T- >> shirt and jeans, others don't, and CoC often include a dress code. An >> AC would be expected to follow the CoC even if, as people, they found >> the players' dress unacceptable. >> > >And you don't think that even without a dress code, it would >be unacceptable to play in the nude ? > >As you say, some people have different notions of >unacceptability. That is why there is more than one member >on any AC. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 06:03:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 06:03:19 +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 GAA19644 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 06:03:09 +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 QAA20738 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA04252 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:03:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:03:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907222003.QAA04252@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: "Craig Senior" > Somehow we managed quite well when the 1 in 4 rule was universal. I'm not sure if our difference is over 'we' or 'well', but some of us managed very badly indeed under the 1 in 4 rule. I suspect that may be why the rule was changed. In principle, I would prefer this sort of rule to be universal, but not at the expense of putting up with constant, unredressed use of UI. If Craig never saw that where he plays, I envy him. (And where might that be? I expect I'd like it there.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 06:14:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA18963 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-199.uunet.be [194.7.150.199]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA22572 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:10:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <379748BE.F465B889@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:37:18 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? References: <8IkGg6B5jyl3EwKp@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: > > Like I said 100+ posts ago > > Law 72B1 is the one to use. > > provided > > 1) There is an infraction > > 2) the offender could have known > > the requirements are met > > so "loud voice" is an infraction against the screen regulations > Is it ? OK, I'll allow this one. 2) OK, But there is a third requirement : the opponents must be damaged ! We're talking PP's here, and we need L90 for that one ! L72B1 won't help us here. I want to give a PP !!! > failure to know ones system thereby giving different explanations either > side of a screen is an infraction > > Law 74 is all about wearing deoderant, turning off your mobile phone, > not screwing the proprietor's wife and not spitting on the table. > This is not the correct thread to deal with all of these, but could you please tell me where I can find the Laws that allow me to award PP's for any of these (except the mobile phone, that one was in the Malta regulations) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 06:23:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:11 +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 DAA18925 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:09:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-199.uunet.be [194.7.150.199]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA22525 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:09:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <379742EB.EF2EA5BB@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:12:27 +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: Just checking L26 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > >Undoubtedly, 3D relates to a specified suit, so should I have ruled under > >L26A2 instead? > > > >Cheers, > > > >Tony > > > IMO Yes. The 3D call "relates" presumably to diamonds asking for a > stopper. The law does not suggest that the suit "related to" needs to be > an actual "suit" > > I note that DWS and I disagree here > Whereas David Stevenson wrote: > > > I believe you were right. "Related to a specific suit" means in > effect that it showed something in that suit, as a natural bid of 2H or > a transfer of 2D: both relate to hearts. In the case of a bid of the > oppos' suit, I do not see it relates to that suit in the same way, so I > would agree to treat it as a L26B case. Isn't it nice to see that you don't need me to start an argument ? FWIW, I'm on David 's side. L26A : "..if the withdrawn call related to a specified suit.." I regard the word "related" as referring to transfers, but I feel that the word "specified" means that the suit exists. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 06:25:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 06:25:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA19711 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 06:24:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from castor.cc.umanitoba.ca (wolkb@castor.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.20]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id PAA24290 ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:24:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from wolkb@localhost) by castor.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) id PAA11325 ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:24:15 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:24:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Barry Wolk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: Split Scores Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > I have no idea how four messages of mine from the 13th of > July came back to haunt us! (it was not a friday) > > I have deleted the messages again and will not count them in > the statistics ! (can I count this one ?) There were reposts of several other old messages in today's mail. I've collected the following headers. All the other messages had current dates, either July 21 or 22. Markus, what's going on? >>> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:34:12 +0200 From: Herman De Wael Subject: Re: Split Scores Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:18:32 +0200 From: Herman De Wael Subject: Re: Malta Appeals Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:29:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael Subject: Re: Obligation to have agreements Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 07:45:39 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton Subject: Re: establishment Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 01:42:32 +0100 From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: establishment Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:04:12 +0100 From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 08:34:50 -0400 From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI <<< -- Barry Wolk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 07:12:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:06 +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 DAA18921 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:09:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-199.uunet.be [194.7.150.199]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA22519 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:09:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37973D43.5E923EB1@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 17:48:19 +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: Can CoC Contravene the Laws? [was: Book on Movements, etc.] References: <3796EAD2.E8822570@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >When you are, by the nature of your appeal, already at the > >highest possible authority, there seems to me no need to be > >able to go even higher. > > So we ignore the Laws then? > > The Laws provide a three-part process. > > Are you also saying an individual AC in Malta can not make a mistake? > Obviously (as you all seem to think) it can. OK, so maybe one team was damaged because they received a penalty that they could not appeal against. But do we really want a possibility of appeal for that one ? What would be the time-frame ? OK, but this is a decision which the EBL should take. I don't think this part of the regulations has not been changed for some time. I noticed the word proprieties in there, weren't those incorporated into the Laws in 1987. Grattan, is this regulation copied from event to event for so long already ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 07:24:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA18960 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-199.uunet.be [194.7.150.199]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA22561 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:09:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <379747A4.F8A48FC8@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:32:36 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? References: <3.0.1.32.19990722092845.006ed434@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 11:06 AM 7/22/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >The best I can find is L73B (and A). > >Yet it would not be wise to invoke L73B2 : that is downright > >cheating and we would not want to use that Law. > >Now read L73B1 again. A bridge Lawyer might argue that none > >of the methods described in this article applies to the case > >of speaking behind screens. > > IMO he'd simply be wrong. L73B1 prohibits communications to partner > "through... explanations given". It does not limit itself to the substance > of those explanations; the manner in which the explanation is given can > "communicate" quite effectively by itself entirely apart from the substance. > The manner in which the explanation is given does not appear in the letter of L73B1. The manner of play and call does, but the manner of explanation does not. I am being deliberately bridge lawyering in order to get a point accross, I am not advocating that this is not an offense, I am only saying what a bridge lawyer might respond to Eric. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 07:32:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 06:44:52 +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 GAA19766 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 06:44:32 +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 NAA24282; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:43:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199907222043.NAA24282@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Just checking L26 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:12:27 PDT." <379742EB.EF2EA5BB@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:43:44 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > I regard the word "related" as referring to transfers, but I > feel that the word "specified" means that the suit exists. I don't know what you mean by "the suit exists". If you mean that the suit exists in the deck, you're right; Law 26A does not apply to a conventional bid that relates to hippogriffs. If you think "specified suit" means "suit that the offender has values in", or "suit that exists in the offender's hand", or something like that, that's just a misunderstanding of the word "specified". The word basically means "named explicitly", and I think it's here to distinguish it from calls that related to unspecified suits (such as a 2C overcall of 1NT to show an unspecified one-suiter, or a double jump shift to show a void in an unspecified suit). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 08:08:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:32 +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 DAA18951 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-199.uunet.be [194.7.150.199]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA22555 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:09:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37974706.F5B43E0D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:29:58 +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: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? References: <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk and finally ... David Stevenson wrote: > > > Yes, we do. We have Rules as to what is permitted, and we should not > penalise someone for doing something which a particular group thinks is > wrong if they have no evidence that the whole community does. In the > case of convention disruption and similar practices there are differing > views and therefore to be illegal it needs a CoC. > We are not talking about Convention disruption. We are talking about something which an AC finds unacceptable, and for which there is absolutely no evidence that anyone but a small minority disagree. I know what you are trying to say : If a particular 5 people find psyching unacceptable, and they happen to be together on the AC, then they could rule against it if they so wish. All I can answer to that one is that the SO who selected those 5 people would need its head examined. And that the AC decision would be wrong. I believe that without a positive answer to the question in the heading, an AC is hampered more by the sometimes loose wording of the Laws, than if they have the authority to pass loosely over the word "offense" in L90A. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 08:09:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:09:41 +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 IAA19902 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:09:34 +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 ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:10:01 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <379743A3.CA87DE20@village.uunet.be> References: <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:03:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:15 PM -0400 7/22/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >And you don't think that even without a dress code, it would >be unacceptable to play in the nude ? Depends who's doing 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/AwUBN5eWk72UW3au93vOEQLWOwCfX0B4kqWJf2qHKnvRC0M/kSyOuZcAn3Pg ZdEnv1qv1/fY/OA1EwGxQEj0 =bWJd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 08:22:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:22:18 +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 IAA19939 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:22:10 +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 117RDn-0004IS-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:21:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:11:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Just checking L26 References: <199907221650.JAA20079@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199907221650.JAA20079@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >In article <199907220146.LAA15227@oznet15.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove >> > writes >> >>The following auction occurred the other night: >> >> South West North East >> >> 1C pass 1H 2D >> >> 2S 3D 3D..5C 5D >> >> all pass >> >> >> >>North's insufficient cue bid of 3D, asking for a stopper, was not accepted, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>and was changed to 5C. For the lead penalties on South I ruled under L26B. >> >>Undoubtedly, 3D relates to a specified suit, so should I have ruled under >> >>L26A2 instead? >> >> >> >>Cheers, >> >> >> >>Tony >> >> >> >IMO Yes. The 3D call "relates" presumably to diamonds asking for a >> >stopper. The law does not suggest that the suit "related to" needs to be >> >an actual "suit" >> > >> >I note that DWS and I disagree here >> >> Primarily over the meaning of 3D. it never occurred to me as a >> stopper ask but as a general force. I think you are right *if* it >> specifically asks for a diamond stopper, and I am right otherwise. > >Now I'm confused---didn't Tony say 3D specifically asked for a diamond >stopper? It seems within the bounds of possibility that I have made a mistake. Ok, L26A, sorry for not reading the question carefully. -- 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 Jul 23 08:22:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:22:16 +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 IAA19938 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:22:08 +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 117RDj-0004IT-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:21:45 +0000 Message-ID: <5AuKF5Aqj5l3Ew6e@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:19:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Any title you like or Book on Movements (and very nasty question) References: <199907221907.PAA04165@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907221907.PAA04165@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> In the Committee, they stated that this was because they had >> failed to discuss the matter beforehand. >> It is my opinion that we gave the penalty for that. >> I may be wrong and I may have misunderstood the intention of >> my colleagues. >You might confer with Jens about the law number. I think most of us >here on BLML would consider L75A or L40B or the CoC section requiring >disclosure of agreements to be adequate basis for a fine. L74B1 is >much more controversial, as we have seen. The question is whether the fine was given for non-disclosure or for not having an agreement. I am happy that non-disclosure is illegal: I believe that a fine for not having an agreement requires a CoC that agreements are required. [s] >Perhaps screen regulations need a written statement that the most >serious violations are ones that improperly transmit information to the >other side of the screen, but really this should be obvious. An oral >explanation in a whisper is a violation but a mild one. A loud oral >explanation is a serious violation. No, they do not need such a statement. The difference is that an AC should not be giving a fine for something that is not known to be illegal. However, where there is a CoC that has been breached, then it is suitable for an AC to decide how bad the breach 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 Fri Jul 23 08:23:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:26 +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 DAA18943 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-199.uunet.be [194.7.150.199]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA22542 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:09:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37974484.BA14EDBD@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:19:16 +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: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? References: <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As usual, etc... David Stevenson wrote: > > > >A second case can be found in appeal 27. > > > >A player had, behind screens, explained a double in a loud > >voice. > >These facts were not relevant to the rest of the appeal, and > >so the AC decided to instruct the Director to investigate > >further and award a penalty if he deemed necessary. > >The words of the AC : "the Committee found the alleged facts > >disturbing". > > > >Again I doubt if few would argue that such behaviour is > >unacceptable. > > > >Which leads me to my question : is this punishable. > > This one is, of course, punishable: there is a procedure and they > failed to follow it. Violations of procedure are specifically mentioned > in L90 - in fact you quote that below. > No, no, no ... This is exactly what my post was aimed at. It is not sufficient that there be a violation of procedure, or any of the four possibilities, for there to be a possibility of a PP. There also needs to be an "offense". Now of course, a violation of procedure is always an offense (or may be considered as such), but it is not sufficient to say "L90A" to warrant a PP, you also have to mention the offense, or in this case the violation of procedure. My question stands ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 08:37:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:37:33 +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 IAA19990 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:37:22 +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 SAA26444 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:37:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA04456 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:37:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907222237.SAA04456@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > The manner in which the explanation is given does not appear > in the letter of L73B1. Right. For explanations, _both_ the content and the manner are forbidden to be used as means of communication. > The manner of play and call does, Right. The content of plays and calls is a legal means of communication. Only the manner is illegal. > I am only saying what a bridge lawyer might respond to Eric. Not a strong argument, I'm afraid. We keep the deposit. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 09:19:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:30 +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 DAA18945 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:10:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-199.uunet.be [194.7.150.199]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA22548 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 19:09:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37974594.76C555D0@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:23:48 +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: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? References: <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk and again ... David Stevenson wrote: > > > >Now consider appeal 27 : which offense was committed ? > >Speaking behind screens is not covered in the Laws, and the > >regulations only state that all explanations should be > >written. Yet many explanations are given by hand signalsn, > >nods, raised eyebrows, or by muted voice and whispers. None > >of those lead to penalties, nor should they. The particular > >"offense" that was committed here was speaking at a loud > >voice, in a specific situation which might convey valuable > >information to partner. > > What do you mean, "the regulations only state that all explanations > should be written"? That is the regulation, failure to follow the > regulation is a violation of procedure, there is your infraction. > OK, but if that is true, then there were not may matches in Malta that should not have ended with any team still on positive VP's. This regulation is quite often broken. If that is all it needs, then the same PP should be given as usual, namely 0VP. It is the particular fact of how the regulation is broken (speaking loud enough so that the other side of the screen can hear, in a potentially delicate position) which constituted the "offense" in this case. In fact the player did not deny to have spoken, but he denied it was loud enough for the other side to hear. And yet the TD did not hand out a penalty even after the AC asked him to re-examine the case. My question stands ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 09:41:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:22:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA19015 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:22:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA11269; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:21:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-18.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.50) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011236; Thu Jul 22 12:20:56 1999 Message-ID: <002401bed466$ffb112a0$32b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:24:01 -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 find it difficult to divorce ourselves from the question of apparent intent when deciding whether a procedural penalty should be simply admonitory or involve penalty. Let us stipulate for purposes of argument that not having an agreement on a sequence is "unacceptable". Surely it makes a difference if there is an intent to use the concept of "no agreement" as a device to withhold implicit partnership agreements from the opponents or if the pair has just been careless and not fully discussed one or more of the possible sequences that arise rarely in their system to the effect that they have differing or even opposite impressions of the meaning of the sequence. In the first case you have an intent to deceive improperly, and a penalty appears warranted (as well as some possible investigatiion into conduct and ethics). In the latter case you have clearly unintended befuddlement that in the majority of cases will redound to the benefit of the opponents. Penalty would be "silly" in such an instance (to use your word :-)). In the case of loud intemperate speech, again we have a range of possibilities. It could be done intentionally either to improperly pass information and/or discomfit and annoy the opponents. Throw the book at the bums. Or it may have been blurted out without thinking. How about a warning this time (plus of course redress under Law 16 if there is resulting UI damage). It is much the same as letting an expletive slip out (as in oh s--- at Vancouver) or regularly and obnoxiously using foul language. You make allowances for an occasional expletive not deleted in the heat of the moment; you penalise or disqualify the habitual guttermouth. One hates to put the TD (or A/c) back into the mind reading business. But in many cases, on the scene and interviewing those involved it is not so difficult to determine which category of offence is involved. If in doubt, don't penalise, but warn and be on the lookout in future. The persistent intentional offender will in time be hoist by his own petard. I do not think we need any new Law to permit penalty for unacceptable behaviour. Law 90A can be interpreted broadly enough to cover almost any case that warrants this. I think it is more important to exercise intelligent discretion in administering such penalties. While we must deter the "operators" and "sharpies" we must not drive the unwitting offenders away from the game or tar them with the same brush that marks their unethical counterparts. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Thursday, July 22, 1999 5:41 AM Subject: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? >Seems like a strange quesion, doesn't it ? > >Yet I have two cases where it is the core of the problem. > >Number one is the "insufficient agreement". > >You all know the case by now. A pair state in the AC that >they have no firm agreement over a simple auction. > >The AC finds that this is unacceptable. > >I'm not going any further at the moment. Unacceptable. > >Some of you have stated that they agree with this. Many >others may well also agree. So far, no-one has stated they >did not agree (always with the notion of unacceptability, >I'm not talking about the penalty - yet). >In any case, the AC in question must be the final judge as >to what constitutes unacceptable behaviour. > >A second case can be found in appeal 27. > >A player had, behind screens, explained a double in a loud >voice. >These facts were not relevant to the rest of the appeal, and >so the AC decided to instruct the Director to investigate >further and award a penalty if he deemed necessary. >The words of the AC : "the Committee found the alleged facts >disturbing". > >Again I doubt if few would argue that such behaviour is >unacceptable. > >Which leads me to my question : is this punishable. > >We want to apply procedural penalties, and thus we must read >L90A: >"The Director ... may also assess penalties for any offense >that ... >- unduly delays or obstructs the game, >- inconveniences other contestants, >- violates correct procedure, or >- requires the award of an adjusted score at another table" >(new indentation mine) > >OK, there are two elements here : > >The second is part of my indentation. >We can safely say that both examples above violate one or >more of these four points : the first case inconveniences >the opponents, the second case violates correct procedure. > >But there is a first element : > >There must be an "offense". > >Which is (or should be) at the core of our discussion around >Appeal 25. > >Consider that we are unable to agree on the fact that >"insufficient agreements" violates Law 74B1. Neither do we >find another Law (or regulation) that seems to be violated. >Which is why many of you find the penalty in appeal 25 >wrong. > >Now consider appeal 27 : which offense was committed ? >Speaking behind screens is not covered in the Laws, and the >regulations only state that all explanations should be >written. Yet many explanations are given by hand signalsn, >nods, raised eyebrows, or by muted voice and whispers. None >of those lead to penalties, nor should they. The particular >"offense" that was committed here was speaking at a loud >voice, in a specific situation which might convey valuable >information to partner. > >The best I can find is L73B (and A). >Yet it would not be wise to invoke L73B2 : that is downright >cheating and we would not want to use that Law. >Now read L73B1 again. A bridge Lawyer might argue that none >of the methods described in this article applies to the case >of speaking behind screens. > >Which again prompts my question. > >If a particular form of behaviour is deemed unacceptable, >and it results in one of the four types described in L90A, >do we then really need some other law or regulation that >defines the action as an offense, before we are allowed to >award a PP ? > >Please don't reply in the sense that we cannot trust TD's or >AC's to correctly define "unacceptable". Both cases above >show that it is quite common for an AC to get the right feel >of what is acceptable or not. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 10:11:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:11:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20173 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:11:16 +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 117Sva-000CNo-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:11:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:05:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Just checking L26 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 <199907220146.LAA15227@oznet15.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove >> writes >>>The following auction occurred the other night: >>> South West North East >>> 1C pass 1H 2D >>> 2S 3D 3D..5C 5D >>> all pass >>> >>>North's insufficient cue bid of 3D, asking for a stopper, was not accepted, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>and was changed to 5C. For the lead penalties on South I ruled under L26B. >>>Undoubtedly, 3D relates to a specified suit, so should I have ruled under >>>L26A2 instead? >>> >>>Cheers, >>> >>>Tony >>> >>IMO Yes. The 3D call "relates" presumably to diamonds asking for a >>stopper. The law does not suggest that the suit "related to" needs to be >>an actual "suit" >> >>I note that DWS and I disagree here > > Primarily over the meaning of 3D. it never occurred to me as a >stopper ask but as a general force. I think you are right *if* it >specifically asks for a diamond stopper, and I am right otherwise. > Had it been a general try I would concur with your judgement. John John (MadDog) Probst "It seems within the bounds of possibility that I have made a mistake." From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 12:07:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA20383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:07:05 +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 MAA20378 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:06:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-1-21.ac.net [205.138.47.50]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id WAA26148 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:06:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907230206.WAA26148@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 21:07:02 -0700 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: NABC Casebook News In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990722084005.006e8644@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990718172702.00731fe4@pop.cais.com> <077201becff5$cd6d92c0$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <008301becee6$58a104a0$7084d9ce@host> <069901becf15$caef5d20$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >And we have... you really have rigged the formula, hoping that your readers >will (as David did) take the numbers as "percentages", which they are not. >You'd think that intelligent adults would be just as embarrassed to receive >a worst possible score of 1 as a worst possible score of 0, but David is an >intelligent adult, and was confused (as we now know, intentionally), and >I'm an intelligent adult, but had to dig out a book and look through it >carefully to convince myself that the word "percentage" never actually >appears, and Linda is an intelligent adult, but it didn't occur to her not >to agree to my (mis-) statement that "the minimum possible score is 33.3%", >so it seems as though the obfuscation accomplishes its objective. How many >readers of these books do you expect understand that if the raters agree >unanimously that a particular ruling is the worst they've ever seen, that >ruling scores 33.3, albeit not, note, 33.3%, which would be a flat-out lie? Yes, I am not reading every word carefully, I admit. I am on the road and spend very little time on my e-mail when I am at the tournament or travelling. However, it will never happen that the raters will agree unanimously on anything - we have had one 100 and have never really come close to a 33 (that I can recall). Weren't you guys ever graded on a curve in school? :-) Besides, if anything ever gets that low, I think the commentary will make it quite evident that awful work was done and the initial problem (confusion solves itself). Even the "oh s***" case isn't going to come to close to a 33 rating. You will not convince us to change how we do this - the only thing that may happen is that we will drop the numbers completely and that would be very sad for those that really need to use them. Linda Linda > >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 Jul 23 12:41:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA20472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:41:51 +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 MAA20466 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:41:44 +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 117VHC-000MbI-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 02:41:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:37:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? References: <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be> <37974484.BA14EDBD@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37974484.BA14EDBD@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >No, no, no ... > >This is exactly what my post was aimed at. It is not >sufficient that there be a violation of procedure, or any of >the four possibilities, for there to be a possibility of a >PP. There also needs to be an "offense". There is an offence: violation of a procedure is an offence. >Now of course, a violation of procedure is always an offense >(or may be considered as such), but it is not sufficient to >say "L90A" to warrant a PP, you also have to mention the >offense, or in this case the violation of procedure. Exactly. >My question stands ! You mean you want it answered again? There are procedures for play with screens, and failure to follow those procedures justifies [legally] a PP. What penalty a TD/AC gives is subject to their judgement, as is normal with any violation of procedure. -- 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 Jul 23 12:42:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA20478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:42:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20473 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:41:55 +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 117VHN-000MbM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 02:41:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:36:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? References: <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be> <37974594.76C555D0@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37974594.76C555D0@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >and again ... > >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> >Now consider appeal 27 : which offense was committed ? >> >Speaking behind screens is not covered in the Laws, and the >> >regulations only state that all explanations should be >> >written. Yet many explanations are given by hand signalsn, >> >nods, raised eyebrows, or by muted voice and whispers. None >> >of those lead to penalties, nor should they. The particular >> >"offense" that was committed here was speaking at a loud >> >voice, in a specific situation which might convey valuable >> >information to partner. >> >> What do you mean, "the regulations only state that all explanations >> should be written"? That is the regulation, failure to follow the >> regulation is a violation of procedure, there is your infraction. >> > >OK, but if that is true, then there were not may matches in >Malta that should not have ended with any team still on >positive VP's. This regulation is quite often broken. If >that is all it needs, then the same PP should be given as >usual, namely 0VP. It is the particular fact of how the >regulation is broken (speaking loud enough so that the other >side of the screen can hear, in a potentially delicate >position) which constituted the "offense" in this case. >In fact the player did not deny to have spoken, but he >denied it was loud enough for the other side to hear. And >yet the TD did not hand out a penalty even after the AC >asked him to re-examine the case. > >My question stands ! Oh, come on, Herman, you are meant to be a Tournament Director. If you are a competent Tournament Director then there are lots of violations of procedure in any session of any event that are technically subject to penalty, and in practice the Tournament Director decides in any particular case how bad they are. If you don't know this then you are not competent as a Tournament Director: in fact you do know it perfectly well, and are just being deliberately annoying. -- 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 Jul 23 14:06:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:06:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.115]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20627 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:06:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn36p09.ozemail.com.au [210.84.1.10]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA18093; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:03:53 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:03:53 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199907230403.OAA18093@oznet14.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: "John Probst" From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Just checking L26 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:05 AM 23/07/99 +0100, you wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>In article <199907220146.LAA15227@oznet15.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove >>> writes >>>>The following auction occurred the other night: >>>> South West North East >>>> 1C pass 1H 2D >>>> 2S 3D 3D..5C 5D >>>> all pass >>>> >>>>North's insufficient cue bid of 3D, asking for a stopper, was not accepted, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>and was changed to 5C. For the lead penalties on South I ruled under L26B. >>>>Undoubtedly, 3D relates to a specified suit, so should I have ruled under >>>>L26A2 instead? >>>> >>>>Cheers, >>>> >>>>Tony >>>> >>>IMO Yes. The 3D call "relates" presumably to diamonds asking for a >>>stopper. The law does not suggest that the suit "related to" needs to be >>>an actual "suit" >>> >>>I note that DWS and I disagree here >> >> Primarily over the meaning of 3D. it never occurred to me as a >>stopper ask but as a general force. I think you are right *if* it >>specifically asks for a diamond stopper, and I am right otherwise. >> >Had it been a general try I would concur with your judgement. John >John (MadDog) Probst > >"It seems within the bounds of possibility that I have made a mistake." > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 15:10:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA20714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:10:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.115]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20709 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:10:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn48p21.ozemail.com.au [210.84.2.149]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA00817 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:07:55 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:07:55 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199907230507.PAA00817@oznet14.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: Just checking L26 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk sorry, this got fouled up first time >Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:13:11 >To: "John Probst" >From: Tony Musgrove >Subject: Re: Just checking L26 > >At 01:05 AM 23/07/99 +0100, you wrote: >>In article , David Stevenson >> writes >>>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>>In article <199907220146.LAA15227@oznet15.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove >>>> writes >>>>>The following auction occurred the other night: >>>>> South West North East >>>>> 1C pass 1H 2D >>>>> 2S 3D 3D..5C 5D >>>>> all pass >>>>> >>>>>North's insufficient cue bid of 3D, asking for a stopper, was not accepted, >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>and was changed to 5C. For the lead penalties on South I ruled under L26B. >>>>>Undoubtedly, 3D relates to a specified suit, so should I have ruled under >>>>>L26A2 instead? >>>>> >>>>>Cheers, >>>>> >>>>>Tony >>>>> >>>>IMO Yes. The 3D call "relates" presumably to diamonds asking for a >>>>stopper. The law does not suggest that the suit "related to" needs to be >>>>an actual "suit" >>>> >>>>I note that DWS and I disagree here >>> >>> Primarily over the meaning of 3D. it never occurred to me as a >>>stopper ask but as a general force. I think you are right *if* it >>>specifically asks for a diamond stopper, and I am right otherwise. >>> >>Had it been a general try I would concur with your judgement. John >>John (MadDog) Probst >> >>"It seems within the bounds of possibility that I have made a mistake." >> >I thought this was going to be easy. If 3D was a general game try doesn't it refer to a specific suit (in this case the trump suit). Perhaps a better example would be a Bergen raise (insufficient) in which case it refers to a specific holding in the trump suit...so we should use 26A, No? > >What about cases where we could use a two-way cue raise, primarily to ask about a stopper, but which could later be converted to an advance cue bid agreeing trumps. Do I have to ask the player about his intention before ruling on the lead penalties? Wouldn't I then be giving away UI by saying "I am ruling under L26B because the cue bid wasn't asking for a stopper, it was just showing general values." > >Cheers, > >Tony > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 17:27:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA20995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:27:43 +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 RAA20990 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:27:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA13919; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:27:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JDWDGKSSA2000FQT@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:26:35 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GS6S0D>; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:26:35 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:26:32 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Adjustment after UI To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't know what is happening with my sophisticated electronic equipment, but for some reason this message came in once more after two weeks. Which is very convenient because I wrote a reply which never came through. Since I am still of the same opinion, what a memory I have!, I am gong to repeat it. Van: Eric Landau [mailto:elandau@cais.com] Verzonden: donderdag 8 juli 1999 14:35 Aan: Bridge Laws Discussion List Onderwerp: Re: Adjustment after UI At 02:42 PM 7/7/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >It is easy to argue that someone who botches up 5HX would >play more at ease in 4H. >Thus the actual play is in some way affected by the >infraction. Easy to argue, but opens up a can of worms. !!!!No it doesn't. We are not using this argument for the benefit of the innocent side, but to establish an adjusted score for the offenders. I don't need declarer to realise that the play could have gone otherwise in another contract. That is obvious, when I have to decide the score for the offenders. Law 12C2 tells me so. For the non-offenders I like to get this argument from them, before considering a better score. If they don't find it, why should I (this slightly depends on the level of the players, the weaker the more protection they get). And then my real bridge-judgement is involved. But isn't that our job? Everywhere once more, as I understand from more recent contributions? Good to be a TD in the next millenium. By the way, no suggestions to celebrate this amongst ourselves? Isn't the 31th of December the 5th Friday in the month? ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 18:43:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:43:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21203 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:43:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117avY-00003X-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:43:36 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA5E22 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:42:41 +0200 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl ([192.168.17.19]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAK3A75 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:47:45 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112Gc8-00013I-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:01:33 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:46:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA13357 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:45:53 +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 KAA06291 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA12078; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907081445.KAA12078@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> As far as practical bridge is concerned I do not see a problem. If >> declarer has said "Run the clubs" then when a trick is finished and >> dummy reaches for the next club, declarer will say something if he does >> not wish it to be played. Fine, that is practical, and if nothing goes >> wrong, few people argue, but it does not make it a legal way of playing >> a card. >> >+++ For what it is worth this is the note I have put on my >memory board: > " ? add to Law 45B: 'If declarer instructs dummy as to > the play of a card on a trick subsequent to the current > trick, that card is played when the previous trick has > been quitted and dummy has placed the card in the > played position.' " ~ Grattan ~ +++ > For what it is worth, I don't like this idea at all. I think it would be alot easier just to state that it is improper to say things like "run the clubs". State that bridge is played trick by trick (not including claims, of course). State that failing to follow correct procedure could result in a PP, especially if it causes the opponents a problem. In other words, I don't think we need to add a new law (set of laws?), something added between "play trick by trick" and "claim". I don't want to have to one day adjudicate someone's "partial claim". I feel we should strive for fewer and clearer Laws and regulations, not for more and denser. To paraphrase an old saying, "An ounce of principle is worth a pound of adjudication". Tony (aka ac342) ps. on a lighter note, last night I had a situation where a defender had 7 penalty cards (yes, he started to put down "dummy") in 2 suits. I knew what to do because of BLML, and nobody got upset (the players thought it was hilarious). The really funny thing: all four players we're flight A! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 19:30:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:30:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21285 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:30:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA26622; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:30:02 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:30:02 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl Reply-To: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List cc: hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Last Fifth Friday of the 19xx's In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Kooijman, A. wrote: : Good to be a TD in the next millenium. By the way, no suggestions to : celebrate this amongst ourselves? Isn't the 31th of December the 5th Friday : in the month? Perhaps we should chip in for special T-Shirt for all those participating in the Fifth Friday game on that day. signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ "We're only mammals - granted we've got guns and an attitude." -jms ] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 20:24:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA21353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:24:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA21348 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:24:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117cVK-0001Gd-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:24:38 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA1F46 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:23:43 +0200 Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl ([192.168.18.20]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAD724C for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:14:19 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp2.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112Hl8-0001U2-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:14:55 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 02:30:38 +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 CAA14010 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 02:30:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA26590 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <011501bec95f$2bd1d300$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907081513.LAA21720@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:23:52 -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: > > This topic has good things to discuss. Marvin describes the ACBL rule > as "gross," but why is that so? Why is the standard rule better? Because it does not adjust a score for the OS based on the (unrelated) performance of the NOS during the rest of the session. When we find out (if we ever do) why the LC adopted the rule, I think the "gross" adjective will stand up. If not, I'll retract it with apologies. Remember that 99.99% of players adversely affected by this rule have not committed an infraction deliberately, if that possibility is indeed the justification for the rule. > To > what extent, if at all, should rules consider the possibility of > deliberate infractions? Are there other rules that should be changed? > All of these are reasonable topics I believe the Laws assume that players are honorable and don't deliberately cheat. Writing Laws or regulations with the aim of *preventing* deliberate cheating is an impossible task. That some Laws or regulations have that side effect does not mean it is, or ought to be, a primary concern. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 20:51:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA21391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:51:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA21386 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:51:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117cuy-0001iu-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:51:08 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA750B; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:50:12 +0200 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl ([192.168.17.19]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAK4AAF for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:45:48 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112J7u-0002jy-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:42:30 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:06:29 +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 EAA14486 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:06:22 +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, 8 Jul 1999 14:07:12 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199907081513.LAA21720@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:04:54 -0400 To: Steve Willner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:13 AM -0400 7/8/99, Steve Willner wrote: >the _effect_ is that a villain will find no profit in violating >the law (with L72B1 added to catch anything that is missed). Heh. I don't know why, but this brings to mind the US Military's Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which I always translated as "and anything else you do that we don't like is also a crime." :-) 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/AwUBN4Tok72UW3au93vOEQJiDgCgqeR4HquVGyiD9kzw3C3XB4aygekAoN1g /5Jqy7K07OBh4Aoc6c/YRZ9N =2dQg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 21:14:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:14:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21442 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:14:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117dH8-00027v-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:14:02 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA4A64 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:13:06 +0200 Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl ([192.168.18.20]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAD591D for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:52:30 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp2.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112Jpc-0000vZ-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:27:41 +0200 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:38:13 +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 EAA14632 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:37:58 +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 112J3C-000EY7-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:37:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:27:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- References: <199907081513.LAA21720@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907081513.LAA21720@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> I think, Steve, that we might manage to find another rule to deal with >> this pair. >Let's just back up a minute here, shall we? > >I doubt any of us are in much disagreement about what to do with >cheaters or at least what sorts of rules to apply. > >The original question, though, was why the ACBL LC might have adopted >an odd rule for the score for average minus. I offered a possible >rationale with the disclaimer that I wasn't defending the merits of the >rule. Some people seem to have overlooked the disclaimer. I hope it >is obvious that I have no special knowledge of the actual reason the >rule was adopted. > >Nevertheless, the general point raised is worth discussing. There are >a great many Laws (nearly all of the ones dealing with irregularities, >in fact) that are written to prevent offenders gaining any advantage. >The _assumption_ throughout is that infractions are inadvertent, but >even so the _effect_ is that a villain will find no profit in violating >the law (with L72B1 added to catch anything that is missed). I think >that's a fine idea, and I see no reason regulations shouldn't have the >same characteristic as long as the result doesn't distort the game for >honest players. > >Now as to the specific regulation about average minus, no doubt >reasonable people can disagree. I still am not defending it. However, >I notice that nobody has given a good _reason_ why the ACBL regulation >is a bad idea other than that it differs from the regulation in the >rest of the world. And apart from the effect on the dishonest, isn't >the _expected_ score against a pair having a 70% game about 30%? Why >should a pair responsible for an irregularity get more than that? >After an inadvertent infraction, is giving 30% or 35% instead of 40% >for avg- really a distortion? In fact, I think one could make a case >that _avg_ against a 70%-scoring pair should be 30% with avg- being >something even less (but I won't be the one to make it!). Unless I have misunderstood, this ACBL regulation has been around for some time, pre-dating the current Law book. What do I have against it? It was illegal. The Law stated that average-minus was 40%, not less. Whatever the reason for making this regulation, it was not justifiable at the time. Now we have run into another problem: from 1997 L12C1 has changed, apparently making the ACBL's approach legal. However, the WBFLC has complicated matters by coming up with an interpretation at Lille that does not really stand up to logic [*], and now we have again the ongoing problem with how RAs are meant to act in such circumstances. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm 4: Consideration was given to the meaning of 'average minus' where used in Law 12C1. Having debated the options, the Committee held that 'average minus' means the player's session percentage or 40% whichever is the lower. If you follow the WBFLC's interpretation, then the ABCL's regulation is still illegal. However, I have sympathy for the ACBL now: this interpretation is really unnecessary: when a pair is having a less that 40% session, it is so unnecessary to penalise them further. Furthermore, if the WBFLC is correct, why is there no equivalent to L88 for 40% at Pairs? An oversight? Do you know, I like players. They are my friends. Unless they are bloody-minded, I like to make life easy for them and to keep them happy. Do they keep me happy? No, of course not, they move to the wrong table, play the wrong board, put back the wrong number of cards and then tell me that my rulings are wrong. I don't care: as a TD my job is to make them happy. I like giving NOs redress, despite several suggestions on BLML recently. I don't like issuing PPs as fines, and do so only if I have to, and I do everything to assuage the problems created - unless they are rude. When someone does something wrong, they cannot play a board, and they get average-minus. If they have any real chance of winning an event, that score is effectively 25% less than they might expect on the board. But they know that, and they accept it. Now we want to give them less than 40%. I don't care whether it is the WBFLC giving them 32% because they are having a 32% session, or the ACBL giving them 32% because their opponents are having a 68% session, both are mean-spirited approaches. The first pair is having a bad enough time anyway: the second pair has been penalised enough anyway. We will not get people to enjoy the game with this type of approach. I ask the WBFLC to amend L12C1 back to the 1987 wording, let average- minus be 40% always, tell the ACBL, and use L90 if a pair do something else on the board that is bad enough to deserve further action. [*] Why do I have doubts about the WBFLC's interpretation of L12C1? Because the printed word is clear, and it dopes not indicate in the Law book the limitations imposed by this interpretation. Also, if it was as this interpretation indicates, there would be an equivalent 40% Law to L88. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 21:27:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:27:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21474 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:27:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117dUE-0002ME-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:27:34 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA1B0 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:26:38 +0200 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl ([192.168.17.19]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA6136 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:56:16 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112Ih5-0001PR-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:14:48 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:10:37 +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 DAA14258 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:10:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-159-78.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.78]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA29153 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:10:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3784DC1E.6610E0DF@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 10:13:02 -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: Avg+ and Avg- References: <199907081513.LAA21720@cfa183.harvard.edu> <011501bec95f$2bd1d300$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > This topic has good things to discuss. Marvin describes the ACBL rule > > as "gross," but why is that so? Why is the standard rule better? > > Because it does not adjust a score for the OS based on the (unrelated) > performance of the NOS during the rest of the session. When we find out > (if we ever do) why the LC adopted the rule, I think the "gross" > adjective will stand up. If not, I'll retract it with apologies. Well, OK, I'll bite. How is this unrelated? Suppose Meckwell drops by our local sectional and runs up (unsurprisingly) a 73% game. Some of our more easily confused and frightened players accidentally drop their hand on the table, and the director rules the board unplayable; A+, A-. While the remainder of the field has an expectation against Meckwell of 27%, this pair -- entirely inadvertantly, certainly -- is suddenly raised to 40%. The NOS performance is indicative of the relative quality of the NOS game. Bridge scores, especially in one session, are certainly not close to an exact science, but if you dodged a bullet by fouling a board in some manner at the big dogs' table, why should you benefit? I could be wrong here; the other rule might be better. But if I had to vote, I would vote for the complement rule. And I don't think that's a "gross" error. --JRM > > Remember that 99.99% of players adversely affected by this rule have not > committed an infraction deliberately, if that possibility is indeed the > justification for the rule. > > > To > > what extent, if at all, should rules consider the possibility of > > deliberate infractions? Are there other rules that should be changed? > > All of these are reasonable topics > > I believe the Laws assume that players are honorable and don't > deliberately cheat. Writing Laws or regulations with the aim of > *preventing* deliberate cheating is an impossible task. That some Laws > or regulations have that side effect does not mean it is, or ought to > be, a primary concern. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 21:31:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:31:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21493 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:31:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117dYA-0002Qq-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:31:38 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAAFF8 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:30:41 +0200 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl ([192.168.17.19]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAH645F for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:58:08 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112KJM-0000fQ-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:58:24 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 05:17:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA14864 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 05:16:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id PAA25511 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:16:47 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199907081916.PAA25511@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:16:47 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <011501bec95f$2bd1d300$f5075e18@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Jul 8, 99 09:23:52 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 > From: "Marvin L. French" > Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:23:52 -0700 > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > This topic has good things to discuss. Marvin describes the ACBL rule > > as "gross," but why is that so? Why is the standard rule better? > > Because it does not adjust a score for the OS based on the (unrelated) > performance of the NOS during the rest of the session. When we find out > (if we ever do) why the LC adopted the rule, I think the "gross" > adjective will stand up. If not, I'll retract it with apologies. > > Remember that 99.99% of players adversely affected by this rule have not > committed an infraction deliberately, if that possibility is indeed the > justification for the rule. > I too agree that the ACBL current policy of basing the OS result on the NOS result is incorrect. Each side should have their case decided separately on the merits of the case than to have it based on the ruling for the other side. So in each case of UI or similar problems, I first rule on the OS case and afterwards decided on the NOS side case and each is distinct. If that is the case, why should the decision of results based on A+ or A- be based on the other side? Just because the field expects to get 27% against the 73% scoring Meckwell, does that mean that you have to get 27%? I think the director can adequately decide whether 40% is equitable or not and adjust accordingly. If the director feels that 40% is equitable then that is what you pay the director to decide, isn't it? > > To > > what extent, if at all, should rules consider the possibility of > > deliberate infractions? Are there other rules that should be changed? > > All of these are reasonable topics > > I believe the Laws assume that players are honorable and don't > deliberately cheat. Writing Laws or regulations with the aim of > *preventing* deliberate cheating is an impossible task. That some Laws > or regulations have that side effect does not mean it is, or ought to > be, a primary concern. > The laws governing infractions should not have to take deliberate cheating into account. It should be assumed that in instances of cheating that other laws (including PP, suspension, and/or expulsion) should cover those. Cheating should be outside the consideration of the laws governing the infractions. Otherwise, the bridge laws would end up being more complicated than the US legal code and we would have to have lawyers just to adjudicate appeals committees. I agree with Marv that the laws should assume players are honorable and if/when they are not, then other laws (besides the infraction laws) should be able to handle the sanctioning of those players outside of the infraction. -Ted. P.S. - BTW, I'm a new poster and have been counselled to include some info about myself. I am an ACBL certified director (probably a strike against me) among other things, live in the Washington DC metro area and have no cats or dogs (yet!). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 21:48:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:48:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21582 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:48:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117doU-00031m-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:48:30 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA505D; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:47:33 +0200 Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl ([192.168.18.20]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAB732F for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:05:43 +0200 Received: from backup.mail.unisource.nl ([194.151.224.3]) by smtp2.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112JF4-0005RH-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:49:54 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by backup.mail.unisource.nl with esmtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl id 112JF2-0000Hj-00; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:49:53 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:10:31 +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 EAA14516 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:10:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id 5FJZa14320 (14457); Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:06:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <8edd3e6.24b642bf@aol.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:06:55 EDT Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/8/99 1:50:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > I don't believe it is correct for Zones to have any input in > the Laws. > (that includes zonal opt-outs in my opinion). > > Zones only exist to help the WBF manage more clearly, and to > organise zonal championships. Would you like to think that over a bit longer before you get reeled in? .......Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 21:51:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:51:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21598 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:51:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117drJ-00036c-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:51:25 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA5B68 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:50:28 +0200 Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl ([192.168.18.20]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AADE4 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:07:01 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp2.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112KSM-0003w3-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:07:43 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:38:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA14631 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:37:53 +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 112J3D-000EYE-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:37:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 16:49:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <199907061623.MAA19954@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00f101bec7e0$d67bec80$f5075e18@san.rr.com> <37834B1C.C3D2ADD4@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19990708083450.007146ac@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990708083450.007146ac@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:42 PM 7/7/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >>It is easy to argue that someone who botches up 5HX would >>play more at ease in 4H. >>Thus the actual play is in some way affected by the >>infraction. >Easy to argue, but opens up a can of worms. Ultimately, it would mean that >the NOs in adjustment situations will always be deemed to have played >perfectly -- it's a hell of a lot easier to find the right play in a >post-mortem in front of an AC than it is at the table. > >Of course, if the AC believes that there is some "bridge reason" why the NO >might have played differently in 4H, they should give them the benefit of >the doubt and award whatever additional tricks they might have made. But >I'm not sympathetic to an NO who claims he would have played better absent >the infraction for purely psychological reasons ("I misplayed because >having the director at the table [or being doubled, or whatever] made me >nervous, and would have found the right play otherwise"). Well, I think you should be sympathetic. I think that there has been a very unfortunate shift over the years away from being sympathetic to non-offenders. You play a contract that you would not have played in if the oppos had not infracted: why should the TD/AC/WBFLC not be sympathetic to you? OK, there is one reason: the BLs, who actively try to win the game via the Laws as well as by playing cards. No doubt it is their influence that has caused this shift. But even though we must exhibit some care in our treatment of NOs because of BLs, our basic approach should surely be to remember that no infraction would have led to a different set of circumstances. Consider the hand that started this thread. Declarer played 5H* like one of my partners, and reduced his eleven tricks to nine. Wonderful! If we were adjusting, and we reached the same contract, for example if despite disallowing a call, we believe they would have reached 5H* by a different route, then to give declarer nine tricks is not unreasonable. But we are not. Our adjustments have generally been to 3H or 4H undoubled. Now, to give a definitive ruling, of course we need to see the hand, but in general, if the poster assures us that eleven tricks were easy, then it is reasonable to suppose that the problem in 5H* was because of the double or the trick target. If you play in 3H or 4H you do not have the same problem so why should you not make eleven tricks? No, Eric, your sympathies are misplaced. We will not get a better game of bridge by showing no sympathy for NOs: let us be fully sympathetic to them, and give them the benefit of the doubt in normal situations. It is a fact that people do not play contracts the same if they are not the same contract: we should accept that when ruling. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 22:33:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:33:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21823 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:33:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117eW2-00047P-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:33:30 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA6DF for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:32:34 +0200 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl ([192.168.17.19]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAD3D3F for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:35:46 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112Ktm-0002LX-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:36:03 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 05:51:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA15044 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 05:51:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id PAA00164 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:51:19 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199907081951.PAA00164@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:51:19 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199907081445.KAA12078@freenet3.carleton.ca> from "A. L. Edwards" at Jul 8, 99 10:45:35 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 (EDT) > From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) > > >+++ For what it is worth this is the note I have put on my > >memory board: > > " ? add to Law 45B: 'If declarer instructs dummy as to > > the play of a card on a trick subsequent to the current > > trick, that card is played when the previous trick has > > been quitted and dummy has placed the card in the > > played position.' " ~ Grattan ~ +++ > > > For what it is worth, I don't like this idea at all. I think > it would be alot easier just to state that it is improper to > say things like "run the clubs". State that bridge is played > trick by trick (not including claims, of course). State that > failing to follow correct procedure could result in a PP, > especially if it causes the opponents a problem. In other words, > I don't think we need to add a new law (set of laws?), something > added between "play trick by trick" and "claim". I don't want > to have to one day adjudicate someone's "partial claim". > I feel we should strive for fewer and clearer Laws and > regulations, not for more and denser. To paraphrase an old saying, > "An ounce of principle is worth a pound of adjudication". > Actually, in ACBL play, Grattan's ruling can actually be backed up by the ACBL laws. There is no need to add a law to cover the situation as it is covered by the following laws (IMHO): ACBL Law 45.B states: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. in playin from dummy's hand declarer may, if nec- essary, pick up the desired card himself." ACBL Law 45.C.4 states: "A. A card must be played if a player names or other- wise designates it as the card he proposes to play." Thus, by saying "run the clubs" you have in effect stated what the next 'n' cards will be from the dummy and they are designated played. No matter if you have extraneous information from the discards on those pitches, declarer may not change the play without an infraction occurring. 45.B does not state when the declarer names the card, but whether all at once or one by one. ACBL Law 47.F states: "Except as provided in A through E preceding, a card once played may not be withdrawn." Since A through E do not cover anything akin to a change of intent once the declarer designates to run a suit, then (s)he must run the suit and cannot change the play until the suit has been run. -Ted. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 22:35:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:35:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21844 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:35:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117eXM-00049D-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:34:52 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAABF7 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:33:56 +0200 Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl ([192.168.18.20]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAG3F5C for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:36:56 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp2.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112Ku6-0005gB-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:36:22 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 05:55:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA15067 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 05:55:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id PAA00929 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:55:09 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199907081955.PAA00929@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:55:09 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Jul 8, 99 02:02:53 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 > Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:02:53 -0400 > From: Ed Reppert > > Eric writes: > > >I'm not sympathetic to an NO who claims he would have played better absent > >the infraction for purely psychological reasons ("I misplayed because > >having the director at the table [or being doubled, or whatever] made me > >nervous, and would have found the right play otherwise"). > > Well, I suppose it depends what level player we're discussing. My partner, > who has been playing duplicate for all of about 6 months (at the rate of 1 > game a week, maybe) has complained to me a couple of times that having the > TD around, even when he wasn't called to our table, while she's playing a > hand, intimidates her, makes her nervous, and has, in her opinion, caused > her on a couple of occassions to make mistakes she would not otherwise have > made. You can be unsympathetic to her if you like :-) but I've watched her > play, and I believe she's absolutely right. > No it doesn't. I've been teaching novices for over 10 years and this happens. However, because it happens, doesn't mean they deserve different redress than players who aren't nervous from the director. Let's face it, most players are adults and have to be responsible for their actions. If they make a mistake, they should take the penalty. If they don't play their best when the director is there adjudicating an infraction, then they shouldn't expect to get the optimal result possible. Eric's contention is that the redress should be influenced by the player's actions and not solely on the opponents infraction. -Ted. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 22:36:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:36:40 +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 WAA21863 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:36:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id OAA26176; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:34:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JDWO76EFE4000INT@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:33:35 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <31GS6YYG>; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:33:34 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:33:28 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Avg+ and Avg- To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1E5@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 -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Verzonden: donderdag 8 juli 1999 18:28 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: Avg+ and Avg- > 4: Consideration was given to the meaning of 'average > minus' where used in Law 12C1. > Having debated the options, the Committee held > that 'average minus' means the player's session > percentage or 40% whichever is the lower. >[*] Why do I have doubts about the WBFLC's interpretation of L12C1? >Because the printed word is clear, and it dopes not indicate in the Law >book the limitations imposed by this interpretation. Also, if it was as >this interpretation indicates, there would be an equivalent 40% Law to >L88. -- >David Stevenson I don't understand this, so please explain somewhat more. 12c speaks about 'at most 40%' and 'at least 60%'and at least 60% is explained in 88. It wouldn't be clear without 88, do we agree? How then can you say that the printed word is clear when we have to know what 'at most 40%'is? To me it seems that the only guideline in the laws is the description given in 88, which leads to the interpretation the WBFLC has given. I am not saying that the ACBL interpretation is not reasonable, but why is that the logic one? I put your suggestion for the next edtion in my files. Those resultprograms probably never get updated anyway. ton (I never got an answer on my question: do I really have to add all those >> in my reply?) If yes, more reason to keep it short please. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 22:50:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:50:58 +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 WAA21938 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:50:48 +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 JAA14238 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:03:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990723085011.006f5e48@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:50:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? In-Reply-To: <379747A4.F8A48FC8@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19990722092845.006ed434@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:32 PM 7/22/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >The manner in which the explanation is given does not appear >in the letter of L73B1. The manner of play and call does, >but the manner of explanation does not. > >I am being deliberately bridge lawyering in order to get a >point accross, I am not advocating that this is not an >offense, I am only saying what a bridge lawyer might respond >to Eric. And he'd still be wrong. It is illegal to communicate "through... explanations given". The fact that neither substance nor manner are explicitly specified means that the inappropriate communication could be by means of either. The law explicitly specifies "the manner in which calls and plays are made" because the substance of the calls and plays cannot constitute inappropriate communication. 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 Jul 23 23:21:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA22009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:21:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22004 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:21:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117fFz-0005ML-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:20:59 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA4111 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:20:03 +0200 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl ([192.168.17.19]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAG529F for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:32:32 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112LtT-0004Qu-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:39:48 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:57:02 +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 GAA15398 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:56:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.90]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990708205715.KDYS10868.fep2@jd-private.internal> for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:57:15 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: with pride Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 22:56:39 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <378d0f5b.5730209@post12.tele.dk> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1C8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1C8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id GAA15399 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 09:45:48 +0200, "Kooijman, A." wrote: >Damage meant a worse score as a >consequence of an infraction. ... >If this consequent damage did not exist, >it still was possible that the offenders took advantage of their infraction. I have always found it impossible to understand how those two sentences can be consistent with each other. What kind of "advantage" could be offenders take that did not result, as a consequence of the infraction, in a worse score for their opponents? And if the advantage was a consequence of the infraction, then the worse score for the NOS must surely be a consequence of the infraction too. >The WBFLC considered this approach, though quite understandable, as less >preferable. Trying to find a solution we gave a new definition for the word >damage, including both consequent and subsequent worse scores than without >the infraction. That is consistent with the way I read the text of the laws. > This made it possible to let the subsequent worse score for >the innocent side stand as it was reached at the table and to adjust the >score for the offenders in accordance with Law 12C2: the most unfavourable >result etc. I still don't understand how is it consistent with the wording of the laws to not adjust for the NOS when there is damage - the words "subsequent" and "consequent" do not appear in the laws, so the distinction is IMO not legal according to the letter of the laws. But apart from that I have nothing against this principle. It seems to me that we should have laws that explicitly mention the possibility of not adjusting for the NOS when the damage is considered "subsequent". We now have a WBFLC statement that we should interpret the existing laws as if there were such a distinction, but it would be much better to have it written into the laws. Alternatively, we should drop the distinction between "subsequent" and "consequent" completely and adjust for both sides. That is the solution I would prefer, because it is simpler and ensures that the NOS is always compensated - and it is IMO what the current laws actually say. As I've said before, I see no problem in sometimes overcompensating a NOS - after all, we do that after most revokes, so it should not be a great problem if it sometimes also happened in an adjustment case. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 23:22:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:41:27 +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 VAA21543 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:41:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-79-150.uunet.be [194.7.79.150]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20445 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:40:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37984DB7.E4AFE0D0@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:10:47 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Just checking L26 References: <199907221650.JAA20079@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > It seems within the bounds of possibility that I have made a mistake. > > Ok, L26A, sorry for not reading the question carefully. > What David, for once I agree with you and then you change your position? Have you got something against me ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 23 23:24:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA22033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:24:59 +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 XAA22028 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:24:51 +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 JAA16801 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990723092416.006f57ac@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:24:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? In-Reply-To: <37974706.F5B43E0D@village.uunet.be> References: <3796DF1A.CB873874@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:29 PM 7/22/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >We are not talking about Convention disruption. But we have seen ACs who find convention disruption unacceptable, and have given penalties for it. You can't say that an AC is permitted to punish behavior on the basis that it is "unacceptable", not provide an explicit definition of what's "unacceptable", and expect it to mean anything other than "whatever the AC deems unacceptable". >We are talking about something which an AC finds >unacceptable, and for which there is absolutely no evidence >that anyone but a small minority disagree. Minorities have rights too. In the U.S. we have a revered Bill of Rights, most of which is written for the precise purpose of preventing small minorities from being punished for behavior that the majority might consider "unacceptable". So I don't think it should matter, but... I don't believe for a moment that a majority, much less an overwhelming majority (or even, for that matter, a significant minority), believe that it is "unacceptable" not to have complete agreements about even relatively simple auctions, because that would make the vast majority of them hypocrites. As others have said, absent special conditions of contest, we all play by the same rules, and I don't believe that 99% of players at all levels would all find their own behavior unacceptable. >I know what you are trying to say : >If a particular 5 people find psyching unacceptable, and >they happen to be together on the AC, then they could rule >against it if they so wish. Yes, that's what we're trying to say. Psyching isn't a violation of the rules, so it should not be penalized by an AC, regardless of whether they believe that the vast majority would find it unacceptable -- even if they are right. >All I can answer to that one is that the SO who selected >those 5 people would need its head examined. And that the >AC decision would be wrong. On what basis? That the person who did so with the authority of the SO failed to determine that those five people agreed with him as to what the "vast majority" believes to be acceptable or unacceptable? If anything, he should have his head examined for failing to ascertain that the committee would rule based on what they deem to be legal, not on what they deem to be "acceptable". >I believe that without a positive answer to the question in >the heading, an AC is hampered more by the sometimes loose >wording of the Laws, than if they have the authority to pass >loosely over the word "offense" in L90A. The answer to the question in the heading is that a specific "unacceptable" behavior is punishable *only* if the people being punished have been told, whether by the law, SO regulation, or CoC, that that particular behavior is unacceptable. Those folks in the earlier post who wanted to play nude cannot, because such behavior is specified as unacceptable by L74A2, which prohibits actions that "might cause embarrassment to another player". To connect this to another thread, however, neither the TD, the AC nor the SO can punish them for having mowed their lawn in the nude the previous day, even though (presumably having seen the picture in the papers) their opponents may be embarrassed to have to play against them the day after they did so. 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 Jul 24 00:22:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:41:29 +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 VAA21549 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:41:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-79-150.uunet.be [194.7.79.150]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20459 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:40:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <379850B8.4726105C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:23:36 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > Good to be a TD in the next millenium. By the way, no suggestions to > celebrate this amongst ourselves? Isn't the 31th of December the 5th Friday > in the month? > Yes Ton, but for some reason there is not a lot of enthusiasm in playing a tournament that evening. Clubs that want to organise a fifth friday simultaneous tournament on 31 december are allowed to contact me, but I can't guarantee I'll have a working computer the next day ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 00:24:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:30:50 +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 WAA21797 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:30:42 +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 IAA12924 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:43:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990723083006.006f2fc4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:30:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: (fwd) Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >At 08:33 PM 7/21/99 +0200, Jesper wrote: > >>On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:05:23 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>>But I don't >>>believe that the laws do, or should, require me to take note of and >>>remember information that I do not consider useful and would not otherwise >>>bother to just so I can meet some imputed obligation to disclose it. >> >>They don't. If you haven't noticed your partner's style, then >>your non-knowledge can hardly be called an agreement. >> >>But if you do happen to have noticed, then you have an obligation >>to disclose your knowledge. > >Which brings us right back to the point with which I opened my >original >reply to Jesper's earlier post: "The problem with this is that >it adds a >new dimension to the serious game. On which auctions should you >notice >what partner holds?" [Please ignore the extra level of indentation, caused by my having accidentally sent the original to Jesper rather than to the whole list.] 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 Jul 24 01:22:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:41:27 +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 VAA21547 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:41:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-79-150.uunet.be [194.7.79.150]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20453 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:40:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37984F27.CB64FB6F@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:16:55 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Just checking L26 References: <199907222043.NAA24282@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry guys, you cannot be serious ! Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Herman de Wael wrote: > > > I regard the word "related" as referring to transfers, but I > > feel that the word "specified" means that the suit exists. > > I don't know what you mean by "the suit exists". If you mean that the > suit exists in the deck, you're right; In the hand of course. I used "exists" to avoid saying how many. A support over a five-card opening shows a three-card, that's what I call "exists". > Law 26A does not apply to a > conventional bid that relates to hippogriffs. If you think "specified > suit" means "suit that the offender has values in", or "suit that > exists in the offender's hand", or something like that, that's just a > misunderstanding of the word "specified". The word basically means > "named explicitly", and I think it's here to distinguish it from calls > that related to unspecified suits (such as a 2C overcall of 1NT to > show an unspecified one-suiter, or a double jump shift to show a void > in an unspecified suit). > > -- Adam Surely we are not suggesting that if the bidding goes : 1Sp 4Di 4Cl oops I did not see the 4He, I have a splinter, 4Sp pass 4NT pass 6Cl 2 aces and a club void That we have specified the club suit (twice). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 01:33:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:03:34 +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 WAA21655 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:03:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from p0es13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.15] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 117e2N-0002Y5-00; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:02:51 +0100 Message-ID: <003601bed502$b6e0f6c0$0f8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:58:01 +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: 22 July 1999 23:50 Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? >As usual, etc... > >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> >A second case can be found in appeal 27. >> > >> >A player had, behind screens, explained a double in a loud >> >voice. >> >Again I doubt if few would argue that such behaviour is >> >unacceptable. >> > >> >Which leads me to my question : is this punishable. >> >This is exactly what my post was aimed at. It is not >sufficient that there be a violation of procedure, or any of >the four possibilities, for there to be a possibility of a >PP. There also needs to be an "offense". > >My question stands ! +++ So that you may be seated. There is a breach of regulation in respect of procedure behind screens. This requires written questions and written answers. A breach of this regulation certainly merits a PP if it affects or is liable to have affected the normal course of the auction or play. It is a matter for the TD to judge and in Case 27 the AC requested the TD to continue to deal with the protest that had been made to him at the time. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 01:45:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA22374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 01:45:48 +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 BAA22369 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 01:45:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <5126-2390>; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:45:18 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA10086 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:07:07 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Just checking L26 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:12:19 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A0@XION> 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: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837588CD6@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >The following auction occurred the other night: > South West North East > 1C pass 1H 2D > 2S 3D 3D..5C 5D > all pass > >North's insufficient cue bid of 3D, asking for a stopper, was not accepted, >and was changed to 5C. For the lead penalties on South I ruled under L26B. >Undoubtedly, 3D relates to a specified suit, so should I have ruled under >L26A2 instead? > >Cheers, > >Tony I think that 3D is not related to a specific suit, in the sense that it doesn't tell anything about North's holding (in diamonds or otherwise); rather it requests specific information about South's hand. So I would rule L26B too. Now, "related to" IMO means "showing information". It does not necessarily mean "showing length and/or strength"; in the following sequence: W N E S 1H 4C 3S where 3S was meant as splinter, the 3S specifically tells us something about East's spade holding (apart from having a heart fit), namely that the East hand contains at most one spade. So I suppose that in this case L26A applies to both hearts and spades, if EW become defenders. So in general: if a withdrawn call shows anything about a specific suit or suits, be it length, strength or shortness, rule L26A; otherwise rule L26B. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 01:47:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:19:08 +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 WAA21713 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:19:00 +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 IAA12294 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:31:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990723081825.006f41ec@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:18:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Any title you like or Book on Movements (and very nasty question) In-Reply-To: <3796EF2C.3D42E3DE@village.uunet.be> References: <015e01bed391$2900f5c0$c58493c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:15 PM 7/22/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >OK, what you are saying is that the Committee found that it >was impossible to have this auction without an agreement, >and that therefore the pair were lying when they stated "no >agreement". > >But they did not ! This was not clear earlier, which, I suspect, is part of the reason why Herman's original posting provoked such a strong reaction. >At the table, both players tried to explain the bidding, but >gave completely opposite answers. ...Which is an infraction. >In the Committee, they stated that this was because they had >failed to discuss the matter beforehand. ...Which is not. >It is my opinion that we gave the penalty for that. > >I may be wrong and I may have misunderstood the intention of >my colleagues. Nothing personal against Herman here, but I hope so. >Anyway, what would be the reason for giving a PP for >misinformation? Now that is one penalty I don't like. We >adjust scores for misinformation. (as we in fact would have >done in appeal 25 were it not for some bad bidding by >opponents). The *real* reason for any AC giving a PP is that it thought the offenders deserved a PP. Had they justified it after the fact based on the misinformation, they would at least have been penalizing a genuine infraction. >But maybe I am wrong a second time, and the other members of >the AC did not give the PP for not having agreements, but >for the simple fact of different explanations. Again, I hope so, as there is nothing in the laws to suggest that not having agreements is an infraction. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 02:02:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:02:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA22555 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:00:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10191; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:58:40 -0700 Message-Id: <199907231558.IAA10191@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Just checking L26 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:16:55 PDT." <37984F27.CB64FB6F@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:58:26 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > Sorry guys, you cannot be serious ! > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > Herman de Wael wrote: > > > > > I regard the word "related" as referring to transfers, but I > > > feel that the word "specified" means that the suit exists. > > > > I don't know what you mean by "the suit exists". If you mean that the > > suit exists in the deck, you're right; > > In the hand of course. > > I used "exists" to avoid saying how many. A support over a > five-card opening shows a three-card, that's what I call > "exists". > > > Law 26A does not apply to a > > conventional bid that relates to hippogriffs. If you think "specified > > suit" means "suit that the offender has values in", or "suit that > > exists in the offender's hand", or something like that, that's just a > > misunderstanding of the word "specified". The word basically means > > "named explicitly", and I think it's here to distinguish it from calls > > that related to unspecified suits (such as a 2C overcall of 1NT to > > show an unspecified one-suiter, or a double jump shift to show a void > > in an unspecified suit). > > > > -- Adam > > Surely we are not suggesting that if the bidding goes : > > 1Sp 4Di 4Cl oops I did not see the 4He, I have a splinter, > 4Sp pass > 4NT pass 6Cl 2 aces and a club void > > That we have specified the club suit (twice). Yes, you have. You have announced a void in a suit, and you have specified (i.e. "named explicitly") that the suit that you're void in is clubs. You seem to think "specified" is a synonym for "announced possession of" or "announced an interest in playing in". That's just a misunderstanding of the English language. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 02:14:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:41:21 +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 VAA21540 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:41:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-79-150.uunet.be [194.7.79.150]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20441 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:40:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37984D26.192F63B0@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:08:22 +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: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? References: <199907221907.PAA04165@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've returned to the original thread Steve Willner wrote: > > > A player had, behind screens, explained a double in a loud > > voice. > ... > > Speaking behind screens is not covered in the Laws, and the > > regulations only state that all explanations should be > > written. > > "only?!" > Indeed, the CoC are silent about not being allowed to speak ! > > Yet many explanations are given by hand signalsn, > > nods, raised eyebrows, or by muted voice and whispers. None > > of those lead to penalties, nor should they. > > They are violations. If the event organizers don't intend to > enforce the CoC, why write them? Or if the above are acceptable, > why not say so in the CoC? Put in "by agreement of the players > on one side of the screen" if you like. But if the CoC > require written explanations, the above are violations. > Agreed, they are violations. But do all violations require PP's ? I don't believe they do. I also believe that all violations should be treated equally, so if we give one PP for breaking this particular regulation, we should punish equally all others. Now you will agree that there is a huge difference between using a nod as a reply, and replying in a loud voice something your partner might not know. You may well agree that the first does not merit a penalty, while the second does. Yet the regulations class both as the same kind of violation. Now do you understand what I am trying to point out ? While one sort of breaking of regulation may be considered "acceptable", the other surely can't be. > > The particular > > "offense" that was committed here was speaking at a loud > > voice, in a specific situation which might convey valuable > > information to partner. > > > > The best I can find is L73B (and A). > > Yet it would not be wise to invoke L73B2 : that is downright > > cheating and we would not want to use that Law. > > Now read L73B1 again. A bridge Lawyer might argue that none > > of the methods described in this article applies to the case > > of speaking behind screens. > > I hope that's an argument the BL would lose, as Eric (I think) said. > Also, L73A2 "special emphasis" could cover the matter. But the real > violation is of the CoC language requiring written, not oral, > explanations. > Indeed, all the others are only applicable in trying to restore equity, not in giving PP's. > Perhaps screen regulations need a written statement that the most > serious violations are ones that improperly transmit information to the > other side of the screen, but really this should be obvious. An oral > explanation in a whisper is a violation but a mild one. A loud oral > explanation is a serious violation. Of course it is obvious, that is what I started with. Now can we give PP's for obvious unacceptable behaviour ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 02:16:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:16:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA22601 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:10:13 +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 JAA10341; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:09:08 -0700 Message-Id: <199907231609.JAA10341@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 08 Jul 1999 15:51:19 PDT." <199907081951.PAA00164@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:08:54 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Actually, in ACBL play, Grattan's ruling can actually be backed > up by the ACBL laws. There is no need to add a law to cover the > situation as it is covered by the following laws (IMHO): Haven't we already explained that these are *not* "ACBL Laws"?? They are just the "Laws" and apply throughout the world, not just in ACBL-sponsored tournaments. > ACBL Law 45.B states: > "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card > after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the > table. in playin from dummy's hand declarer may, if nec- > essary, pick up the desired card himself." > > ACBL Law 45.C.4 states: > "A. A card must be played if a player names or other- > wise designates it as the card he proposes to play." > > Thus, by saying "run the clubs" you have in effect stated what the > next 'n' cards will be from the dummy and they are designated played. Then there is another violation of procedure, because you're only supposed to play one card from a hand when it's that hand's turn to play. If declarer names "n" cards, and 45B says that a card named is a card played, this means that declarer has played five or six (or whatever) cards from dummy when correct procedure allows him to play just one. Would you consider it correct procedure if declarer, instead of naming "n" cards from dummy, picked up and played "n" cards from dummy himself (as permitted by the last half of 45B)? There is nothing in the Laws that allows a player to name the card, at trick T, that he's going to play at trick T+1 or T+2 or whatever. So I'm afraid your interpretation of the Laws falls apart. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 02:26:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:26:16 +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 CAA22647 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:25:18 +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 JAA10522; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:22:49 -0700 Message-Id: <199907231622.JAA10522@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Just checking L26 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:12:19 PDT." <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A0@XION> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:22:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > I think that 3D is not related to a specific suit, in the sense that it > doesn't tell anything about North's holding (in diamonds or otherwise); > rather > it requests specific information about South's hand. So I would rule L26B > too. > > Now, "related to" IMO means "showing information" . . . I think this is false, in the English language. To me, a bid that asks about spades is also "related to" spades. "Related" is quite a vague word that just means "connected in some way". (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate: "connected by reason of an established or discoverable relation".) One might argue, I suppose, that the Laws' authors intended this to mean "shows information about". However, in the rest of the Laws, the phrase "conveys information" (or conjugations of it) is used quite frequently, and that phrase wasn't used in Law 26, so chances are the authors intended to mean "related" in the broader sense. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 02:40:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:55:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21615 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:55:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 117dvN-0003Ce-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:55:37 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA68DB for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:54:40 +0200 Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl ([192.168.18.20]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAB33E for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:08:14 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp2.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112J7I-0004uw-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:41:53 +0200 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:48:34 +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 DAA14418 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:48:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-80-214.uunet.be [194.7.80.214]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA04951 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:48:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3784E054.3C5EE088@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 19:31:00 +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: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. References: <00b401bec915$aae23440$f5075e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >ZA's should be granted latitude, but not license, in the writing of > >regulations that implement the Laws. The difficulty may lie in > >deciding whether an implementation of the Laws by ZA regulation > >conflicts with either the Laws or a WBFLC interpretation of the Laws, > >becoming thereby a new law or an unauthorized interpretation. > > >> But I am not sure that I see why it is that bad that [for example] > >> Europe and North America have a different interpretation of a > >> Logical Alternative. > > >I would say that they have different ways of determining whether an > >alternative is logical, since everyone agrees what "logical > >alternative" means (an alternative that makes some sense). Still, in > >the absence of a WBF LC interpretation of the term LA, others are free > >to interpret it as they wish. No one is suggesting otherwise. We can > >argue about who has the best implementation of the term, but having > >different implementations is perfectly okay (until the WBFLC writes > >one, that is). > > > >It is bad that the ACBL is not changing regulations that clearly > >conflict with the WBFLC Lille interpretations. The ACBL has > >substantial representation on the WBFLC, so it should graciously > >accede to its decisions. > > > >It seems to me that all Grattan is asking for is that SOs comply with > >the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and the By-Laws of the World Bridge > >Federation. That's not asking too much. > > I don't think this is the point. I have a feeling that there is a > movement under way to rationalise interpretations - thus ZAs would not > be permitted to differ in their interpretation of LAs. I may be wrong, > of course, but that was my interpretation of what Grattan was referring > to. > > In general, I agree we should follow WBFLC interpretations, but that > does not mean we should not consider input to them. Surely we do not > expect them to make decisions in a vacuum? > > I think the world has moved on from the position where we expect > people to make decisions for us without our knowledge, permission or > input. Whether this is good or bad is arguable, of course. > > So, I ask again, is it a good thing for the WBFLC to get rid of > differing interpretations of the Laws in different parts of the world? > Should the line as to what RAs [regulating authorities] may regulate be > moved to give the WBFLC more power in decisions and the various RAs > less? > I don't believe it is correct for Zones to have any input in the Laws. (that includes zonal opt-outs in my opinion). Zones only exist to help the WBF manage more clearly, and to organise zonal championships. Not to interpret the Laws. The problem is that the ACBL is not only a zone, but also a NCBO. NCBO's are IMO better qualified to make specific regulations. Indeed, what is "strange" in Belgium, is normal in Poland, and vice versa. Things like Alert Procedures and System regulations are therefore in the hands of the NCBO's. Or rather of the SO's, who usually copy national regulations. Apart from that, world-wide bridge (on-line being only one form of that) means that we need world-wide interpretations. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 03:22:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:31:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from server01.gw.total-web.net (qmailr@server01.gw.total-web.net [209.186.12.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA22701 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:31:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 3332 invoked from network); 23 Jul 1999 16:31:14 -0000 Received: from ip-014-202.gw.total-web.net (HELO Bill) (209.186.14.202) by server01.gw.total-web.net with SMTP; 23 Jul 1999 16:31:14 -0000 Message-ID: <006b01bed528$67647ec0$ca0ebad1@Bill.gw.total-web.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws Forum" Subject: Malta Appeal #6 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:28:23 -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 In today's bulletin from the San Antonio NABC, Rich Colker is quite critical of the AC decision in this appeal. His comments appear on page 7 of the PDF version of the 7/23 bulletin. My immediate reaction is to agree with Rich, but I would be interested in the feelings of this forum. Cheers......................................./Bill Bickford From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 04:30:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:30:54 +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 EAA23032 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:30:43 +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 LAA12337; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:30:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199907231830.LAA12337@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Forum" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Malta Appeal #6 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:28:23 PDT." <006b01bed528$67647ec0$ca0ebad1@Bill.gw.total-web.net> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:30:02 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bill Bickford wrote: > In today's bulletin from the San Antonio NABC, Rich Colker is quite critical > of the AC decision in this appeal. His comments appear on page 7 of the PDF > version of the 7/23 bulletin. > > My immediate reaction is to agree with Rich, but I would be interested in > the feelings of this forum. My view: I have sympathy for both sides. Colker makes a lot of sense in his argument that this is an unusual sequence that requires extra thought, to think about what pass and double should show, which calls would show first-round spade control, etc. On the other hand, one of the Committee's arguments was that "the hesitation can only suggest some tolerance for diamonds." This makes sense too. Regardless of what South thought different bids would show partner, I doubt he would have thought about it as much if he had a small stiff or void in diamonds---it would have been a lot clearer to double. Colker didn't address this issue. None of his example hands for South had this sort of diamond holding (the closest was a stiff queen). Moreover, since Colker's article was based on the thesis that South's pause was not a tempo break, he didn't consider the question, "if it *were* a tempo break, would it have suggested diamond tolerance, or would it have suggested pulling the double?" These are legitimate questions, and it seems to me the TD and AC came to a reasonable answer to the questions (although some might dispute the answer). I don't understand why Colker thinks the Committee's judgment about the club lead was "highly questionable bridge judgment". Only a heart lead will beat the grand, and I can't see any reason why a heart lead is clear. Even if the club lead were an "egregious error" (maybe it is a terrible lead, I don't know), that would be irrelevant unless all the other leads that didn't work (spade, diamond) were also egregious errors. IMHO, a poor play that results in a bad score cannot "break the link" between an infraction and the result if a normal non-poor play would have resulted in the same bad score. Colker believes that 20-30 seconds is not a break in tempo, in this sort of auction. To me, this is true only if South would break 20-30 seconds in this auction regardless of his holding; in fact, I'd go further and say that we could rule based on this theory only if a good majority of bridge players would routinely hesitate 20+ seconds in this auction, or if there were a regulation encouraging this kind of pause ("Players are expected to pause for about 10 seconds after their RHO makes a skip bid, or 20 seconds if the RHO's skip bid means that the player's first or second call will have to be at the 6 level or higher.") The worst thing about the Committee's decision was its condescending tone in the statement: "[T]he situation in this case should not pose any problems for experienced players. They should simply accept that they are outbid and double in tempo." I find this unacceptable. Bidding is not an exact science, and I don't think AC's should be making judgments that this or that call that is so obvious that players should turn off their brains and cease to think. On the other side, I believe Colker's comment, "I find the fact that E/W even called the Director to be unsportsmanlike and distasteful", to be completely unacceptable. Players have the right to---in fact, *should*---call the Director when an infraction may have occurred, and let the TD decide whether it actually occurred. If it were well established in the bridge world that 20-30 seconds is an acceptable tempo break in this situation (and East-West were well aware of that), then I might agree that calling the TD would be bridge lawyering. But of course this is not a well-established principle except in Colker's mind. So how he can call them "unsportsmanlike" is beyond me. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 04:36:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:36:03 +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 EAA23051 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:35:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.17]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990723183547.OEJS1618.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:35:47 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Split Scores Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:35:46 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <379cb5c1.1880654@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 EAA23052 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:24:14 -0500 (CDT), Barry Wolk wrote: >There were reposts of several other old messages in today's mail. >I've collected the following headers. All the other messages had >current dates, either July 21 or 22. Markus, what's going on? I have received 12 extra messages >Return-Path: >Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) > by bilbo.dit.dk (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA15455; > Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:05:56 +0200 >Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21208 > for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:43:53 +1000 (EST) >Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) > by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21203 > for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:43:46 +1000 (EST) >Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) > by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) > id 117avY-00003X-00 > for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:43:36 +0200 >Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl > (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA5E22 > for ; > Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:42:41 +0200 >Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl ([192.168.17.19]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl > (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAK3A75 > for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:47:45 +0200 >Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) > by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) > id 112Gc8-00013I-00 > for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:01:33 +0200 >Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13363 > for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:46:03 +1000 (EST) >Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) > by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA13357 > for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:45:53 +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 KAA06291 > for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:34 -0400 (EDT) >Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA12078; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 (EDT) >Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 (EDT) >Message-Id: <199907081445.KAA12078@freenet3.carleton.ca> >From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem >Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Precedence: bulk -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 04:56:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:56:05 +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 EAA23088 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:55:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.17]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990723185551.OGEJ1618.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:55:51 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Explaining with no agreement (was: Book on Movements) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:55:49 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <379bb402.1433531@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990723083006.006f2fc4@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990723083006.006f2fc4@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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id EAA23091 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:30:06 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >Which brings us right back to the point with which I opened my >original >reply to Jesper's earlier post: "The problem with this is that >it adds a >new dimension to the serious game. On which auctions should you >notice >what partner holds?" I don't think I understand what the problem is. You should (try to) notice what partner holds whenever you like to do so, and not when you do not like to do so. There is no obligation to notice (or not notice) what partner holds. But you have an obligation to disclose your knowledge if you actually happen to have noticed partner's tendencies. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 04:56:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:56:17 +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 EAA23096 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 04:56:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.17]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990723185558.OGEP1618.fep4@jd-private.internal>; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:55:58 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List , a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl Subject: Anton Witzen's mail server seems to have a problem Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:55:55 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <379db601.1944245@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id EAA23098 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:24:14 -0500 (CDT), Barry Wolk wrote: >There were reposts of several other old messages in today's mail. >I've collected the following headers. All the other messages had >current dates, either July 21 or 22. Markus, what's going on? I have received 12 extra messages today, all from the 8th. If you check the "Received"-headers, you will see that they have all been delivered to BLML (octavia.anu.edu.au) and from there to Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) on the 8th. Two weeks later, the machine "hardy-1.a2000.nl" suddenly decides to send them to BLML once more, after which they are sent to all of us, of course. Anton: If I am correct in assuming that "cable.a2000.nl" is your Internet provider, then it might be a good idea to ask them what is going on. If you send them a copy of the complete set of headers from one such message that I quote below, they should be able to analyze the problem. >Return-Path: >Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) > by bilbo.dit.dk (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA15920; > Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:00:41 +0200 >Received: (from daemon@localhost) > by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA22009 > for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:21:16 +1000 (EST) >Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) > by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22004 > for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:21:08 +1000 (EST) >Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) > by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) > id 117fFz-0005ML-00 > for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:20:59 +0200 >Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl > (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA4111 > for ; > Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:20:03 +0200 >Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl ([192.168.17.19]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl > (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAG529F > for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:32:32 +0200 >Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) > by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) > id 112LtT-0004Qu-00 > for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:39:48 +0200 >Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15404 > for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:57:02 +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 GAA15398 > for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:56:53 +1000 (EST) >Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.90]) by fep2.post.tele.dk > (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP > id <19990708205715.KDYS10868.fep2@jd-private.internal> > for ; > Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:57:15 +0200 >From: Jesper Dybdal >To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" >Subject: Re: with pride >Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 22:56:39 +0200 >Organization: at home >Message-ID: <378d0f5b.5730209@post12.tele.dk> >References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1C8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> >In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1C8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> >X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id GAA15399 >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Precedence: bulk -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 05:46:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA23265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 05:46:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA23260 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 05:46:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from eitan (RAS1-p46.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.182.48]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA06933 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:46:30 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990723225453.007afb10@netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:54:53 +0300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Law 84E and KD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This situation arose at the World Junior Pairs at Nymburk, Czech Republic: The TD was called after play had ceased. "The KD is missing!" North (dummy) had only 12 cards and the missing card was found (in a TD's pocket - it had been found on the floor previously). The missing card had not affected play (the finesse with north's QD was "successful") and there had been no revoke.(14B3 and 64C do not apply.) The bidding had been North (14 points, flat) 1Cl - South (10 points flat) 1NT - all pass. West led a club (a normal lead) and 10 tricks were easily made. The problem: North remarked that with the KD he would have opened 1NT (17 points). S said that that they were unlucky: with 10 points he would have raised to 3NT, making. East remarked that EW were unlucky. If North plays 3NT East's obvious lead is a spade which holds the contract to 8 tricks - one down. (The competition was barometer, and within minutes it was clear the vast majority of the field had played 3NT one down with a spade lead.) TD's action: Should the TD let the result stand, or consider adjusting? In Nymburk, a majority of TDs thought the result should stand, on the basis of "the luck of the draw', or the rub of the green.Their argument was that the lack of the KD could have resulted in NS missing a cold game just as easily as helping them stay out of an unmakeable game, and that the actual result was just bad luck for EW. This was analogous to a correction of an insufficient bid to 6NT, a shot in the dark which may or may not succeed. The minority felt that an adjustment was called for, mainly on the basis of Law 84E (also Law 12A1). As I was in the minority, I would like to present my arguments for adjusting. LAW 84E: If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even a reasonable possibility that the NO side was damaged .... Now let's examine our case: 1. Did an irregularity occur? Yes, N didn't count his cards.(Law 7B1) 2. Is a penalty for not counting cards provided by law? No .(The penalty in Law 14 is for revoking etc as a result of not counting cards, not of failure to count. The penalty in 90B7 is procedural and is only a penalty for the OS and in any case is only given if an adjusted score IS required.) 3. Is there a reasonable possibility that the NO side (East-west) was damaged? Yes (even more than reasonable, probable) - they scored -180 instead of +50. So Law 84E applies and the director awards an adjusted score (in this case probably 3NT-1). Note that 84E says that the Director awards, (not may or must or should, simply awards), and he doesn't have to use judgement as stated in 12A1. The judgement in 84E concerns reasonable possibility of damage, and not judgement whether a NO was provided (sufficient) indemnity by the application or non-application of a law) I also felt that the example of insufficient bids and other examples were not really analagous as in those circumstances there had been a penalty (for example, partner must pass.) The TDs felt that the views of BLML would be interesting, and suggested that I post the problem. (I have purposely omitted the hands, as the question is one of principle of whether to consider adjustment or not, and I don't think a discussion at this stage such as "would E have led a spade" is relevant, although of course it would be relevant when considering whether and what adjustment to make.) Eitan Levy From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 05:53:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA23292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 05:53:20 +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 FAA23286 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 05:53:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA00122; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:51:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.57) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029878; Fri Jul 23 14:50:54 1999 Message-ID: <004201bed545$202e0860$39b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bill Bickford" , "Bridge Laws Forum" Subject: Re: Malta Appeal #6 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:54:05 -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 Hard to comment on what we do not see. No link, no url, no text. Is this somewhere at acbl.org? -----Original Message----- From: Bill Bickford To: Bridge Laws Forum Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 12:31 PM Subject: Malta Appeal #6 >In today's bulletin from the San Antonio NABC, Rich Colker is quite critical >of the AC decision in this appeal. His comments appear on page 7 of the PDF >version of the 7/23 bulletin. > >My immediate reaction is to agree with Rich, but I would be interested in >the feelings of this forum. > > >Cheers......................................./Bill Bickford > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 06:03:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA23328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:03:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA23323 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:03:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA05515 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:03:43 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:03:43 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: Just checking L26 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A0@XION> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Martin Sinot wrote: : Now, "related to" IMO means "showing information". It does not necessarily : mean "showing length and/or strength"; in the following sequence: : W N E S : 1H 4C 3S : : where 3S was meant as splinter, the 3S specifically tells us something : about East's spade holding (apart from having a heart fit), namely : that the East hand contains at most one spade. So I suppose that in : this case L26A applies to both hearts and spades, if EW become : defenders. Just checking... L26A1 for hearts (no lead penalty against hearts), but L26A2 for spades, correct? signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ "What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?" ] From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 06:16:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA23369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:16:44 +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 GAA23363 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:16:35 +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 NAA14027; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:15:55 -0700 Message-Id: <199907232015.NAA14027@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Forum" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Malta Appeal #6 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:54:05 PDT." <004201bed545$202e0860$39b420cc@host> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:15:56 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Hard to comment on what we do not see. No link, no url, no text. Is this > somewhere at acbl.org? Colker's article is on page 7 of ftp://209.45.144.70/nabc/1999sum-sanantonio/sabull02.pdf. You need Adobe Acrobat to read it. I don't think his article is in the HTML or text versions of the bulletin. The appeal is at http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/99etcap1.html. -- Adam > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Bickford > To: Bridge Laws Forum > Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 12:31 PM > Subject: Malta Appeal #6 > > > >In today's bulletin from the San Antonio NABC, Rich Colker is quite > critical > >of the AC decision in this appeal. His comments appear on page 7 of the > PDF > >version of the 7/23 bulletin. > > > >My immediate reaction is to agree with Rich, but I would be interested in > >the feelings of this forum. > > > > > >Cheers......................................./Bill Bickford > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 06:16:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA23376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:16:52 +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 GAA23370 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:16:43 +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 117lk5-000MJS-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:16:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:34:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Adjustment after UI References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >Good to be a TD in the next millenium. By the way, no suggestions to >celebrate this amongst ourselves? Isn't the 31th of December the 5th Friday >in the month? No, the last day of the second millennium is a Sunday, 31-12-2000. -- 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 Jul 24 06:16:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA23388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:16:56 +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 GAA23371 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:16:45 +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 117lk9-000MJi-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:16:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:32:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Just checking L26 References: <199907230507.PAA00817@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199907230507.PAA00817@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >>I thought this was going to be easy. If 3D was a general game try doesn't >it refer to a specific suit (in this case the trump suit). What trump suit? You may be going to play 3NT! > Perhaps a better >example would be a Bergen raise (insufficient) in which case it refers to a >specific holding in the trump suit...so we should use 26A, No? Yes, I would agree with this. A Bergen raise relates to a specified suit. >>What about cases where we could use a two-way cue raise, primarily to ask >about a stopper, but which could later be converted to an advance cue bid >agreeing trumps. Do I have to ask the player about his intention before >ruling on the lead penalties? Wouldn't I then be giving away UI by saying >"I am ruling under L26B because the cue bid wasn't asking for a stopper, it >was just showing general values." You have to find out the meaning of a call before you can decide whether it is L26A or L26B, that is true. A two-way cue is L26B: it does not relate to a suit. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 06:35:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA23435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:35:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from server01.gw.total-web.net (qmailr@server01.gw.total-web.net [209.186.12.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA23429 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:35:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 28832 invoked from network); 23 Jul 1999 20:35:28 -0000 Received: from ip-014-202.gw.total-web.net (HELO Bill) (209.186.14.202) by server01.gw.total-web.net with SMTP; 23 Jul 1999 20:35:28 -0000 Message-ID: <008a01bed54a$8684d120$ca0ebad1@Bill.gw.total-web.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Craig Senior" , "Bridge Laws Forum" Subject: Re: Malta Appeal #6 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:32:46 -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 Sorry; the URL is http://www.acbl.org/nabc/sananton/DailyBull.htm and the article is page seven of the Acrobat (PDG) version. It is also in the text version, but not in the web version. I don't know (and can't access) the Postscript version. Cheers............................/Bill Bickford -----Original Message----- From: Craig Senior To: Bill Bickford ; Bridge Laws Forum Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 3:52 PM Subject: Re: Malta Appeal #6 >Hard to comment on what we do not see. No link, no url, no text. Is this >somewhere at acbl.org? >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Bickford >To: Bridge Laws Forum >Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 12:31 PM >Subject: Malta Appeal #6 > > >>In today's bulletin from the San Antonio NABC, Rich Colker is quite >critical >>of the AC decision in this appeal. His comments appear on page 7 of the >PDF >>version of the 7/23 bulletin. >> >>My immediate reaction is to agree with Rich, but I would be interested in >>the feelings of this forum. >> >> >>Cheers......................................./Bill Bickford >> > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 08:29:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:29:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe040.worldonline.dk (fe040.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA25348 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:28:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 6107 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jul 1999 22:28:47 -0000 Received: from fe000.worldonline.dk (212.54.64.194) by fe040.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 23 Jul 1999 22:28:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 13848 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jul 1999 22:28:47 -0000 Received: from 29.ppp1-1.image.dk (212.54.78.29) by mail030.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 23 Jul 1999 22:28:47 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 84E and KD Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:28:45 GMT Message-ID: <37b9eb2c.4563994@mail.image.dk> References: <3.0.5.32.19990723225453.007afb10@netvision.net.il> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990723225453.007afb10@netvision.net.il> 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, 23 Jul 1999 22:54:53 +0300 skrev Eitan Levy: >This situation arose at the World Junior Pairs at Nymburk, Czech Republic: >The TD was called after play had ceased. "The KD is missing!" Law 14B 1 and 3 says that the card is deemed to have belonged to N all the time. There is no mention of bidding or play being changed. >(the finesse with north's QD was "successful") and there had been no >revoke.(14B3 and 64C do not apply.) 14B3 *does* apply, but there's no penalty. Result stands. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 08:41:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:41:08 +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 IAA25400 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:40:58 +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 SAA03951 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:40:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA05296 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:41:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:41:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907232241.SAA05296@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Just checking L26 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > 1Sp 4Di 4Cl oops I did not see the 4He, I have a splinter, > 4Sp pass > 4NT pass 6Cl 2 aces and a club void [for convenience, let's call the 1S bidder "West."] I don't understand why L27B2 (forcing West to pass) doesn't apply, but leaving that aside.... The 4C bid "relates to" both clubs and spades. Both of those are "specified" in the later auction, so if, for example, South bids and plays 7H, West would not be subject to a lead penalty. L16C2 would apply but probably wouldn't matter. (Don't ask me to explain South's bid, but perhaps 4D was a transfer overcall.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 08:44:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:44:49 +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 IAA25435 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:44:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from kantoor.ripe.net (kantoor.ripe.net [193.0.1.98]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA05036; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:44:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA19289; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:44:00 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:44:00 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Jesper Dybdal cc: Bridge Laws List , a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl Subject: Re: Anton Witzen's mail server seems to have a problem In-Reply-To: <379db601.1944245@post12.tele.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:24:14 -0500 (CDT), Barry Wolk > >There were reposts of several other old messages in today's mail. > >I've collected the following headers. All the other messages had > >current dates, either July 21 or 22. Markus, what's going on? > Anton: If I am correct in assuming that "cable.a2000.nl" is your > Internet provider, then it might be a good idea to ask them what > is going on. What happened is that A2000 (A cable and IP-over-cable provider in Amsterdam) has upgraded their mailserver without testing the new setup before it went online and without a possibility to go back to the old, working setup. This resulted in some 50000 emails getting lost, zillions of bounces and Gbytes of mail that couldn't be sent out or distributed to the end users. A2000 has tried to fix the problems and resent as much email as possible. I guess that that's why Anton's messages reappeared. > If you send them a copy of the complete set of headers from one such > message that I quote below, they should be able to analyze the problem. Dream on, these guys are pretty clueless. (Yes, I have an account with A2000 too, but I only use it for the bandwidth, I don't trust these guys for my email.) 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 Sat Jul 24 09:39:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA23497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:51:25 +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 GAA23492 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 06:51:14 +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 QAA01778 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:51:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA05226 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:51:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907232051.QAA05226@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Malta Appeal #6 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan Adam makes some excellent points, and I don't have any substantial disagreement with him. I certainly second his opinion that both the AC's language "should not pose any problem for experienced players" and Colker's about calling the TD being "unsportsmanlike and distasteful" have no place in our sport. Just a small addition: > I don't understand why Colker thinks the Committee's judgment about > the club lead was "highly questionable bridge judgment". Perhaps Adam missed the Lightner double. Partner either has a cashing ace or a void. Trump (i.e. diamond) or spade leads would clearly be wrong. If partner has a void, it's more likely to be in leader's five card suit (hearts) than in his singleton (clubs). And if partner has a cashing ace, a heart trick is more likely to disappear than a club trick because it's more likely that clubs are a suit affording discards. So there's at least a very strong case that the club lead was an egregious error (or irrational play, as the language now goes). If the club lead was irrational, on the AC's findings about other matters the OS score would still have been adjusted (and then the results combined according to L86B if this was a knockout match). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 10:07:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:07:15 +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 KAA25629 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:07:07 +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 117pL7-000IGw-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:06:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 01:05:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Just checking L26 In-Reply-To: <37984DB7.E4AFE0D0@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <37984DB7.E4AFE0D0@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> It seems within the bounds of possibility that I have made a mistake. >> >> Ok, L26A, sorry for not reading the question carefully. >> > >What David, for once I agree with you and then you change >your position? > >Have you got something against me ? > It must have hurt him, Herman :))) chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst - the dog's on holiday for a few days "It seems within the bounds of possibility that I have made a mistake." "No no no - I disagree" "Don't" "Do" "Don't" "Do" "Don't" -> 73 posts Quango concurs, Gnipper demurs, Nanki-poo purrs & Figaro's got fleas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 10:07:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:07:16 +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 KAA25628 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:07:07 +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 117pL7-000IGu-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:06:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:56:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Just checking L26 In-Reply-To: <37984F27.CB64FB6F@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <37984F27.CB64FB6F@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Sorry guys, you cannot be serious ! > >Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> Herman de Wael wrote: >> >> > I regard the word "related" as referring to transfers, but I >> > feel that the word "specified" means that the suit exists. >> >> I don't know what you mean by "the suit exists". If you mean that the >> suit exists in the deck, you're right; > >In the hand of course. > >I used "exists" to avoid saying how many. A support over a >five-card opening shows a three-card, that's what I call >"exists". > >> Law 26A does not apply to a >> conventional bid that relates to hippogriffs. If you think "specified >> suit" means "suit that the offender has values in", or "suit that >> exists in the offender's hand", or something like that, that's just a >> misunderstanding of the word "specified". The word basically means >> "named explicitly", and I think it's here to distinguish it from calls >> that related to unspecified suits (such as a 2C overcall of 1NT to >> show an unspecified one-suiter, or a double jump shift to show a void >> in an unspecified suit). >> >> -- Adam > >Surely we are not suggesting that if the bidding goes : > >1Sp 4Di 4Cl oops I did not see the 4He, I have a splinter, > 4Sp pass >4NT pass 6Cl 2 aces and a club void > which law permits the 4N bid? chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst - the dog's on holiday for a few days "It seems within the bounds of possibility that I have made a mistake." "No no no - I disagree" "Don't" "Do" "Don't" "Do" "Don't" -> 73 posts Quango concurs, Gnipper demurs, Nanki-poo purrs & Figaro's got fleas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 10:18:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:18:54 +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 KAA25671 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:18:47 +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 RAA17658; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:18:05 -0700 Message-Id: <199907240018.RAA17658@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Malta Appeal #6 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:51:18 PDT." <199907232051.QAA05226@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:18:06 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > From: Adam Beneschan > > Adam makes some excellent points, and I don't have any substantial > disagreement with him. I certainly second his opinion that both the > AC's language "should not pose any problem for experienced players" and > Colker's about calling the TD being "unsportsmanlike and distasteful" > have no place in our sport. > > Just a small addition: > > > I don't understand why Colker thinks the Committee's judgment about > > the club lead was "highly questionable bridge judgment". > > Perhaps Adam missed the Lightner double. Partner either has a cashing > ace or a void. Trump (i.e. diamond) or spade leads would clearly be > wrong. If partner has a void, it's more likely to be in leader's five > card suit (hearts) than in his singleton (clubs). And if partner has a > cashing ace, a heart trick is more likely to disappear than a club > trick because it's more likely that clubs are a suit affording > discards. So there's at least a very strong case that the club lead > was an egregious error (or irrational play, as the language now goes). No, I saw the double, but had trouble seeing it as Lightner, because it's not one of the usual situations where I'm familiar with Lightner, i.e. (1) dummy didn't have a first-bid suit, (2) West wasn't void and thus didn't have a reason to expect East might have a long enough suit to play him for a void, and (3) there was nothing in the auction to suggest that a heart might be a more unusual lead than a club or vice versa. I guess West was trying to say "Don't lead a spade, and I hope you guess right which one to lead". I've never really seen Lightner used in that way, except when the alternative suits have such a disparity that the doubler can figure there's a good chance partner will guess right---I don't know if that's the case here. But this is probably just my own ignorance. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 11:11:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:11:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25774 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:11:11 +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 117qL6-000M6B-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 01:11:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 01:34:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Just checking L26 References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A0@XION> <199907231622.JAA10522@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199907231622.JAA10522@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Martin Sinot wrote: >> I think that 3D is not related to a specific suit, in the sense that it >> doesn't tell anything about North's holding (in diamonds or otherwise); >> rather >> it requests specific information about South's hand. So I would rule L26B >> too. >> >> Now, "related to" IMO means "showing information" . . . >I think this is false, in the English language. To me, a bid that >asks about spades is also "related to" spades. "Related" is quite a >vague word that just means "connected in some way". (Webster's Ninth >New Collegiate: "connected by reason of an established or discoverable >relation".) One might argue, I suppose, that the Laws' authors >intended this to mean "shows information about". However, in the rest >of the Laws, the phrase "conveys information" (or conjugations of it) >is used quite frequently, and that phrase wasn't used in Law 26, so >chances are the authors intended to mean "related" in the broader >sense. I wonder whether our approach is correct here. If a Law is completely unambiguous, then we follow the written word [ok, there are some arguments in two cases where the WBFLC _appear_ to have given interpretations different from the written word, but leave those aside for the moment]. If the Law is ambiguous, then we have to interpret it. The current position of the WBFLC is that they do the interpreting, but I really do not think this is currently practical or effective: I do not suggest it will not be in the future. For now, we have to get interpretations from elsewhere. Adam is trying to squeeze the correct interpretation out of the actual wording, but I suggest this is not necessarily the way to go. We should also consider custom+practice, interpretations from Zonal and National authorities, and the logic of the situation. I have looked this up in Duplicate Decisions and the EBL Guide: neither is helpful. What about logic? Well, surely the reason for the distinction between L26A and L26B is obvious enough. L26 is another Law, like the revoke Law, where a simple automatic rule is provided to stop the TD being required to delve in depth into hand after hand to look for damage. In effect, L26A tries to alleviate the potential damage from the UI given by partner's call by restricting the first lead of the offender's partner. OK, it is not always accurate, and L16C will occasionally have to be invoked anyway, but that is surely the reason for the approach. Suppose we look at these "doubtful" cases from the logical approach. We are considering whether L26A or L26B applies in the following cases: [a] 2H bid showing length in hearts [b] 2H bid showing length in spades [c] 2H bid showing a control in hearts [d] 2H bid asking for a stopper in hearts Now, we do have one clear clue: if the suit is specified again in the auction then there is effectively no penalty. So [a] is obvious: [b] is just as obvious, the position being effectively the same. How about [c] and [d]? If [c] applies, then it is reasonable to assume that partner might lead the suit, and that there is no "effective" UI once partner has shown the suit again, whether as a control, splinter or whatever. Thus, logically, [c] is a L26A case. But how about [d]? It asks for something in hearts, but does it show anything? Does it affect partner's lead? I have previously given two answers: time for a third! I believe that the original case was a L26B case: in effect my view is now that L26A applies when the player shows something in the suit, but not when he merely asks for something in the suit. Thus, when [d] applies, L26A does not. Ok, Kojak, Grattan, Herman, Marv, here I am, shoot me! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 11:11:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:11:23 +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 LAA25782 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:11:15 +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 117qLC-000M6A-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 01:11:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:07:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1E5@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1E5@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >Van: David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] >> 4: Consideration was given to the meaning of 'average >> minus' where used in Law 12C1. >> Having debated the options, the Committee held >> that 'average minus' means the player's session >> percentage or 40% whichever is the lower. >>[*] Why do I have doubts about the WBFLC's interpretation of L12C1? >>Because the printed word is clear, and it dopes not indicate in the Law >>book the limitations imposed by this interpretation. Also, if it was as >>this interpretation indicates, there would be an equivalent 40% Law to >>L88. >I don't understand this, so please explain somewhat more. >12c speaks about 'at most 40%' and 'at least 60%'and at least 60% is >explained in 88. It wouldn't be clear without 88, do we agree? How then can >you say that the printed word is clear when we have to know what 'at most >40%'is? To me it seems that the only guideline in the laws is the >description given in 88, which leads to the interpretation the WBFLC has >given. Forget your preconceived notions, and please read the Law without bias. When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. So, A- is <=40%: A+ is >= 60% and it gives a reference to L86 or L88. It is normal for references to be consistent, so if the logic for 60% being increased were to be balanced by the logic for 40% to be reduced then I would expect balancing Laws to L86 and L88: well, in fact, I would expect L86 and L88 to cover both A+ and A*-. > I am not saying that the ACBL interpretation is not reasonable, but >why is that the logic one? When I first read the new L12C1 I assumed that it meant that A- was 40% except if, exceptionally, the TD decided to give less. I find the ACBL interpretation no better than the WBF one. Both are impersonal, and not designed to treat bridge players as human beings. Whatever the situation, unless a player has done something seriously wrong [when L90 or L91 is suitable] I think that giving a player less than 40% on a board he is unable to play is vicious. > I put your suggestion for the next edtion in my >files. Those resultprograms probably never get updated anyway. True enough. If the Law was clear I would not argue it anyway, but at the moment I am sure that TDs in Cheltenham and Little Rock and Pretoria are giving random decisions based on this. >(I never got an answer on my question: do I really have to add all those >> >in my reply?) If yes, more reason to keep it short please. No, Ton, I think it was just one article that went wrong for some reason. This one is fine. 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 Sat Jul 24 11:11:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:11:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25775 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:11:11 +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 117qL6-000M6C-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 01:11:03 +0000 Message-ID: <48ZF75AZ3Qm3EwwN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 01:50:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem References: <199907081445.KAA12078@freenet3.carleton.ca> <199907081951.PAA00164@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <199907081951.PAA00164@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: >Actually, in ACBL play, Grattan's ruling can actually be backed >up by the ACBL laws. Ted. Please let me explain again. There are no "ACBL Laws": the Laws of Bridge are world-wide, and are decided by the WBF [World Bridge Federation] and not the ACBL. Admittedly, there are three publications, an English version, an American version, and a European version, but, trust me, the distinctions are trivial, and not relevant to this matter. So you are talking about Laws that are world-wide. > There is no need to add a law to cover the >situation as it is covered by the following laws (IMHO): >ACBL Law 45.B states: > "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card > after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the > table. in playin from dummy's hand declarer may, if nec- > essary, pick up the desired card himself." As it does in the English and European versions. >ACBL Law 45.C.4 states: > "A. A card must be played if a player names or other- > wise designates it as the card he proposes to play." As it does in the English and European versions. >Thus, by saying "run the clubs" you have in effect stated what the >next 'n' cards will be from the dummy and they are designated played. And this is where we part company. We have discussed this, and we do not agree with you. Bridge is played one trick at a time. Consider the wording "... by naming the card after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table". Now, if it were possible to consider "Run the clubs" as a statement of how to play the suit, then this would require dummy to pick up *all* the clubs and face them all on the table, which is manifestly absurd. Suppose that one of the clubs loses unexpectedly: your reading of the Law would require dummy to revoke on the next trick, which is also absurd! No, "Run the clubs" is not a method of playing from dummy, and has been adjudged as a completely unnecessary statement of intent rather than a play of the cards. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 12:03:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:03:23 +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 MAA25882 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:03:15 +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 117r9X-000CG1-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:03:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:01:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Just checking L26 References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A0@XION> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Schmahl wrote: >On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Martin Sinot wrote: > >: Now, "related to" IMO means "showing information". It does not necessarily >: mean "showing length and/or strength"; in the following sequence: >: W N E S >: 1H 4C 3S >: >: where 3S was meant as splinter, the 3S specifically tells us something >: about East's spade holding (apart from having a heart fit), namely >: that the East hand contains at most one spade. So I suppose that in >: this case L26A applies to both hearts and spades, if EW become >: defenders. > >Just checking... L26A1 for hearts (no lead penalty against hearts), >but L26A2 for spades, correct? If you accept Michael's logic, then L26A2 applies to both hearts and spades unless East shows them at some other time in the auction. -- 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 Jul 24 14:42:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 14:42:36 +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 OAA26099 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 14:42:28 +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 XAA84370 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:42:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0XBYH01Y Fri, 23 Jul 99 23:43:37 Message-ID: <9907232343.0XBYH01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 99 23:43:37 Subject: LAW 84E AND K To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 13 requires an art adj score if the board did not have all the cards and a call was made. Of course, the offender is subject to a PP for causing an adj score. I would think that L84E is not to be applied. Roger Pewick B>This situation arose at the World Junior Pairs at Nymburk, Czech B>Republic: The TD was called after play had ceased. "The KD is missing!" B>North (dummy) had only 12 cards and the missing card was found (in a B>TD's pocket - it had been found on the floor previously). The missing B>card had not affected play (the finesse with north's QD was B>"successful") and there had been no revoke.(14B3 and 64C do not apply.) B>The bidding had been North (14 points, flat) 1Cl - South (10 points B>flat) 1NT - all pass. West led a club (a normal lead) and 10 tricks were B>easily made. B>The problem: B>North remarked that with the KD he would have opened 1NT (17 points). S B>said that that they were unlucky: with 10 points he would have raised to B>3NT, making. East remarked that EW were unlucky. If North plays 3NT B>East's obvious lead is a spade which holds the contract to 8 tricks - B>one down. B>(The competition was barometer, and within minutes it was clear the vast B>majority of the field had played 3NT one down with a spade lead.) B>TD's action: B>Should the TD let the result stand, or consider adjusting? B>In Nymburk, a majority of TDs thought the result should stand, on the B>basis of "the luck of the draw', or the rub of the green.Their argument B>was that the lack of the KD could have resulted in NS missing a cold B>game just as easily as helping them stay out of an unmakeable game, and B>that the actual result was just bad luck for EW. This was analogous to a B>correction of an insufficient bid to 6NT, a shot in the dark which may B>or may not succeed. B>The minority felt that an adjustment was called for, mainly on the basis B>of Law 84E (also Law 12A1). B>As I was in the minority, I would like to present my arguments for B>adjusting. B>LAW 84E: If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is B>provided by law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even B>a reasonable possibility that the NO side was damaged .... B>Now let's examine our case: B>1. Did an irregularity occur? Yes, N didn't count his cards.(Law 7B1) B>2. Is a penalty for not counting cards provided by law? No .(The penalty B>in Law 14 is for revoking etc as a result of not counting cards, not of B>failure to count. The penalty in 90B7 is procedural and is only a B>penalty for the OS and in any case is only given if an adjusted score IS B>required.) 3. Is there a reasonable possibility that the NO side B>(East-west) was damaged? Yes (even more than reasonable, probable) - B>they scored -180 instead of +50. B>So Law 84E applies and the director awards an adjusted score (in this B>case probably 3NT-1). Note that 84E says that the Director awards, (not B>may or must or should, simply awards), and he doesn't have to use B>judgement as stated in 12A1. The judgement in 84E concerns reasonable B>possibility of damage, and not judgement whether a NO was provided B>(sufficient) indemnity by the application or non-application of a law) B>I also felt that the example of insufficient bids and other examples B>were not really analagous as in those circumstances there had been a B>penalty (for example, partner must pass.) B>The TDs felt that the views of BLML would be interesting, and suggested B>that I post the problem. B>(I have purposely omitted the hands, as the question is one of principle B>of whether to consider adjustment or not, and I don't think a discussion B>at this stage such as "would E have led a spade" is relevant, although B>of course it would be relevant when considering whether and what B>adjustment to make.) B>Eitan Levy B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 14:42:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 14:42:25 +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 OAA26092 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 14:42:18 +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 XAA84369 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:42:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0XBWB01X Fri, 23 Jul 99 23:43:32 Message-ID: <9907232343.0XBWB01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 99 23:43:32 Subject: JUST CHECKING L26 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au () Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Adam Beneschan wrote: >>Martin Sinot wrote: -s- >But how about [d]? It asks for something in hearts, but does it show >anything? Does it affect partner's lead? >I have previously given two answers: time for a third! I believe that >the original case was a L26B case: in effect my view is now that L26A >applies when the player shows something in the suit, but not when he >merely asks for something in the suit. Thus, when [d] applies, L26A >does not. >Ok, Kojak, Grattan, Herman, Marv, here I am, shoot me! If everyone shoots at the same time will David duck :-) ? >-- >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. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 17:03:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 17:03:06 +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 RAA26326 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 17:02:58 +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 ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:03:29 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9907232343.0XBWB01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:59:55 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: JUST CHECKING L26 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:43 PM -0400 7/23/99, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: >If everyone shoots at the same time will David duck :-) ? Or will he go up with the ace? :-) 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/AwUBN5llHb2UW3au93vOEQIJ6QCeInBW2nJtzx2AiNSq7aRhMqbUlXkAnA8O bNKAr3JRp17Ds4lVF4E1MfQ+ =yHZs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 18:59:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 18:59:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgw1.netvision.net.il (mailgw1.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26481 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 18:59:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from eitan (RAS2-p110.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.182.234]) by mailgw1.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA04507 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:59:39 +0300 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990724120650.0089f810@netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:06:50 +0300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: LAW 84E AND K In-Reply-To: <9907232343.0XBYH01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 13 does not apply here. Read the footnote. It clearly states that in the case of three correct hands and one deficient (the case here) Law 14 and not Law 13 applies. Law 14 does not provide for an adjusted score. So we're back to the question: Do we apply Law 84E? Eitan >Law 13 requires an art adj score if the board did not have all the cards and >a call was made. Of course, the offender is subject to a PP for causing an >adj score. I would think that L84E is not to be applied. > >Roger Pewick > >B>This situation arose at the World Junior Pairs at Nymburk, Czech >B>Republic: The TD was called after play had ceased. "The KD is missing!" >B>North (dummy) had only 12 cards and the missing card was found (in a >B>TD's pocket - it had been found on the floor previously). The missing >B>card had not affected play (the finesse with north's QD was >B>"successful") and there had been no revoke.(14B3 and 64C do not apply.) >B>The bidding had been North (14 points, flat) 1Cl - South (10 points >B>flat) 1NT - all pass. West led a club (a normal lead) and 10 tricks were >B>easily made. >B>The problem: >B>North remarked that with the KD he would have opened 1NT (17 points). S >B>said that that they were unlucky: with 10 points he would have raised to >B>3NT, making. East remarked that EW were unlucky. If North plays 3NT >B>East's obvious lead is a spade which holds the contract to 8 tricks - >B>one down. >B>(The competition was barometer, and within minutes it was clear the vast >B>majority of the field had played 3NT one down with a spade lead.) >B>TD's action: >B>Should the TD let the result stand, or consider adjusting? >B>In Nymburk, a majority of TDs thought the result should stand, on the >B>basis of "the luck of the draw', or the rub of the green.Their argument >B>was that the lack of the KD could have resulted in NS missing a cold >B>game just as easily as helping them stay out of an unmakeable game, and >B>that the actual result was just bad luck for EW. This was analogous to a >B>correction of an insufficient bid to 6NT, a shot in the dark which may >B>or may not succeed. >B>The minority felt that an adjustment was called for, mainly on the basis >B>of Law 84E (also Law 12A1). >B>As I was in the minority, I would like to present my arguments for >B>adjusting. >B>LAW 84E: If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is >B>provided by law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even >B>a reasonable possibility that the NO side was damaged .... >B>Now let's examine our case: >B>1. Did an irregularity occur? Yes, N didn't count his cards.(Law 7B1) >B>2. Is a penalty for not counting cards provided by law? No .(The penalty >B>in Law 14 is for revoking etc as a result of not counting cards, not of >B>failure to count. The penalty in 90B7 is procedural and is only a >B>penalty for the OS and in any case is only given if an adjusted score IS >B>required.) 3. Is there a reasonable possibility that the NO side >B>(East-west) was damaged? Yes (even more than reasonable, probable) - >B>they scored -180 instead of +50. >B>So Law 84E applies and the director awards an adjusted score (in this >B>case probably 3NT-1). Note that 84E says that the Director awards, (not >B>may or must or should, simply awards), and he doesn't have to use >B>judgement as stated in 12A1. The judgement in 84E concerns reasonable >B>possibility of damage, and not judgement whether a NO was provided >B>(sufficient) indemnity by the application or non-application of a law) >B>I also felt that the example of insufficient bids and other examples >B>were not really analagous as in those circumstances there had been a >B>penalty (for example, partner must pass.) > >B>The TDs felt that the views of BLML would be interesting, and suggested >B>that I post the problem. > >B>(I have purposely omitted the hands, as the question is one of principle >B>of whether to consider adjustment or not, and I don't think a discussion >B>at this stage such as "would E have led a spade" is relevant, although >B>of course it would be relevant when considering whether and what >B>adjustment to make.) > >B>Eitan Levy > >B> >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas >r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >___ >*SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 19:04:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:04:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgw1.netvision.net.il (mailgw1.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26498 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:04:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from eitan (RAS2-p110.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.182.234]) by mailgw1.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA04776 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:04:30 +0300 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990724121141.008a8d00@netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:11:41 +0300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: Law 84E and KD In-Reply-To: <37b9eb2c.4563994@mail.image.dk> References: <3.0.5.32.19990723225453.007afb10@netvision.net.il> <3.0.5.32.19990723225453.007afb10@netvision.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:28 PM 7/23/99 GMT, you wrote: >Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:54:53 +0300 skrev Eitan Levy: > >>This situation arose at the World Junior Pairs at Nymburk, Czech Republic: >>The TD was called after play had ceased. "The KD is missing!" > >Law 14B 1 and 3 says that the card is deemed to have belonged to >N all the time. There is no mention of bidding or play being >changed. > Exactly. In other words, there is no mention of penalty or adjustment for not counting. >>(the finesse with north's QD was "successful") and there had been no >>revoke.(14B3 and 64C do not apply.) > >14B3 *does* apply, but there's no penalty. Result stands. > Perhaps I wasnt clear. Of course 14B3 applies (that's why I mentioned there had not been a revoke), but because there was no revoke or penalty card it has no application (implementation?) in this case. The penalties mentioned are for revoking or having a penalty card, *not* for miscounting. So there is no penalty for the infraction of miscounting. 84E applies to precisely those circumstances where no penalty for an infraction is provided for. So why does 84E not apply here? >Bertel >-- >Denmark, Europe >http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 19:43:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:43:43 +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 TAA26591 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:43:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-85-221.uunet.be [194.7.85.221]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23472 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:43:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37998642.91EB5A57@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:24:18 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 84E and KD References: <3.0.5.32.19990723225453.007afb10@netvision.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Eitan, Eitan Levy wrote: > [you've all read the case] I think it is quite clear that the only Law possible is L84E, and let's read it completely: "if an iregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by Law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged (*), notifying the offending side of its right to appeal (see Law 81C9)". I have added a (*) because there may be a part of a sentence missing here. There could have been a "by the irregularity" in here. Now there are two possibilities about this phrase : 1) The WBFLC did not put that part in there because it thought this was clearly to be understood; or 2) The WBFLC did not put that part in there because it did not intend this. This is really again a consequent or a subsequent "damage". Since I believe that the word "damage" is not synonimous with "bad score", but implies some consequence, it is my opinion that the first of two reasons above is the correct one. Therefore I would not adjust in the KD case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 19:43:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:43:42 +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 TAA26590 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:43:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-85-221.uunet.be [194.7.85.221]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23466 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:43:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37998274.DAD384D0@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:08:04 +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: Avg+ and Avg- References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1E5@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > >(I never got an answer on my question: do I really have to add all those >> > >in my reply?) If yes, more reason to keep it short please. > > No, Ton, I think it was just one article that went wrong for some > reason. This one is fine. > I think, David, that is because Ton, in this post, manually added those ">". And he asks if this is necessary. All I can say is that my mailer has no option of which character (>) to put before quotes. Presumably Ton's mailer has some options about this, and his option was set to "". Look for it Ton ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 19:44:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:44:05 +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 TAA26613 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:43:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id FAA00444 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 05:43:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 05:43:47 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Another Revoke Problem In-Reply-To: <199907081951.PAA00164@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Ted Ying wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 (EDT) > > From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) > > > > >+++ For what it is worth this is the note I have put on my > > >memory board: > > > " ? add to Law 45B: 'If declarer instructs dummy as to > > > the play of a card on a trick subsequent to the current > > > trick, that card is played when the previous trick has > > > been quitted and dummy has placed the card in the > > > played position.' " ~ Grattan ~ +++ > > > > > For what it is worth, I don't like this idea at all. I think > > it would be alot easier just to state that it is improper to > > say things like "run the clubs". State that bridge is played > > trick by trick (not including claims, of course). State that > > failing to follow correct procedure could result in a PP, > > especially if it causes the opponents a problem. In other words, > > I don't think we need to add a new law (set of laws?), something > > added between "play trick by trick" and "claim". I don't want > > to have to one day adjudicate someone's "partial claim". > > I feel we should strive for fewer and clearer Laws and > > regulations, not for more and denser. To paraphrase an old saying, > > "An ounce of principle is worth a pound of adjudication". > > > > Actually, in ACBL play, Grattan's ruling can actually be backed > up by the ACBL laws. There is no need to add a law to cover the > situation as it is covered by the following laws (IMHO): > These aren't "ACBL Laws." They are the Laws of the game as published by the ACBL. (Picky, I know, because some at least of the Zonal options are there in effect for the ACBL only). > ACBL Law 45.B states: > "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card > after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the > table. in playin from dummy's hand declarer may, if nec- > essary, pick up the desired card himself." > > ACBL Law 45.C.4 states: > "A. A card must be played if a player names or other- > wise designates it as the card he proposes to play." > > Thus, by saying "run the clubs" you have in effect stated what the > next 'n' cards will be from the dummy and they are designated played. > No matter if you have extraneous information from the discards on those > pitches, declarer may not change the play without an infraction > occurring. 45.B does not state when the declarer names the card, but > whether all at once or one by one. > > ACBL Law 47.F states: > "Except as provided in A through E preceding, a card once > played may not be withdrawn." > > Since A through E do not cover anything akin to a change of intent > once the declarer designates to run a suit, then (s)he must run the > suit and cannot change the play until the suit has been run. > Somewhere or other--sorry, I can't at the moment find where, and it wasn't recent--I have seen an ACBL interpretation saying that "Run the clubs" is merely a perfectly reasonable way of speeding up the play of the hand, and that declarer can say "Stop!" at any time. And if you don't like that interpretation, declarer can always say, "Run the clubs until I tell you to stop." -- Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 19:53:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:53:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26638 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:53:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp204-203.worldonline.nl [195.241.204.203]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA29078; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:53:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004c01bed5ba$d8a0c200$cbccf1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , "Eitan Levy" Subject: Re: Law 84E and KD Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:56:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk hello Eitan, good to hear from you, even when you are complicating our bridgeworld. I join the majority (how many TD's did you have out there?). I agree with the subsequent damage approach here. But I have another argument. There is a penalty provided for this irregularity, which is the procedure described in law 14. The word 'penalty' has a very general meaning in the laws and the result of applying the relevant laws could be that the penalty is void. Let me give another example. A player gets a major-penalty card by dropping the card when winning a trick. The 'penalty' is that he has to play this card now, which appears to be the unexpected winning line for his side, not really a penalty, is it? Are we adjusting that score? No. I hope that my LC members agree, but if they don't life is just more exciting. ton -----Original Message----- From: Eitan Levy To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 10:37 PM Subject: Law 84E and KD >This situation arose at the World Junior Pairs at Nymburk, Czech Republic: >The TD was called after play had ceased. "The KD is missing!" North (dummy) >had only 12 cards and the missing card was found (in a TD's pocket - it had >been found on the floor previously). The missing card had not affected play >(the finesse with north's QD was "successful") and there had been no >revoke.(14B3 and 64C do not apply.) >The bidding had been North (14 points, flat) 1Cl - South (10 points flat) >1NT - all pass. West led a club (a normal lead) and 10 tricks were easily >made. >The problem: >North remarked that with the KD he would have opened 1NT (17 points). S >said that that they were unlucky: with 10 points he would have raised to >3NT, making. East remarked that EW were unlucky. If North plays 3NT East's >obvious lead is a spade which holds the contract to 8 tricks - one down. >(The competition was barometer, and within minutes it was clear the vast >majority of the field had played 3NT one down with a spade lead.) >TD's action: >Should the TD let the result stand, or consider adjusting? >In Nymburk, a majority of TDs thought the result should stand, on the basis >of "the luck of the draw', or the rub of the green.Their argument was that >the lack of the KD could have resulted in NS missing a cold game just as >easily as helping them stay out of an unmakeable game, and that the actual >result was just bad luck for EW. This was analogous to a correction of an >insufficient bid to 6NT, a shot in the dark which may or may not succeed. >The minority felt that an adjustment was called for, mainly on the basis of >Law 84E (also Law 12A1). >As I was in the minority, I would like to present my arguments for adjusting. >LAW 84E: If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided >by law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even a reasonable >possibility that the NO side was damaged .... >Now let's examine our case: >1. Did an irregularity occur? Yes, N didn't count his cards.(Law 7B1) >2. Is a penalty for not counting cards provided by law? No .(The penalty in >Law 14 is for revoking etc as a result of not counting cards, not of >failure to count. The penalty in 90B7 is procedural and is only a penalty >for the OS and in any case is only given if an adjusted score IS required.) >3. Is there a reasonable possibility that the NO side (East-west) was >damaged? Yes (even more than reasonable, probable) - they scored -180 >instead of +50. >So Law 84E applies and the director awards an adjusted score (in this case >probably 3NT-1). Note that 84E says that the Director awards, (not may or >must or should, simply awards), and he doesn't have to use judgement as >stated in 12A1. The judgement in 84E concerns reasonable possibility of >damage, and not judgement whether a NO was provided (sufficient) indemnity >by the application or non-application of a law) >I also felt that the example of insufficient bids and other examples were >not really analagous as in those circumstances there had been a penalty >(for example, partner must pass.) > >The TDs felt that the views of BLML would be interesting, and suggested >that I post the problem. > >(I have purposely omitted the hands, as the question is one of principle of >whether to consider adjustment or not, and I don't think a discussion at >this stage such as "would E have led a spade" is relevant, although of >course it would be relevant when considering whether and what adjustment to >make.) > >Eitan Levy > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 24 23:22:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 23:00:12 +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 WAA27069 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:59:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.122]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990724130039.PHAJ10427.fep2@jd-private.internal> for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:00:39 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Just checking L26 Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 14:59:34 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <379ab256.865915@post12.tele.dk> References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A0@XION> <199907231622.JAA10522@mailhub.irvine.com> 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 XAA27074 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 01:34:26 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >[a] 2H bid showing length in hearts >[b] 2H bid showing length in spades >[c] 2H bid showing a control in hearts >[d] 2H bid asking for a stopper in hearts > > But how about [d]? It asks for something in hearts, but does it show >anything? Does it affect partner's lead? It might discourage a heart lead. My interpretation is that all four "specify" a suit, and are therefore L26A cases. I see your point, however, and it is not unreasonable. But I think that it would impractical for the TD to have to decide whether the way a call is related to a suit constitutes a "specification" in a way that provides useful suit-specific UI, and I do not expect that that was the intention of the lawmakers. As you say yourself, L26 is a law that should provide a simple automatic ruling: IMO it would not do that very well if the TD had to judge what kind of information about the suit it gave. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 25 00:11:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 23:00:10 +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 WAA27070 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:59:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.122]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990724130045.PHAK10427.fep2@jd-private.internal> for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:00:45 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Anton Witzen's mail server seems to have a problem Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 14:59:40 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <379cb454.1375187@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 XAA27075 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies to BLML for (also) sending a partial draft of my previous message on this subject: it was in the "Split Scores" thread, and when I decided to make a new thread instead I accidentally sent the draft instead of deleting it. On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:44:00 +0200 (CEST), "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" wrote: >What happened is that A2000 (A cable and IP-over-cable provider in >Amsterdam) has upgraded their mailserver without testing the new setup >before it went online and without a possibility to go back to the old, >working setup. This resulted in some 50000 emails getting lost, zillions >of bounces and Gbytes of mail that couldn't be sent out or distributed to >the end users. A2000 has tried to fix the problems and resent as much >email as possible. I guess that that's why Anton's messages reappeared. Interesting. They must have resent them to the address in the "To" header (BLML) instead of to the address (Anton's) for which they originally received the message. The important thing is of course that there does not seem to be any significant risk that they will resend all of the BLML mail from the past 2 weeks. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 25 01:33:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 01:33:24 +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 BAA27427 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 01:33:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 1183nP-0006iN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 17:33:07 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990724173114.00b12780@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 17:31:14 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Anton Witzen's mail server seems to have a problem In-Reply-To: References: <379db601.1944245@post12.tele.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:44 24-07-99 +0200, you wrote: >On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:24:14 -0500 (CDT), Barry Wolk > >> >There were reposts of several other old messages in today's mail. >> >I've collected the following headers. All the other messages had >> >current dates, either July 21 or 22. Markus, what's going on? > >> Anton: If I am correct in assuming that "cable.a2000.nl" is your >> Internet provider, then it might be a good idea to ask them what >> is going on. > >What happened is that A2000 (A cable and IP-over-cable provider in >Amsterdam) has upgraded their mailserver without testing the new setup >before it went online and without a possibility to go back to the old, >working setup. This resulted in some 50000 emails getting lost, zillions >of bounces and Gbytes of mail that couldn't be sent out or distributed to >the end users. A2000 has tried to fix the problems and resent as much >email as possible. I guess that that's why Anton's messages reappeared. > >> If you send them a copy of the complete set of headers from one such >> message that I quote below, they should be able to analyze the problem. > >Dream on, these guys are pretty clueless. (Yes, I have an account with >A2000 too, but I only use it for the bandwidth, I don't trust these guys >for my email.) > Indeed, henk is right, thanks for explaining it. They made an awfull mess of their job. And complaining doesnt help a single bit i'm afraid. Sorry for the inconvenience. It seems that now things are looking normal, although my email still shows funny behaviour at some times. regards, anton >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). > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 25 05:56:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 05:56:55 +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 FAA28509 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 05:56:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-205-164.s164.tnt4.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.205.164]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id PAA15154 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000e01bed60e$5ecafc80$a4cd7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <004c01bed5ba$d8a0c200$cbccf1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: Law 84E and KD Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:54:41 -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: ton kooijman To: ; Eitan Levy Sent: Saturday, July 24, 1999 5:56 AM Subject: Re: Law 84E and KD > hello Eitan, good to hear from you, even when you are complicating our > bridgeworld. > > I join the majority (how many TD's did you have out there?). > I agree with the subsequent damage approach here. But I have another > argument. There is a penalty provided for this irregularity, which is the > procedure described in law 14. The word 'penalty' has a very general meaning > in the laws and the result of applying the relevant laws could be that the > penalty is void. Let me give another example. A player gets a major-penalty > card by dropping the card when winning a trick. The 'penalty' is that he has > to play this card now, which appears to be the unexpected winning line for > his side, not really a penalty, is it? > Are we adjusting that score? No. > > I hope that my LC members agree, but if they don't life is just more > exciting. > > ton > I'm joining the minority, because I think that in this case there are two separate irregularities. The first irregularity is the missing card. It would be a misnomer to describe this as an infraction, since the Law 14 does not state any procedure of the game that would constitute an infraction if violated. It is simply an instruction to the TD on how to deal with a missing card scenario. However, there is also a violation of Law 7B1, failing to count cards before play. This is in fact an infraction, and one for which no penalty is specified. In this particular case it has led to a missing card scenario, which is dealt with by Law 14, but in many cases failure to count will not matter at all (all of the cases in which the player actually has 13 cards). The key is that L14 is not a penalty for a L7 violation, and in fact will not even apply in most L7 violations. It is a separate Law dealing with a specific situation. So, we deal with the irregularities separately. First, apply L14 to correct the missing card situation. Then determine if a violation of L7 occurred. If so, then determine if there was a reasonable possibility that the NOS was damaged by the L7 violation. If so, then L84E kicks in, as L7 does not specify a penalty. A PP for the L7 violation might also be appropriate. In the case at hand, the likelihood is that there was a violation of L7 that was not subject to penalty, so IMO it is appropriate to use L84E. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 25 07:01:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 07:01:48 +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 HAA28662 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 07:01:40 +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 1188vE-0008TZ-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:01:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:09:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: JUST CHECKING L26 In-Reply-To: <9907232343.0XBWB01@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9907232343.0XBWB01@bbs.hal-pc.org>, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org writes > >>Adam Beneschan wrote: >>>Martin Sinot wrote: > >-s- > >>But how about [d]? It asks for something in hearts, but does it show >>anything? Does it affect partner's lead? > >>I have previously given two answers: time for a third! I believe that >>the original case was a L26B case: in effect my view is now that L26A >>applies when the player shows something in the suit, but not when he >>merely asks for something in the suit. Thus, when [d] applies, L26A >>does not. Are you influenced by the 1H 4C 3S auction where 3S is splinter? I'm comfortable for that being H & S. I'm still sticking with 26A2 until someone comes up with a convincing reason why not. The keyword is "relates" IMO In the original case, no other suit is keyed in any way, whereas the insufficient splinter keys one suit and shows a second. BTW How would you rule 1N 1C(landy overcall[H+S])? 26A2 for H+S? also a 2-suited exclusion method? eg proddy and I play 2C - 2D - 2N - 3H as showing S+D how do you rule 2C - 2D - 2N - 2H? I think this clearly 26A2 for S&D tho' 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 Jul 25 10:26:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:26:51 +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 KAA29085 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:26:43 +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 118C7N-000I0X-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 00:26:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 01:16:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 84E and KD References: <004c01bed5ba$d8a0c200$cbccf1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <004c01bed5ba$d8a0c200$cbccf1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: >hello Eitan, good to hear from you, even when you are complicating our >bridgeworld. > >I join the majority (how many TD's did you have out there?). >I agree with the subsequent damage approach here. But I have another >argument. There is a penalty provided for this irregularity, which is the >procedure described in law 14. The word 'penalty' has a very general meaning >in the laws and the result of applying the relevant laws could be that the >penalty is void. Let me give another example. A player gets a major-penalty >card by dropping the card when winning a trick. The 'penalty' is that he has >to play this card now, which appears to be the unexpected winning line for >his side, not really a penalty, is it? >Are we adjusting that score? No. > >I hope that my LC members agree, but if they don't life is just more >exciting. This is an important principle, which has affected other rulings considered here in the past. There is a big difference between a situation for which there is nothing in the Laws, when we employ L12A1 or L84E, and a situation where the penalty happens to come to zero, when we may not use these catchall Laws. L14B applies: no adjustment: rub of the green. -- 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 Jul 25 11:54:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:54:08 +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 LAA29318 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:54:00 +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 ; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:54:28 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3796EAD2.E8822570@village.uunet.be> References: Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:42:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Can CoC Contravene the Laws? [was: Book on Movements, etc.] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:56 AM -0400 7/22/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >Please realise, Ed, that this is not the ACBL. I know. >I don't see how this contravenes the Laws. > >When you are, by the nature of your appeal, already at the >highest possible authority, there seems to me no need to be >able to go even higher. >I believe L93C exists to allow a contestant to seek the best >advice possible, in case a SO selects a below-par AC. I guess I'll just say that I agree with David. >I believe that best advice possible was achieved here. Mebbe so, but I still agree with David. :-) 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/AwUBN5puM72UW3au93vOEQLe/gCdG73K6TVBEWUpqbJeRQuQJZPHAtYAnRgd ANeNuI0VhXQBKcmg07u+mpnu =QJf1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 25 12:56:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:56:48 +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 MAA29427 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:56:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-34.pinehurst.net [12.20.137.240]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA06446; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <379A7D8A.F58A1420@pinehurst.net> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:59:22 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Bickford CC: Craig Senior , Bridge Laws Forum Subject: Re: Malta Appeal #6 References: <008a01bed54a$8684d120$ca0ebad1@Bill.gw.total-web.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is also in the HTML version. Nancy Bill Bickford wrote: > Sorry; the URL is http://www.acbl.org/nabc/sananton/DailyBull.htm and the > article is page seven of the Acrobat (PDG) version. It is also in the text > version, but not in the web version. I don't know (and can't access) the > Postscript version. > > Cheers............................/Bill Bickford > > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Senior > To: Bill Bickford ; Bridge Laws Forum > > Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 3:52 PM > Subject: Re: Malta Appeal #6 > > >Hard to comment on what we do not see. No link, no url, no text. Is this > >somewhere at acbl.org? > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Bill Bickford > >To: Bridge Laws Forum > >Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 12:31 PM > >Subject: Malta Appeal #6 > > > > > >>In today's bulletin from the San Antonio NABC, Rich Colker is quite > >critical > >>of the AC decision in this appeal. His comments appear on page 7 of the > >PDF > >>version of the 7/23 bulletin. > >> > >>My immediate reaction is to agree with Rich, but I would be interested in > >>the feelings of this forum. > >> > >> > >>Cheers......................................./Bill Bickford > >> > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 25 14:26:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA29514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:26:29 +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 OAA29509 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:26:21 +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 XAA43989 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 23:26:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0WZ9N018 Sat, 24 Jul 99 23:28:33 Message-ID: <9907242328.0WZ9N01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sat, 24 Jul 99 23:28:33 Subject: LAW 84E AND K To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tricky things footnotes . I goofed. That being said and applying L14- The facts suggest that the irregularity affected the score solely because of the auction and L14B3 specifies the penalties to be allowed- which are penalty card/ revoke penalties. But because dummy does not receive PC or revoke penalties, but at most an adjusted score because of a revoke, I do not see an adjusted score due to dummy's failure to play the DK. However, 14B3 states that the DK belonged continuously to the hand so the argument that dummy failing to have opened 1N is not damage but a misbid. It follows that the score is a result of 'luck' and according to the law must stand. L84E not applied. Imo this is a defect of dummy being exempt from the revoke penalty. Roger Pewick B>Law 13 does not apply here. Read the footnote. It clearly states that in B>the case of three correct hands and one deficient (the case here) Law 14 B>and not Law 13 applies. Law 14 does not provide for an adjusted score. B>So we're back to the question: Do we apply Law 84E? B>Eitan Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 25 17:01:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:01:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29784 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:00:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.47] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 118IHD-000Cze-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 08:00:51 +0100 Message-ID: <000101bed66b$6dfe9c40$2f5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: CoC Malta Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:59:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan o=o-o "Behind every successful man there is an astonished woman" - unattributed. ================================ 2. Appeals Committee 2.1 Composition ....etc....... 2.2 Investigations .....etc........ 2,3 Judgement "The Appeals Committee, also acting as the national authority as meant in Law 93.c, shall have the power to determine all facts and decide all questions of law, whether under the Laws, the Proprieties or these Rules ................etc" Extract from CoC, European Championships, Malta 1999 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 25 17:31:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:31:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29856 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:31:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.210] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 118IkR-000DFe-00; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 08:31:03 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01bed66f$a5c33420$d25208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Valerie Rippon" , "Lynn&Dan Hunt" , "paul endicott" , "Patricia Davidson" , "bridge-laws" Cc: "David W Stevenson" , "Ton Kooijman" , "Anna Gudge" , "Santanu Ghosh" , "Christine Francin" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Chris R Endicott" Subject: Reopening, we hope. Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 08:30:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:56:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([195.89.178.92]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 0509500 ; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 08:55:01 -0000 Message-ID: <000601bed67b$81472f00$5cb259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Malta Appeal #6 Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:05:20 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Would the question be how the player on lead understood the double? mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: 24 July 1999 01:58 Subject: Re: Malta Appeal #6 >> >> > From: Adam Beneschan >No, I saw the double, but had trouble seeing it as Lightner, because >it's not one of the usual situations where I'm familiar with Lightner, >i.e. (1) dummy didn't have a first-bid suit, (2) West wasn't void and >thus didn't have a reason to expect East might have a long enough suit >to play him for a void, and (3) there was nothing in the auction to >suggest that a heart might be a more unusual lead than a club or vice >versa. I guess West was trying to say "Don't lead a spade, and I hope >you guess right which one to lead". I've never really seen Lightner >used in that way, except when the alternative suits have such a >disparity that the doubler can figure there's a good chance partner >will guess right---I don't know if that's the case here. But this is >probably just my own ignorance. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 26 03:10:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 03:10:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (IDENT:exim@sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01175 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 03:10:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from p81s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.130] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 118Rn6-0002mD-00; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:10:25 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01bed6c0$012ace40$828d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:04:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Date: 23 July 1999 17:40 Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 26 09:35:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:35:39 +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 JAA02184 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:35:30 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id 5UCBa11256 (572); Sun, 25 Jul 1999 19:28:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 19:28:18 EDT Subject: Re: Malta Appeals To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/22/99 5:26:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > Indeed, when > I feel that a literal reading of the Law was necessary, not > only did I read it in the Committee, but also I included it > complete in the report. > Dear Herman, I find the personal pronoun used in various forms 12 times in this relatively short posting. Don't you think "I" is being slightly overused? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 26 10:50:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:50:51 +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 KAA02331 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:50:42 +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 118YyK-000GgB-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 00:50:32 +0000 Message-ID: <5Tj6R6ATj6m3EwTr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 01:16:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? References: <002e01bed6c0$012ace40$828d93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <002e01bed6c0$012ace40$828d93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Date: 23 July 1999 17:40 >Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable > It is nice when Grattan posts something that no-one can possibly disagree with. Perhaps some text got eaten somewhere? -- 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 Jul 26 17:27:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:27:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03474 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:27:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.157] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 118fAY-0009FD-00; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:27:30 +0100 Message-ID: <003201bed738$50c23d80$9d5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , Subject: Re: practical assistance (ex Malta appeals) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:15:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: hermandw@village.uunet.be ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 July 1999 01:05 Subject: Re: Malta Appeals >Dear Herman, I find the personal pronoun used in various forms 12 times in >this relatively short posting. Don't you think "I" is being slightly >overused? ++++ one could suggest that Herman might experiment with the 'third party' form with 'one' thinking, doing, deciding things. One never knows, Herman might begin to sound like a laid back Englishman, and Kojak could perhaps be appeased. Just 'one' possible solution .......... ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 26 17:27:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:27:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03478 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:27:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.157] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 118fAa-0009FD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:27:32 +0100 Message-ID: <003401bed738$5222b7e0$9d5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:25:27 +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 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 July 1999 02:31 Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable ? >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >>Grattan Endicott>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Herman De Wael >>To: Bridge Laws >>Date: 23 July 1999 17:40 >>Subject: Re: Is unacceptable behaviour punishable > > > It is nice when Grattan posts something that no-one can possibly >disagree with. Perhaps some text got eaten somewhere? ++++Oh, one doesn't know..... it is a bit early to say no-one has disagreed, even with this uncommunication. There are some, you know, capable of making 77 postings out of nothing. There was more; one will take a look when one gets to the office later. ~ G ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 26 20:32:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:32:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03754 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:32:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 118i3N-0002ro-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:32:17 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA9EF for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:31:19 +0200 Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl ([192.168.18.20]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAY199 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:48:55 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp2.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112QhS-0001da-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:47:43 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 11:57:34 +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 LAA16901 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 11:57:25 +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 112Puf-0003rV-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 01:57:17 +0000 Message-ID: <5iJkedA+8Uh3EwpG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 02:24:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- References: <199907082238.SAA22316@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907082238.SAA22316@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >The written Law is incomplete; it says "at most 40%" but gives no >explanation of when the score should be less than 40%. Nor does >it explain when avg+ should be more than 60%, for that matter. Oh yes it does: look at L12C1: it refers to L88 for A+. -- David Stevenson Quango and Nanki Poo: the definitive view: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm#cat4 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 26 23:01:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:01:03 +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 XAA04209 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:00:54 +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 JAA07638 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:20:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990726090044.006f7298@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:00:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Just checking L26 In-Reply-To: References: <199907231622.JAA10522@mailhub.irvine.com> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A0@XION> <199907231622.JAA10522@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:34 AM 7/24/99 +0100, David wrote: >[a] 2H bid showing length in hearts >[b] 2H bid showing length in spades >[c] 2H bid showing a control in hearts >[d] 2H bid asking for a stopper in hearts > > Now, we do have one clear clue: if the suit is specified again in the >auction then there is effectively no penalty. So [a] is obvious: [b] is >just as obvious, the position being effectively the same. How about [c] >and [d]? > > If [c] applies, then it is reasonable to assume that partner might >lead the suit, and that there is no "effective" UI once partner has >shown the suit again, whether as a control, splinter or whatever. Thus, >logically, [c] is a L26A case. > > But how about [d]? It asks for something in hearts, but does it show >anything? Does it affect partner's lead? Sure; it shows that you are worried about your side having a stopper in the suit, so it very well might affect partner's lead. Keep in mind that this only comes up when you have asked for a stopper and have then become a defender. The suit you were asking about is likely to be trump, and partner could well wind up in the common position of having to decide whether to lead one in a situation where the auction seems to call for a trump lead but it might blow your trick in the suit. The inference that you do not have a stopper in the suit could easily affect his decision. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 00:01:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:01:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from claire.a2000.nl (claire.a2000.nl [62.108.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04356 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:01:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from hardy-1-p ([192.168.17.113] helo=hardy-1.a2000.nl) by claire.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 118lJX-0004fr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:01:11 +0200 Received: from hardy-1.a2000.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAAF2A for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:00:13 +0200 Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl ([192.168.18.20]) by hardy-1.a2000.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAY6ABE for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:43:12 +0200 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by smtp2.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 112SsU-0003PW-00 for a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:07:15 +0200 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA17442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:20:25 +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 OAA17437 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:20:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt094nf5.san.rr.com [24.94.7.245]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA03358 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <016301bec9c2$546b2920$f5075e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199907082238.SAA22316@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:20:05 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > Unless I have misunderstood, this ACBL regulation has been around for > > some time, pre-dating the current Law book. > > I thought the point was specifically to interpret the 1997 language. > Marvin? Any idea when the ACBL rule was adopted? If you mean the "complementary rule," requiring that avg- be what is left over from top after avg+ is awarded, it was adopted in April of 1998, following an LC instruction to that effect issued at the NABC that spring. If you mean the automatic 40% rule (the same no matter what the pair scores on other boards), which remains in force for a one-sided avg- adjustment, that is ancient. > > The written Law is incomplete; it says "at most 40%" but gives no > explanation of when the score should be less than 40%. Nor does > it explain when avg+ should be more than 60%, for that matter. L88 says 60% or session percentage, whichever is greater, for a no-fault artificial adjusted score. Doesn't that cover L12, which references L88? "at most 40%" should perhaps have been more specific. But maybe not. It can be argued that the language as written deliberately leaves open the method of implementing it, and that the WBFLC should have left it alone instead of (in effect) writing a new law. However, this is not the sort of law that should be implemented in different ways. International tournaments have enough problems without adding this one. > > What was so > wrong with the 1987 Law that it needed to be changed? Nothing. 60% or session percentage, whichever is better, for avg+, and 40% always, for avg-. Good enough. A pair that is scoring, say, 37%, on all other boards in a session is unlikely to jump into an overall place after more sessions just because they got 40% instead of 37% for an avg- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 00:33:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:33:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04448 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:33:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3 [134.117.136.23]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.1a/8.9.1/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id KAA25506 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:33:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA24506; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:33:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:33:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907261433.KAA24506@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had a situation at the local club recently. On one trick, three players had turned their card face down, touching the table, and the fourth (rho defender) had his card face down nearly touching (more than 1/2 cm, less than 1/2 in.) the table. He turns his card back over, and asks to see the last trick. Declarer objects, and I get called. What is your ruling? Does the phrase, L66(A) "until he has turned his own card face down on the table" mean when the card is faced toward the table (one action) or when the card is 1) faced downward and then 2) placed touching the table (two actions)? Now, I realize that this might seem pretty trivial, and reasonable people can usually work this stuff out without rancour, but sometimes "reasonable" and "bridge player" have a hard time co-existing. :-) Thanks, Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 02:08:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:08:39 +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 CAA04980 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:08:31 +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 AA024025302; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:08:23 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA189575302; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:08:22 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:08:13 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities 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 CAA04982 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Laval Dubreuil] I read "face down ON the table" and understand "until the card is placed faced down AND touch the table". So I would have rule that trick may still be inspected. And, at the club level, will ask players to relax and enjoy the game....but I know what you mean by "hard time co-existing". Laval Du Breuil Quebec City I had a situation at the local club recently. On one trick, three players had turned their card face down, touching the table, and the fourth (rho defender) had his card face down nearly touching (more than 1/2 cm, less than 1/2 in.) the table. He turns his card back over, and asks to see the last trick. Declarer objects, and I get called. What is your ruling? Does the phrase, L66(A) "until he has turned his own card face down on the table" mean when the card is faced toward the table (one action) or when the card is 1) faced downward and then 2) placed touching the table (two actions)? Now, I realize that this might seem pretty trivial, and reasonable people can usually work this stuff out without rancour, but sometimes "reasonable" and "bridge player" have a hard time co-existing. :-) Thanks, Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 02:14:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:14:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.0.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05013 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:14:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from home.com ([24.1.92.56]) by mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19990726161415.BQPQ8807.mail.rdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:14:15 -0700 Message-ID: <379C8927.D5138D8B@home.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:13:27 -0700 From: Michael Nistler Reply-To: nistler@home.com Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-AtHome0404 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities References: <199907261433.KAA24506@freenet3.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: > > I had a situation at the local club recently. On one > trick, three players had turned their card face down, > touching the table, and the fourth (rho defender) had > his card face down nearly touching (more than 1/2 cm, > less than 1/2 in.) the table. He turns his card back > over, and asks to see the last trick. Declarer objects, > and I get called. > What is your ruling? Does the phrase, L66(A) "until he > has turned his own card face down on the table" mean > when the card is faced toward the table (one action) or > when the card is 1) faced downward and then 2) placed > touching the table (two actions)? > Now, I realize that this might seem pretty trivial, and > reasonable people can usually work this stuff out without > rancour, but sometimes "reasonable" and "bridge player" > have a hard time co-existing. :-) > Thanks, > Tony (aka ac342) L66A. So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced for his inspection. I assume he purposely paused (away from the table) when orienting his card in a downward position, with the deliberate intention allowing himelf the opportunity to recall his (and others) cards on the trick. Otherwise, he would have released his card on the table which, of course, would then be faced down. Alternatively, he was in the process of letting his card touch the table (came very close), but changed his mind before doing so. Either way, it seems clear the card wasn't faced down. Michael Nistler nistler@home.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 03:21:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:21:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe040.worldonline.dk (fe040.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA05140 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:21:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 29765 invoked by uid 0); 26 Jul 1999 17:21:29 -0000 Received: from 25.ppp1-3.image.dk (212.54.78.153) by mail020.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 26 Jul 1999 17:21:29 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:21:28 GMT Message-ID: <37b198d3.27990573@mail.image.dk> References: <199907261433.KAA24506@freenet3.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199907261433.KAA24506@freenet3.carleton.ca> 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, 26 Jul 1999 10:33:36 -0400 (EDT) skrev A. L. Edwards: >his card face down nearly touching (more than 1/2 cm, >less than 1/2 in.) the table. He turns his card back >over, and asks to see the last trick. Declarer objects, >and I get called. I would permit him to see the cards. There is one other law that talks about intention (45C2: ... or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played). There is no such vague wording in L66A. >What is your ruling? Does the phrase, L66(A) "until he >has turned his own card face down on the table" mean >when the card is faced toward the table (one action) or >when the card is 1) faced downward and then 2) placed >touching the table (two actions)? I think I would say he has to let go of the card before he can no longer ask for the other cards to be turned, but I'd like other opinions about that. I have no doubt about the present case. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 04:26:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 04:26:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de (mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA05313 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 04:26:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from ralf.brain.uni-freiburg.de (sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de) [132.230.63.114] by mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #3) id 118pS8-0000Pe-00; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:26:21 +0200 Message-ID: <379CA8DF.5A48F8B4@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:28:54 +0200 From: Ralf Teichmann Reply-To: teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [de] (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: de,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Trivial?? Michael Nistler wrote: > > A. L. Edwards wrote: > > > > I had a situation at the local club recently. On one > > trick, three players had turned their card face down, > > touching the table, and the fourth (rho defender) had > > his card face down nearly touching (more than 1/2 cm, > > less than 1/2 in.) the table. He turns his card back > > over, and asks to see the last trick. Declarer objects, > > and I get called. > > What is your ruling? Does the phrase, L66(A) "until he > > has turned his own card face down on the table" mean > > when the card is faced toward the table (one action) or > > when the card is 1) faced downward and then 2) placed > > touching the table (two actions)? > > Now, I realize that this might seem pretty trivial, and > > reasonable people can usually work this stuff out without > > rancour, but sometimes "reasonable" and "bridge player" > > have a hard time co-existing. :-) > > Thanks, > > Tony (aka ac342) Yes, pretty trivial. Say:"keep your cool and let him see the cards, enjoy the game." > L66A. So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, > declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own > card face down on the table, require that all cards just played > to the trick be faced for his inspection. Pretty trivial, if you stick to the words. They wrote:... he has turned his own card...If they meant, the card must touch the table, they would have written:...he has laid his own card.... wouldn't they? > > I assume he purposely paused (away from the table) when orienting his > card in a downward position that is turning the card face down >, with the deliberate intention allowing > himelf the opportunity to recall his (and others) cards on the trick. > Otherwise, he would have released neither releasing.... >his card on the table which, > of course, would then be faced down. > > Alternatively, he was in the process of letting his card touch ...nor touching is mentioned in the text. >the > table (came very close), but changed his mind before doing so. > > Either way, it seems clear the card wasn't faced down. > > Michael Nistler > nistler@home.com It seems clear the card was faced down. Ralf -- Ralf Teichmann Institute of Biophysics and Radiation Biology, Brain Research Unit Hansastrasse 9a, D-79104 Freiburg i. Brsg. , Germany e-mail: teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de Tel.: -49 (0)761 / 203-9583 Fax: -49 (0)761 / 203-9500 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 04:49:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 04:49:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from ws.icl.co.uk (cfmgw.iclnet.co.uk [194.176.223.193]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA05407 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 04:49:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.icl.co.uk (mailgate [172.16.2.3]) by ws.icl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA08428; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:49:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from x400.icl.co.uk by mailgate.icl.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA29549; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:48:03 +0100 Received: (from root@localhost) by x400.icl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.2) id TAA19158; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:48:02 +0100 (BST) X400-Received: by mta umg in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 26 Jul 99 19:47:49 +0100 X400-Received: by mta fel01xc in /PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Mon, 26 Jul 99 19:37:59 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Mon, 26 Jul 99 19:44:11 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 26 Jul 99 20:51:00 +0200 Date: Mon, 26 Jul 99 20:51:00 +0200 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G80021D285D700000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: From: "Jan Romanski" To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199907261433.KAA24506@freenet3.carleton.ca> Importance: normal Subject: RE:L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards: >I had a situation at the local club recently. On one >trick, three players had turned their card face down, >touching the table, and the fourth (rho defender) had >his card face down nearly touching (more than 1/2 cm, >less than 1/2 in.) the table. He turns his card back >over, and asks to see the last trick. Declarer objects, >and I get called. >What is your ruling? Does the phrase, L66(A) "until he >has turned his own card face down on the table" mean >when the card is faced toward the table (one action) or >when the card is 1) faced downward and then 2) placed >touching the table (two actions)? >Now, I realize that this might seem pretty trivial, and >reasonable people can usually work this stuff out without >rancour, but sometimes "reasonable" and "bridge player" >have a hard time co-existing. :-) >Thanks, > Tony (aka ac342) > I think the situation described may be treated as activity "without pause for thought". So I rule that the trick may be inspected. Jan Romanski (jfr@post.pl) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 05:19:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 05:19:44 +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 FAA05466 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 05:15:33 +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 MAA01631; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:14:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199907261914.MAA01631@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:28:54 PDT." <379CA8DF.5A48F8B4@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:13:58 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk TODAY'S GRAMMAR LESSON ####### ####### ###### Ralf Teichmann wrote: > > L66A. So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, > > declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own > > card face down on the table, require that all cards just played > > to the trick be faced for his inspection. > > Pretty trivial, if you stick to the words. They wrote:... he has turned > his own card...If they meant, the card must touch the table, they would > have written:...he has laid his own card.... wouldn't they? But the Laws do say "on the table", which I believe does imply that the card must *be* on the table. It's been 20 years since my high-school German class---but as I recall, but in German, wouldn't it be clear from the definite article used whether they mean "the card must be on the table" or "the declarer is moving it toward the table"? I.e. there's a difference between "auf dem Tisch" and "auf den Tisch"? Anyway, English grammar doesn't make such distinctions, so I guess there's a possible ambiguity there; in this case, though, it sounds to me like it means the card must be on the table since the past participle "has turned" is used. But perhaps other native English or American speakers will disagree. (I tried to DFRBL [das (fabulous) Regelnbuch lesen], but my German isn't nearly good enough to understand the phrase in L66A, "sofern er seine eigene Karte noch nicht verdeckt abgelegt hat".) Anyway, I agree with your "keep your cool and let him see the cards" advice. Personally, I try to win the game by good bidding, good play, and good defense; maybe I could win by trying to split hairs over interpretations of unclear Laws in harmless situations, but what game would I be winning? Not Bridge. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 07:16:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:16:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe040.worldonline.dk (fe040.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA07229 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:15:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 13004 invoked by uid 0); 26 Jul 1999 21:15:43 -0000 Received: from 22.ppp1-3.image.dk (212.54.78.150) by mail020.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 26 Jul 1999 21:15:43 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:15:42 GMT Message-ID: <379dcfaa.489070@mail.image.dk> References: <199907261914.MAA01631@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199907261914.MAA01631@mailhub.irvine.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 Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:13:58 PDT skrev Adam Beneschan: >Regelnbuch lesen], but my German isn't nearly good enough to >understand the phrase in L66A, "sofern er seine eigene Karte noch >nicht verdeckt abgelegt hat".) "Verdeckt" means "hidden" or here "face down". "Abgelegt" mens "let go" or "dropped". Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 07:55:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:55:40 +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 HAA07338 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:55:29 +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 RAA13272 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA07350 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:55:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:55:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907262155.RAA07350@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Just checking L26 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If a Law is completely unambiguous, then we follow the written word Yes, I suppose there might be one or two laws like that. :-) > If the Law is ambiguous, then we have to interpret it. ... > We should also > consider custom+practice, interpretations from [WBF and] Zonal and National > authorities, and the logic of the situation. Yes. > In effect, L26A tries to alleviate the potential > damage from the UI given by partner's call by restricting the first lead > of the offender's partner. Yes. Also L26B when it applies. > [d] 2H bid asking for a stopper in hearts > But how about [d]? It asks for something in hearts, but does it show > anything? Does it affect partner's lead? Yes, surely it affects the lead. But isn't it enough to let declarer require or prohibit a _heart_ lead (L26A2)? What is the purpose in allowing declarer to prohibit a different suit (L26B)? Or perhaps the question is, which penalty most effectively mitigates the damage from the insufficient bid? If the 2H bid were just a general force, we would be left with L26B. When, on the other hand, the bid strongly focuses attention on the heart suit in particular, regardless of what specifically it asks for or shows, it seems to me that L26A2 is more likely to mitigate damage. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 09:01:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:01:58 +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 JAA07481 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:01:51 +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 118tkY-000LPm-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:01:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 03:27:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: LAW 84E AND K In-Reply-To: <9907242328.0WZ9N01@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9907242328.0WZ9N01@bbs.hal-pc.org>, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org writes > >Tricky things footnotes . I goofed. > >That being said and applying L14- The facts suggest that the irregularity >affected the score solely because of the auction and L14B3 specifies the >penalties to be allowed- which are penalty card/ revoke penalties. But >because dummy does not receive PC or revoke penalties, but at most an >adjusted score because of a revoke, I do not see an adjusted score due to >dummy's failure to play the DK. agreed. result stands. rub of the green. > >However, 14B3 states that the DK belonged continuously to the hand so the >argument that dummy failing to have opened 1N is not damage but a misbid. >It follows that the score is a result of 'luck' and according to the law >must stand. L84E not applied. Imo this is a defect of dummy being exempt >from the revoke penalty. > of course his failure to open 1NT (misbid) should involve a recorder form for a psyche, and a partnership ban that you can't do this again when you've only got 12 cards. A second offence should score an automatic PP (in the ACBL anyway). chs 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 Jul 27 09:42:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:42:21 +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 JAA07564 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:42:11 +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 118uNd-000HuP-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:42:03 +0000 Message-ID: <7lVX7uD0BPn3EwJG@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:34:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities In-Reply-To: <199907261433.KAA24506@freenet3.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199907261433.KAA24506@freenet3.carleton.ca>, "A. L. Edwards" writes >I had a situation at the local club recently. On one >trick, three players had turned their card face down, >touching the table, and the fourth (rho defender) had >his card face down nearly touching (more than 1/2 cm, >less than 1/2 in.) the table. He turns his card back >over, and asks to see the last trick. Declarer objects, >and I get called. >What is your ruling? Does the phrase, L66(A) "until he >has turned his own card face down on the table" mean ^^^^^^^^^^ I'd rule he was in the act of turning, hence he has not completed the action. Hence the trick is not yet quitted. chs 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 Jul 27 09:42:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:42:53 +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 JAA07578 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:42:42 +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 TAA14945 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:42:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA07565 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:42:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907262342.TAA07565@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L16A1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As one who lives in benighted North America, I'm curious how "reserving rights" works in the rest of the world. Actually, L16A1 is an SO option, and there are some clubs that allow it. But we may be using it wrong! Let's consider a generic UI case: there is some bidding, and North hesitates and makes what ought to be a penalty double, the hesitation making clear that the double is not based on a solid trump holding. :-) South pulls the double. East and West have no special reason to believe the pull was illegal, but they want to be protected if it was. When should they reserve their rights? After the slow double? After the double is pulled? Either/both/other? Does it matter whether East or West reserves rights? L16A1 says: "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available, and that damage could well result, he may ...... (Readers of RGB will see that David S. has surprised me with his answer, so I'm particularly interested in replies from outside the EBU.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 09:42:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:42:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07563 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:42:11 +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 118uNd-000HuO-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:42:02 +0000 Message-ID: <71aXPpDJAPn3Ewon@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:32:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- In-Reply-To: <016301bec9c2$546b2920$f5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <016301bec9c2$546b2920$f5075e18@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes > > >Nothing. 60% or session percentage, whichever is better, for avg+, and >40% always, for avg-. Good enough. A pair that is scoring, say, 37%, on >all other boards in a session is unlikely to jump into an overall place >after more sessions just because they got 40% instead of 37% for an avg- > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > In London there is the charming Nippon Bridge club which I direct once a week that awards a prize to the second to last pair. This is the Booby prize. In this game at least the difference between 40% and 40-% might make a difference. I'd hate a pair to come second last with a 40% ART when they'd have come bottom with a 37% :)) chs 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 Jul 27 11:10:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:10:03 +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 LAA07796 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:09:55 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id iFTIa09374 (7817); Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <685cc0b5.24ce6040@aol.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:07:12 EDT Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities To: john@probst.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/26/99 7:44:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > I'd rule he was in the act of turning, hence he has not completed the > action. Hence the trick is not yet quitted. > > Hey man!!! That shows perception of reality and common sense far beyond what we would normally attribute to at TD! .......Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 11:09:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:09:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07790 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:09:26 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id vMIQa27493 (7817); Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:07:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:07:58 EDT Subject: Re: L16A1 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 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/26/99 7:49:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > Let's consider a generic UI case: there is some bidding, and North > hesitates and makes what ought to be a penalty double, the hesitation > making clear that the double is not based on a solid trump holding. :-) > South pulls the double. East and West have no special reason to > believe the pull was illegal, but they want to be protected if it was. > When should they reserve their rights? After the slow double? After > the double is pulled? Either/both/other? Does it matter whether East > or West reserves rights? > > L16A1 says: > "When a player considers that an opponent has made > such information available, and that damage could > well result, he may ...... As I can best remember it, this was put into the Laws at the request of the Portland Club where there is no TD during play. This was to indicate to the opponents your concern with what had, and was about to , happened, and gave notice that you might take umbriage at a latter time, AND establish the hesitation, etc. With a TD it is not necessary nor in my view desireable for the players to come to these kinds of agreements without the presence of a TD. I think that is why ACBL says, either call the TD now, or forever hold your peace..........Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 12:12:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:12:39 +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 MAA07884 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:12:32 +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 118wj7-00096Z-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:12:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:10:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities In-Reply-To: <685cc0b5.24ce6040@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <685cc0b5.24ce6040@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes >In a message dated 7/26/99 7:44:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > >> I'd rule he was in the act of turning, hence he has not completed the >> action. Hence the trick is not yet quitted. >> >> >Hey man!!! That shows perception of reality and common sense far beyond what >we would normally attribute to at TD! .......Kojak hey Kojak, I was trained by the awesome DWS so I have to read the Laws. ... and being English (as opposed to American) I even understand a past tense :))) chs 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 Jul 27 17:00:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:00:49 +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 RAA08377 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:00:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:00:14 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990727090028.007a0b50@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, 27 Jul 1999 09:00:28 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: How many people for running a tournament? (was L16A1) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >As I can best remember it, this was put into the Laws at the request of the >Portland Club where there is no TD during play. This was to indicate to the >opponents your concern with what had, and was about to , happened, and gave >notice that you might take umbriage at a latter time, AND establish the >hesitation, etc. With a TD it is not necessary nor in my view desireable for >the players to come to these kinds of agreements without the presence of a >TD. I think that is why ACBL says, either call the TD now, or forever hold >your peace..........Kojak All the time I was a TD there was never a problem with reserving rights here in germany. The problem I see is the additional work of a TD. The players have to announce the TD, if there is no one available immediately, they have to wait for him. That is no problem if you enough TDs to spare. That leads me to my question: For a tournament of 100 tables: 1) How many people do you need to get the tournament running (during play), that is: TD Caddies Scorers In germany we need 4. Is this a usual number? 2) How do you pick the entry fee from the players? In germany we take it from the players during the 1st/2nd round and found this impractible. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 19:43:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:43:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta3.mail.telepac.pt (mail7.telepac.pt [194.65.3.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08692 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:43:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([194.65.229.53]) by mta3.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail v03.02.07 118-124-101) with SMTP id <19990727094405.BARC2557@default> for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:44:05 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: RE: How many people for running a tournament? (was L16A1) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:43:43 +0100 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990727090028.007a0b50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > That leads me to my question: > > For a tournament of 100 tables: > 1) How many people do you need to get the tournament running > (during play), > that is: > TD > Caddies > Scorers > > In germany we need 4. Is this a usual number? > My rule of thumb for selecting people for tournaments is *at least* one TD for each 2 sections, but I like to have 2 TDs for 3 sections. No caddies, one TD makes the scoring if he is *very good* with the keyboard, otherwise one scorer more. So, 3-4 people is normal, 5 is better :-) > > 2) How do you pick the entry fee from the players? In germany we take it > from the players during the 1st/2nd round and found this impractible. > We give everybody an envelope at the start with the seating and registration form. They put the fee inside it and close it, each TD gathers the envelopes of his section(s). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 20:32:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:32:37 +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 UAA08796 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:32:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-88.uunet.be [194.7.145.88]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA19640 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:32:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <379D8578.5915FB87@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:10:00 +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: L16A1 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 7/26/99 7:49:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > > > As I can best remember it, this was put into the Laws at the request of the > Portland Club where there is no TD during play. This was to indicate to the > opponents your concern with what had, and was about to , happened, and gave > notice that you might take umbriage at a latter time, AND establish the > hesitation, etc. With a TD it is not necessary nor in my view desireable for > the players to come to these kinds of agreements without the presence of a > TD. I think that is why ACBL says, either call the TD now, or forever hold > your peace..........Kojak I don't agree. (so what's new) In a friendly game, which does not mean there is a disregard for the Laws, it should be possible to say to your opponent: "I am certain you have the hand that you need to have to be able to make this call, but I still want you to acknowledge that there has been UI". That is what I call reserving my rights. I would expect my opponent to answer: "Yes indeed, I did notice the UI, and let's call the director afterwards in case you don't agree with my opinion that I have not broken my L16 obligations." I don't see why we should need to call the director at this time. Most probably, we won't even need to call the director at the end of the board either. There is a lot of bridge being played without a proper non-playing director, and this situation should come up quite often. Or am I biased, seeing I play in a rather high-level club, with me playing but also ruling the real problems, and someone else handling the calling of time and next rounds ? (and also playing) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 20:32:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:32:35 +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 UAA08795 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:32:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-88.uunet.be [194.7.145.88]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA19635 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:32:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <379D82E9.4E66798@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:59:05 +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: Just checking L26 References: <199907262155.RAA07350@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: David Stevenson > > If a Law is completely unambiguous, then we follow the written word > > Yes, I suppose there might be one or two laws like that. :-) > I would venture there could be more ... 4 at least. (L1-2-3-4) show > > anything? Does it affect partner's lead? > > Yes, surely it affects the lead. But isn't it enough to let declarer > require or prohibit a _heart_ lead (L26A2)? What is the purpose in > allowing declarer to prohibit a different suit (L26B)? Or perhaps the > question is, which penalty most effectively mitigates the damage from > the insufficient bid? > > If the 2H bid were just a general force, we would be left with L26B. > When, on the other hand, the bid strongly focuses attention on the > heart suit in particular, regardless of what specifically it asks for > or shows, it seems to me that L26A2 is more likely to mitigate damage. Is it ? What would be the benefit of being able to demand the heart lead ? I would suspect that declarer might be more interested in being able to prohibit, say, the club lead. Prohibiting the heart lead is possible in both options ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 20:32:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:32:36 +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 UAA08798 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:32:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-88.uunet.be [194.7.145.88]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA19663 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:32:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <379D8644.279251A5@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:13:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: How many people for running a tournament? (was L16A1) References: <3.0.6.32.19990727090028.007a0b50@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: > > > That leads me to my question: > > For a tournament of 100 tables: > 1) How many people do you need to get the tournament running (during play), > that is: > TD > Caddies > Scorers > We would use 4 directors (including the CTD) if we can get them. Plus the usual assortment of helpers, and the scorer. > In germany we need 4. Is this a usual number? > > 2) How do you pick the entry fee from the players? In germany we take it > from the players during the 1st/2nd round and found this impractible. We usually have people pay at the entrance, before they can pick a starting number - annex entry form. If we expect a lot of people (say for 100 tables) there are multiple tables, one (or more) to pay at - in return for a voucher - then one to draw your number. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 20:32:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:32:36 +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 UAA08797 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:32:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-88.uunet.be [194.7.145.88]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA19627 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:32:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <379D8229.94F56BCF@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:55:53 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Just checking L26 References: <199907231622.JAA10522@mailhub.irvine.com> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A0@XION> <199907231622.JAA10522@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990726090044.006f7298@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > Sure; it shows that you are worried about your side having a stopper in the > suit, so it very well might affect partner's lead. Keep in mind that this > only comes up when you have asked for a stopper and have then become a > defender. The suit you were asking about is likely to be trump, and > partner could well wind up in the common position of having to decide > whether to lead one in a situation where the auction seems to call for a > trump lead but it might blow your trick in the suit. The inference that > you do not have a stopper in the suit could easily affect his decision. > Yes indeed, but what we are concerned about in this thread is whether to apply L26A or L26B. Apart from one very small item (*) this only influences whether declarer can prohibit the lead of one suit or all suits. Well, he can also demand the lead, but does that really matter all that much in this situation ? I don't believe we should be concerned with the "best" possible law in this situation, we should just be clear about which law to apply. I would prefer it if it were kept simple "if it's a real suit, apply L26A, if it's conventional, apply L26B". This law is complicated enough as it is (to beginning directors) not to make it more complex by having to ask "does this conventional bid show something in this suit or does it simply ask ?". (*) The fact that in L26A, the player can have the penalties disappear by naming the suit some other time, does not really affect this discussion, does it ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 20:59:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:59:46 +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 UAA08891 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:59:38 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id 4EVRa26905 (3706); Tue, 27 Jul 1999 06:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 06:58:46 EDT Subject: Re: How many people for running a tournament? (was L16A1) To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de, 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 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/27/99 3:03:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bley@uni-duesseldorf.de writes: > In germany we need 4. Is this a usual number? > > > 2) How do you pick the entry fee from the players? In germany we take it > from the players during the 1st/2nd round and found this impractible. > 4 TDs, for 6 or 7 sections (100 tables) sounds right. Plus 2 caddies. We do this in different ways. For tournaments we "sell" the entry which contains the section/direction/ and table number on it before the start of the game. In Big events, where the seeding is very important we sell the entries for most tables in the same manner, but have a separate area where the seeded entries are sold. We keep out certain table numbers for seeds, we write the names of the players on the back of a blank entry, and give this to the seeding committee. They arrange the seeds in order, given 3 or four levels depending on the event. We then, just before game time, indicate the section/direction/table # on the face of these entries and the players pick them up. Our system works very well, keeping in mind that at NABCs we have in the many hundreds of tables in the events. My personal yardstick of how well we are doing is that if the players are seated, they have duplicated the boards on their table, and we "start" by calling the movement of the boards and/or players by 15 minutes after the published "starting time" it is an acceptably done job. Happens more frequently than not. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 21:03:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:03:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08929 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:02:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-020.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.212]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA86669 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:02:15 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <000d01bed81f$7c322740$d4307dc2@oemcomputer> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: How many people for running a tournament? Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:02:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01BED827.DCB00580" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BED827.DCB00580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Glad somebody has touched on this practical topic. Is it ever desirable to have the TD do everything on his/her own even = with only a small entry e.g. 12 tables? I don't think it's fair to the players or the TD if he/she is left to = run the show single handedly. Regards, Fearghal ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BED827.DCB00580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Glad somebody has touched on this = practical=20 topic.
 
Is it ever desirable to have the TD = do=20 everything on his/her own even with only a small entry e.g. 12=20 tables?
 
I don't think it's fair to the = players or the TD=20 if he/she is left to run the show single handedly.
 
Regards,
 
Fearghal
 
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BED827.DCB00580-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 21:10:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:10:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de (mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA08963 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:10:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from ralf.brain.uni-freiburg.de (sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de) [132.230.63.114] by mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #3) id 11957c-0000s1-00; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:10:12 +0200 Message-ID: <379D9426.B9F8B1AD@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:12:51 +0200 From: Ralf Teichmann Reply-To: teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [de] (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: de,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities References: <199907261914.MAA01631@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan schrieb: > > TODAY'S GRAMMAR LESSON > ####### ####### ###### > > Ralf Teichmann wrote: > > > > L66A. So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, > > > declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own > > > card face down on the table, require that all cards just played > > > to the trick be faced for his inspection. > > > > Pretty trivial, if you stick to the words. They wrote:... he has turned > > his own card...If they meant, the card must touch the table, they would > > have written:...he has laid his own card.... wouldn't they? > > But the Laws do say "on the table", which I believe does imply that > the card must *be* on the table. Yes, I guess you are right. > I.e. there's a difference between "auf dem Tisch" and "auf den Tisch" > Anyway, English grammar doesn't make such distinctions, so I guess > there's a possible ambiguity there; in this case, though, it sounds to > me like it means the card must be on the table since the past > participle "has turned" is used. I still feel, there is a difference between turning a card face down on the table and laying a card face down on the table. And the past participle means that the process of turning is over but not necessarily the process of laying down. > But perhaps other native English or > American speakers will disagree. > (I tried to DFRBL [das (fabulous) > Regelnbuch lesen], but my German isn't nearly good enough to > understand the phrase in L66A, "sofern er seine eigene Karte noch > nicht verdeckt abgelegt hat".) Yes, that means: ...as long as he has not laid (or dropped) his card face down on the table. This sounds at least less ambiguous. > maybe I could win by trying to split hairs over > interpretations of unclear Laws in harmless situations, but what game > would I be winning? Not Bridge. Of course I did not want to split hairs. I just wonder why lawyers tend to avoid clear phrasing, leaving room for interpretations. > > -- Adam -- Ralf Teichmann Institute of Biophysics and Radiation Biology, Brain Research Unit Hansastrasse 9a, D-79104 Freiburg i. Brsg. , Germany e-mail: teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de Tel.: -49 (0)761 / 203-9583 Fax: -49 (0)761 / 203-9500 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 21:27:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA09019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:27:52 +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 VAA09014 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:27:44 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id 5THAa28876 (3706); Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:26:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <793b3291.24cef149@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:26:01 EDT Subject: Re: L16A1 To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/27/99 6:34:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > I don't agree. (so what's new) > > In a friendly game, which does not mean there is a disregard > for the Laws, it should be possible to say to your opponent: > "I am certain you have the hand that you need to have to be > able to make this call, but I still want you to acknowledge > that there has been UI". > > That is what I call reserving my rights. Dear Herman....... There you go again "I don't agree" Big deal!! .......Kojak.. > > I would expect my opponent to answer: "Yes indeed, I did > notice the UI, and let's call the director afterwards in > case you don't agree with my opinion that I have not broken > my L16 obligations." > > I don't see why we should need to call the director at this > time. Great, but the ACBL has exercised it's right to see it differently, and it works. You, of course, when you make your above statements never have any disagreement on the existence of UI. Who would dare to disagree with you! However, what if the opponent says there was none? In the real world we find it greatly simplifies and avoids later problems to have a TD at the table at that time. Have you ever considered that the TD could also find out at that time what other actions the players might be willing to state they would taken before seeing all 52 cards? And that the TD can explain the Laws to the players who might not know them (yes, I know you and all your friends have a deep understanding of the Laws at all times -- but I also know that there are more high level players who do not know the Laws than there are those who do, and that certainly holds true as you go lower in the expertise category) who might then chose their actions more appropriately........Kojak > Most probably, we won't even need to call the director at > the end of the board either. > > There is a lot of bridge being played without a proper > non-playing director, and this situation should come up > quite often. > > Or am I biased, Perish the thought!!!! > seeing I play in a rather high-level club, > with me playing but also ruling the real problems, Very impressive!!!! Of course the "real problems" are whatever you define as such. > and > someone else handling the calling of time and next rounds ? > (and also playing) > There are other "high level clubs" who also use the Laws, and they do exactly what you think you invented. It is an option BY LAW. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 21:30:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA09034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:30:42 +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 VAA09029 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:30:35 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id 5XCIa09849 (3706); Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:29:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8a8a9a10.24cef209@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:29:13 EDT Subject: Re: L16A1 To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk And, dear Herman, it was also put there as an option in the Law to make a deviation from Law 9B1 legal.....But then, I'm sure you were aware of that all the time........Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 22:08:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:08:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail110.worldonline.dk (mail110.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA09140 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:08:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 30366 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jul 1999 12:08:30 -0000 Received: from 29.ppp1-32.image.dk (212.54.71.93) by mail010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 27 Jul 1999 12:08:30 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How many people for running a tournament? (was L16A1) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:07:18 GMT Message-ID: <37a8a0e8.5579591@mail.image.dk> References: <3.0.6.32.19990727090028.007a0b50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990727090028.007a0b50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> 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, 27 Jul 1999 09:00:28 +0200 skrev Richard Bley: >2) How do you pick the entry fee from the players? In the local clubs that I know one has to pay in advance. A person sits with a list and a box for money, and you pay when you enter the play room. The same method is used whether it's an open tournament or it's the subscription for members that must be collected. The number of players in these situations doesn't exceed 120. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 22:38:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:38:23 +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 WAA09253 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:38:15 +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 1196Uc-000FSW-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:38:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:38:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities References: <379CA8DF.5A48F8B4@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> In-Reply-To: <379CA8DF.5A48F8B4@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ralf Teichmann wrote: > >Trivial?? > > > >Michael Nistler wrote: >> >> A. L. Edwards wrote: >> > >> > I had a situation at the local club recently. On one >> > trick, three players had turned their card face down, >> > touching the table, and the fourth (rho defender) had >> > his card face down nearly touching (more than 1/2 cm, >> > less than 1/2 in.) the table. He turns his card back >> > over, and asks to see the last trick. Declarer objects, >> > and I get called. >> > What is your ruling? Does the phrase, L66(A) "until he >> > has turned his own card face down on the table" mean >> > when the card is faced toward the table (one action) or >> > when the card is 1) faced downward and then 2) placed >> > touching the table (two actions)? >> > Now, I realize that this might seem pretty trivial, and >> > reasonable people can usually work this stuff out without >> > rancour, but sometimes "reasonable" and "bridge player" >> > have a hard time co-existing. :-) >> > Thanks, >> > Tony (aka ac342) > >Yes, pretty trivial. Say:"keep your cool and let him see the cards, >enjoy the game." > > >> L66A. So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, >> declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own >> card face down on the table, require that all cards just played >> to the trick be faced for his inspection. > >Pretty trivial, if you stick to the words. They wrote:... he has turned >his own card...If they meant, the card must touch the table, they would >have written:...he has laid his own card.... wouldn't they? > >> >> I assume he purposely paused (away from the table) when orienting his >> card in a downward position > >that is turning the card face down > >>, with the deliberate intention allowing >> himelf the opportunity to recall his (and others) cards on the trick. >> Otherwise, he would have released > >neither releasing.... > >>his card on the table which, >> of course, would then be faced down. >> >> Alternatively, he was in the process of letting his card touch > >...nor touching is mentioned in the text. > >>the >> table (came very close), but changed his mind before doing so. >> >> Either way, it seems clear the card wasn't faced down. >> >> Michael Nistler >> nistler@home.com > >It seems clear the card was faced down. Trivial? Certainly. But I am afraid your conclusion is wrong. It does not say "until he has turned his own card face down" in which case you would be right: it was face down. However, it actually says "until he has turned his own card face down on the table" and it was not on the table. So the player can ask for the cards to be shown. -- 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 Jul 27 22:38:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:38:17 +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 WAA09247 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:38:10 +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 1196UL-000FR9-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:37:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:51:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Incorrect score MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A correspondent writes: RHO (North) bid up to 4H on his own in a competitive auction. I doubled (partly based on my hand, but it was the sort of auction where one could double on the auction alone.) The contract made. I was in such a state of shock it didn't really register at the time that RHO scored this as 4H undoubled. Some time later I said to my partner "Didn't I double 4H?" His reaction was to shrug (ie he'd noticed at the time and said nothing). Does this fall into the category of not drawing attention to an opponents error? Was it legal? Was it ethical? Comments? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 22:42:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:42:46 +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 WAA09290 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:42:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:42:07 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990727144223.007b9de0@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, 27 Jul 1999 14:42:23 +0200 To: Bridge Laws From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: How many people for running a tournament? (was L16A1) In-Reply-To: <379D8644.279251A5@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.19990727090028.007a0b50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:13 27.07.99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Richard Bley wrote: >> >> >> That leads me to my question: >> >> For a tournament of 100 tables: >> 1) How many people do you need to get the tournament running (during play), >> that is: >> TD >> Caddies >> Scorers >> > >We would use 4 directors (including the CTD) if we can get >them. >Plus the usual assortment of helpers, and the scorer. > At first: Thanks for your answer. >> In germany we need 4. Is this a usual number? I meant 4 including everyone! How many numbers of helpers do you have? (I guess one additional scorer...) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 27 23:29:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA09048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:34:55 +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 VAA09043 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:34:47 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id 6RUa023316 (3706); Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:31:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <623bf4f4.24cef27c@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:31:08 EDT Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities To: teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de, 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 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/27/99 7:12:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de writes: > Of course I did not want to split hairs. I just wonder why lawyers tend > to avoid clear phrasing, leaving room for interpretations. > KKKKK............come on Adam! How else could they make a living? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 00:11:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:11:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail110.worldonline.dk (mail110.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA09530 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:11:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 28061 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jul 1999 14:11:24 -0000 Received: from 29.ppp1-31.image.dk (212.54.71.29) by mail010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 27 Jul 1999 14:11:24 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:11:00 GMT Message-ID: <37a4bab4.11846349@mail.image.dk> References: <199907261914.MAA01631@mailhub.irvine.com> <379D9426.B9F8B1AD@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> In-Reply-To: <379D9426.B9F8B1AD@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> 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, 27 Jul 1999 13:12:51 +0200 skrev Ralf Teichmann: >I still feel, there is a difference between turning a card face down on >the table and laying a card face down on the table. But why mention the table at all if "until he has turned his own card face down" would be enough? And it's *on* the table. I think there can be no doubt that the card must touch the table. (Correction: There obviously *is* doubt, but I think there needn't be) I do not, however, think that the English (and original) text is clear, whether the player must have let go of his card. I would still like to read comments about that. >This sounds at least less ambiguous. Yes, but it is translated from the English text. It does go to show that the translator read the law as I do. >Of course I did not want to split hairs. I just wonder why lawyers tend >to avoid clear phrasing, leaving room for interpretations. Well, my guess is that lawyers would ask us why we don't just read what is written - with no more and no less right. Language is not math. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 01:51:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:51:59 +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 BAA09867 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:51:48 +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 1199Vw-0004On-0A; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:51:39 +0000 Message-ID: <+wjarAAlUdn3EwJ3@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:49:57 +0100 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities References: <199907261433.KAA24506@freenet3.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199907261433.KAA24506@freenet3.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199907261433.KAA24506@freenet3.carleton.ca>, A. L. Edwards writes >I had a situation at the local club recently. ... > trivial, It's hot and I am grumpy - but goodness guys this seems such an easy law The time specified in Law 66A is "until......" the card is "on the table" Try putting a card down - when it's in your hand some of it at least is not on the table - when you let go it's ON the table ON means ON - it's not near or touching or anything else fancy it's ON Until a player lets go it's not on the table - it's in his or her hand Your players should be encouraged to be nice to each other Tony :) Mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 02:21:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 02:21:56 +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 CAA10112 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 02:21:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA14564; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:19:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.43) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014533; Tue Jul 27 11:19:02 1999 Message-ID: <005401bed84c$397f22e0$2bb420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:22:27 -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 Surely you are not saying that the past tense is where the English have the greatest understanding? :-))) lol etc Sum uv us'n colonyells spik pritti gud to u no...speshly granmar. -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, July 26, 1999 10:12 PM Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities >In article <685cc0b5.24ce6040@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes >>In a message dated 7/26/99 7:44:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: >> >>> I'd rule he was in the act of turning, hence he has not completed the >>> action. Hence the trick is not yet quitted. >>> >>> >>Hey man!!! That shows perception of reality and common sense far beyond what >>we would normally attribute to at TD! .......Kojak > >hey Kojak, I was trained by the awesome DWS so I have to read the Laws. >... and being English (as opposed to American) I even understand a past >tense :))) chs 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 Jul 28 03:32:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 03:32:28 +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 DAA10272 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 03:32:18 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id uXQRa05145 (4200); Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:30:42 EDT Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities To: rts48u@ix.netcom.com, john@probst.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/27/99 12:23:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rts48u@ix.netcom.com writes: > >... and being English (as opposed to American) I even understand a past > >tense :))) chs john This American uses the past tense as something to learn from during the present, but is always looking towards the future. When encountering the future perfect, he is insanely happy.......Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 06:25:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:25:50 +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 GAA10668 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:25:40 +1000 (EST) From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id pOBZa12849 (2618) for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:20:48 EDT Subject: Cat Diary To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_c125c73a.24cf6ea0_boundary" X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 24 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --part1_c125c73a.24cf6ea0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CAT DIARY DAY 752 - My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while I am forced to eat dry cereal. The only thing that keeps me going is the hope of escape, and the mild satisfaction I get from ruining the occasional piece of furniture. Tomorrow I may eat another houseplant. DAY 761 - Today my attempt to kill my captors by weaving around their feet while they were walking almost succeeded, must try this at the top of the stairs. In an attempt to disgust and repulse these vile oppressors, I once again induced myself to vomit on their favorite chair...must try this on their bed. DAY 762 - Slept all day so that I could annoy my captors with sleep depriving, incessant pleas for food at ungodly hours of the night. DAY 765 - Decapitated a mouse and brought them the headless body, in an attempt to make them aware of what I am capable of, and to try to strike fear into their hearts. They only cooed and condescended about what a good little cat I was...Hmmm. Not working according to plan..... DAY 768 - I am finally aware of how sadistic they are. For no good reason, I was chosen for the water torture. This time however it included a burning foamy chemical called "shampoo." What sick minds could invent such a liquid? My only consolation is the piece of thumb still stuck between my teeth. DAY 771 - There was some sort of gathering of their accomplices. I was placed in solitary throughout the event. However, I could hear the noise and smell the foul odor of the glass tubes they call "beer." More importantly, I overheard that my confinement was due to MY power of "allergies." Must learn what this is and how to use it to my advantage. DAY 774 - I am convinced the other captives are flunkies and maybe snitches. The dog is routinely released and seems more than happy to return. He is obviously a half-wit. The Bird on the other hand has got to be an informant. He has mastered their frightful tongue (something akin to mole speak) and speaks with them regularly. I am certain he reports my every move. Due to his current placement in the metal room his safety is assured. But I can wait, it is only a matter of time. --part1_c125c73a.24cf6ea0_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from aol.com (rly-zd03.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.227]) by air-zd05.mx.aol.com (v60.18) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:35:45 -0400 Received: from isnt01.sunydutchess.edu (facstaff.sunydutchess.edu [198.242.208.199]) by rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (v60.18) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:35:36 -0400 Received: by isnt01.sunydutchess.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:35:34 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Landry, Anne" To: "'billmaine'" , "'bluruin'" , "'carol'" , "'cas'" , "'cathy'" , "'cjk'" , "'craig'" , "'deb'" , "'jpl'" , "'kal'" , "'kevin'" , "'linda-h'" , "'marycrenshaw'" , "'patty'" , "'teresa'" , "'therese'" Subject: FW: Cat Diary Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:35:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Cat Diary CAT DIARY DAY 752 - My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while I am forced to eat dry cereal. The only thing that keeps me going is the hope of escape, and the mild satisfaction I get from ruining the occasional piece of furniture. Tomorrow I may eat another houseplant. DAY 761 - Today my attempt to kill my captors by weaving around their feet while they were walking almost succeeded, must try this at the top of the stairs. In an attempt to disgust and repulse these vile oppressors, I once again induced myself to vomit on their favorite chair...must try this on their bed. DAY 762 - Slept all day so that I could annoy my captors with sleep depriving, incessant pleas for food at ungodly hours of the night. DAY 765 - Decapitated a mouse and brought them the headless body, in an attempt to make them aware of what I am capable of, and to try to strike fear into their hearts. They only cooed and condescended about what a good little cat I was...Hmmm. Not working according to plan..... DAY 768 - I am finally aware of how sadistic they are. For no good reason, I was chosen for the water torture. This time however it included a burning foamy chemical called "shampoo." What sick minds could invent such a liquid? My only consolation is the piece of thumb still stuck between my teeth. DAY 771 - There was some sort of gathering of their accomplices. I was placed in solitary throughout the event. However, I could hear the noise and smell the foul odor of the glass tubes they call "beer." More importantly, I overheard that my confinement was due to MY power of "allergies." Must learn what this is and how to use it to my advantage. DAY 774 - I am convinced the other captives are flunkies and maybe snitches. The dog is routinely released and seems more than happy to return. He is obviously a half-wit. The Bird on the other hand has got to be an informant. He has mastered their frightful tongue (something akin to mole speak) and speaks with them regularly. I am certain he reports my every move. Due to his current placement in the metal room his safety is assured. But I can wait, it is only a matter of time. Kristopher Bell, Technical Course Developer Hekimian Laboratories, Inc. 15200 Omega Drive, Rockville, MD [USA] 20850 office (301) 212-6571 fax (301) 417-6477 email kbell@hekimian.com --part1_c125c73a.24cf6ea0_boundary-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 07:12:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:12:11 +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 HAA10798 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:12:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-255-53.s53.tnt13.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.255.53]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA03262 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:11:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <009001bed874$5e39ba00$35ffa4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <000d01bed81f$7c322740$d4307dc2@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: How many people for running a tournament? Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:09:50 -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: Fearghal O'Boyle To: Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 7:02 AM Subject: Re: How many people for running a tournament? Glad somebody has touched on this practical topic. >Is it ever desirable to have the TD do everything on his/her own even with only a small entry e.g. 12 tables? It may not be desirable, but it is often necessary. The place where you find small games tend to be the clubs, and they run on a very small margin to break even or show a profit. If the game is running at a loss, it's going to close. Some games can only be kept solvent by having a single person handle all the duties (sometimes even filling in as a player if needed for a complete movement). A playing TD is always undesirable, but often necessary in a small game. >I don't think it's fair to the players or the TD if he/she is left to run the show single handedly. Which is more fair to the players: a TD working all parts of the game, or no game at all? That's a problem many clubs face. >Regards, >Fearghal When the TD runs the show alone, the pace is frantic in the beginning of the game, and at the end. Once the game has started, things get quiet in a hurry, and there is usually plenty of spare time. I've never had a problem setting up and running a 12 table game (+/- a few tables) by myself. Once the game becomes large enough to break into two sections, another person is *really* helpful, but it can still be done by a single individual. Regards, Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 07:39:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:39:16 +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 HAA10868 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:39:03 +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 119Evv-000KaS-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:38:51 +0000 Message-ID: <4WalB9AT2an3Ew6l@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:01:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Just checking L26 References: <199907231622.JAA10522@mailhub.irvine.com> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A0@XION> <199907231622.JAA10522@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990726090044.006f7298@pop.cais.com> <379D8229.94F56BCF@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <379D8229.94F56BCF@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >(*) The fact that in L26A, the player can have the penalties >disappear by naming the suit some other time, does not >really affect this discussion, does it ? It shows what the Lawmakers are trying to do. I believe that L26A is an equity Law, and L26B is a punishment Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 07:39:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:39:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA10871 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:39:05 +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 119Evv-000PJ2-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:38:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:34:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L16A1 References: <793b3291.24cef149@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <793b3291.24cef149@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 7/27/99 6:34:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > >> I don't agree. (so what's new) >> >> In a friendly game, which does not mean there is a disregard >> for the Laws, it should be possible to say to your opponent: >> "I am certain you have the hand that you need to have to be >> able to make this call, but I still want you to acknowledge >> that there has been UI". >> >> That is what I call reserving my rights. > >Dear Herman....... There you go again "I don't agree" Big deal!! >.......Kojak.. >> >> I would expect my opponent to answer: "Yes indeed, I did >> notice the UI, and let's call the director afterwards in >> case you don't agree with my opinion that I have not broken >> my L16 obligations." >> >> I don't see why we should need to call the director at this >> time. > >Great, but the ACBL has exercised it's right to see it differently, and it >works. I am glad to hear you say that. Most American subscribers to RGB don't agree with you, though. The feeling is that if opponents were to hesitate before making a call once a board on average it would ruining the game to be calling the TD so often. As a result, the feeling is that people bid on UI from partner and get away with it because of this ACBL regulation. I am afraid, Kojak, that my experience as a player is that hesitations are handled very well and amicably at the table by Reserving Rights, and that the game would not flow nearly as well without this Law. > You, of course, when you make your above statements never have any >disagreement on the existence of UI. Who would dare to disagree with you! We do get disagreements over UI, and as the Reserving Rights Law says in parentheses the Director is immediately summoned if there is any such disagreement. >However, what if the opponent says there was none? In the real world we find >it greatly simplifies and avoids later problems to have a TD at the table at >that time. Have you ever considered that the TD could also find out at that >time what other actions the players might be willing to state they would >taken before seeing all 52 cards? And that the TD can explain the Laws to the >players who might not know them (yes, I know you and all your friends have a >deep understanding of the Laws at all times -- but I also know that there are >more high level players who do not know the Laws than there are those who do, >and that certainly holds true as you go lower in the expertise category) who >might then chose their actions more appropriately........Kojak I appreciate these further problems, but I believe you should look at the other side: it is not practical to call the TD for every UI case. So, if you do not allow reserving Rights, what alternative is there? Of course, legally, you can first mention the UI when you call the TD at the end of the hand. Certain ACBL TDs are quoted as saying that you may not get a ruling that way, but the Laws do not agree. So what do I suggest? I recommend in a clear case of UI that you suggest in a friendly way that UI exists: if your opponents disagree in any way *or* if they do not seem to understand then you call the TD immediately [do it yourself in a friendly fashion]. However, I think that UI problems are lessened by Reserving Rights because it is a fairly easy and casual agreement and leads to a Director call at the end of the hand no more than one time in five. Note, I am *not* thinking of the Directors: it is their job to deal with things: but the players find that where there are Directors being called the whole time that the flow is dislocated. According to Bobby Goldman writing on RGB this is the approach used by many top American players despite what the ACBL has said. -- 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 Jul 28 07:39:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:39:16 +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 HAA10869 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:39:03 +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 119Evv-000PJ1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:38:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:16:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities References: <199907261914.MAA01631@mailhub.irvine.com> <379D9426.B9F8B1AD@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> In-Reply-To: <379D9426.B9F8B1AD@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ralf Teichmann wrote: >Of course I did not want to split hairs. I just wonder why lawyers tend >to avoid clear phrasing, leaving room for interpretations. I think that is very unfair. It is amazingly difficult to get details of this sort right, and I have every sympathy with Law-makers who get it wrong. Furthermore, it is not always desirable to avoid ambiguity: some people believe that some play in the Laws is desirable, leaving the ability to interpret. -- 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 Jul 28 07:39:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:39:16 +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 HAA10870 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:39:04 +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 119Ew0-000KaT-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:38:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:13:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Just checking L26 References: <199907262155.RAA07350@cfa183.harvard.edu> <379D82E9.4E66798@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <379D82E9.4E66798@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > From: David Stevenson >> > If a Law is completely unambiguous, then we follow the written word >> >> Yes, I suppose there might be one or two laws like that. :-) >> > >I would venture there could be more ... 4 at least. >(L1-2-3-4) I love a challenge! In an infamous ruling where The Bridge World [very rarely] was completely wrong, declarer played towards dummy's KJ1042 and called for the "knave". The next player failed to play the queen because he believed the king had been called for. [Innocent question: do the words "king" and "knave" - or "top" and "knave" - sound the same in an American accent?] The ruling was that declarer had failed to follow L46A in that he had failed to state a rank for the card. The reason given that "knave" is not a rank because it does not appear in Law 1. The interpretation of Law 1 was that these are 'official' names for the rank of cards. A question: If declarer asks for the "deuce" in the ACBL do the opponents call for the Director and say that he did not designate a rank? If not, where does the word "deuce" appear in Law 1? In fact, this is based on a mis-interpretation of Law 1: it assumes that Law 1 gives the only possible names to the rank of the cards. The English language would disagree: you have named a rank if you say anything that will be interpreted as a rank, like "Play the curse of Scotland" or "Hit me with the second card from the top". Law 1 does not say the only names for the ranking of the cards are as shown but has been mis-interpreted to do so. -- 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 Jul 28 07:54:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:54:39 +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 HAA10952 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:54:32 +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 OAA25670; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:53:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199907272153.OAA25670@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Just checking L26 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:13:52 PDT." Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:53:43 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > [Innocent question: do the words > "king" and "knave" - or "top" and "knave" - sound the same in an > American accent?] No, not in any part of the country. Not close. The vowels are far too far apart. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 08:12:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:12:16 +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 IAA11006 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:12:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 119FS3-000275-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:11:59 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990727224349.00ad9eb0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:43:49 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities In-Reply-To: <37a4bab4.11846349@mail.image.dk> References: <379D9426.B9F8B1AD@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> <199907261914.MAA01631@mailhub.irvine.com> <379D9426.B9F8B1AD@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 14:11 27-07-99 GMT, you wrote: >Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:12:51 +0200 skrev Ralf Teichmann: > >>I still feel, there is a difference between turning a card face down on >>the table and laying a card face down on the table. > >But why mention the table at all if "until he has turned his own >card face down" would be enough? And it's *on* the table. I think >there can be no doubt that the card must touch the table. But if there aint no table to put the cards on (you play on the grass??) I dont think the laws require that bridge is played on tables (or people are required sitting in chairs) then what? should the laws provide this matter too, or is it then TD judgement (or worse, is this incorrect procedure or behaviour???) liable to ZT. As you see, the law is full of loopholes, like in bridge. lets keep good humour. regards, anton >(Correction: There obviously *is* doubt, but I think there >needn't be) > >I do not, however, think that the English (and original) text is >clear, whether the player must have let go of his card. I would >still like to read comments about that. > >>This sounds at least less ambiguous. > >Yes, but it is translated from the English text. It does go to >show that the translator read the law as I do. > >>Of course I did not want to split hairs. I just wonder why lawyers tend >>to avoid clear phrasing, leaving room for interpretations. > >Well, my guess is that lawyers would ask us why we don't just >read what is written - with no more and no less right. Language >is not math. > >Bertel >-- >Denmark, Europe >http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 08:39:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:39:33 +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 IAA11103 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:39:25 +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 PAA26524; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:38:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199907272238.PAA26524@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:43:49 PDT." <3.0.2.32.19990727224349.00ad9eb0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:38:38 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > But if there aint no table to put the cards on (you play on the grass??) > I dont think the laws require that bridge is played on tables (or people > are required sitting in chairs) then what? Actually, it appears that Law 3 does require that bridge be played on tables. It doesn't say anything about chairs, however. I suppose it's possible to move the tables out onto the grass but let the players sit on the grass. The tables would have to be pretty low, in that case. Unless all the players had very long arms. Playing on grass would cause other problems, especially for very obese players, who seem to be overrepresented in tournaments at least in my area, for whom it would be a major task to get up and move to the next table. We'd have to make all such players permanent North-Souths, which would really screw up the seeding. Then there's the problem of dummy's cards being suddenly picked up by a breeze and blown over to the next table, which poses some interesting UI situations for the people at the next table. Unless you're planning on having the players play on the grass inside the building, which pretty much means you can't use real grass but have to use Astro-Turf, which, as all of us baseball fans know, is a dangerous toxic substance that should be banned. Is this silly enough? If you play on grass, then you pretend the grass is the "table" and apply the Laws accordingly. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 09:06:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:06:48 +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 JAA11201 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:06:40 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id rLNYa05142 (4400); Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:03:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <16750ac.24cf94d2@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:03:46 EDT Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/27/99 6:41:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, adam@irvine.com writes: > Is this silly enough? If you play on grass, then you pretend the > grass is the "table" and apply the Laws accordingly. Thank you Adam for putting some levity into this ridiclous argument. It fall sinto the category of what i learned to be "failing to see the forest because of the trees.".....Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 09:09:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:09:09 +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 JAA11225 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:09:01 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id qIKYa18047 (4400); Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:07:17 EDT Subject: Re: L16A1 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 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/27/99 5:40:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > So what do I suggest? I recommend in a clear case of UI that you > suggest in a friendly way that UI exists: if your opponents disagree in > any way *or* if they do not seem to understand then you call the TD > immediately [do it yourself in a friendly fashion]. > I like this very much, but it works in your ambiance. In the ACBL the method they have adopted seems to work better. So there is no argument. This is one of those SO options that need not be further discussed unless there are problems created that were not foreseen.....Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 09:10:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:10:10 +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 JAA11235 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:10:02 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id qMUZa06267 (4400); Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:09:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <408e9f52.24cf9617@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:09:11 EDT Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities 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 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/27/99 5:40:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > Furthermore, it is not always desirable to avoid ambiguity: some > people believe that some play in the Laws is desirable, leaving the > ability to interpret. > Yes David, But that point was probably overused by Edgar. Hew anted all the wiggle room to satisfay whomsoever he was talking to. Not a pretty picture, but believe me, I was involved in it more than once........Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 09:29:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:29:58 +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 JAA11303 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:29:52 +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 119GfE-000BtM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:29:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:10:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L66, or, Time to Quit These Ambiguities References: <199907261914.MAA01631@mailhub.irvine.com> <379D9426.B9F8B1AD@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> <37a4bab4.11846349@mail.image.dk> In-Reply-To: <37a4bab4.11846349@mail.image.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:12:51 +0200 skrev Ralf Teichmann: > >>I still feel, there is a difference between turning a card face down on >>the table and laying a card face down on the table. > >But why mention the table at all if "until he has turned his own >card face down" would be enough? And it's *on* the table. I think >there can be no doubt that the card must touch the table. >(Correction: There obviously *is* doubt, but I think there >needn't be) > >I do not, however, think that the English (and original) text is >clear, whether the player must have let go of his card. I would >still like to read comments about that. I see no reason to read additional things into Laws that are not there. L66A says: So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced for his inspection. Does the wording include turning the card? Yes, so if it is not turned inspection is still permitted. Does the wording involve being on the table? Yes, so if it is not on the table, inspection is still permitted. Does the wording include letting go of the card? No, so whether the card has been let go does not affect whether inspection is permitted. -- 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 Jul 28 10:00:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:00:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11408 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:00:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.187] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 119H95-000KrA-00; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:00:32 +0100 Message-ID: <00fb01bed88c$34e386a0$bb5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "John Wignall" Subject: New email address in full bloom Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:39:39 +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; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:27:42 +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 119HZE-0005eA-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:27:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:00:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Just checking L26 References: <199907272153.OAA25670@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199907272153.OAA25670@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> [Innocent question: do the words >> "king" and "knave" - or "top" and "knave" - sound the same in an >> American accent?] > >No, not in any part of the country. Not close. The vowels are far >too far apart. The Bridge World claimed that they sounded similar [unless my memory is at fault]. -- 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 Jul 28 13:24:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:27:46 +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 MAA11664 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:27:32 +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 119JR5-000GAR-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 02:27:17 +0000 Message-ID: <7fS3FbEp8kn3EwaF@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:30:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Just checking L26 In-Reply-To: <379D82E9.4E66798@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <379D82E9.4E66798@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > From: David Stevenson >> > If a Law is completely unambiguous, then we follow the written word >> >> Yes, I suppose there might be one or two laws like that. :-) >> > >I would venture there could be more ... 4 at least. >(L1-2-3-4) Law 2 does not specify that the normal compass psitions apply with respect to North, so your board could be marked N S W E round the pockets. Law 3 requires tables to be numbered. In a 3-way match they are frequently lettered. (A, B, C) Clearly Illegal. Apart from that Laws 1-4 seem fairly unambiguous :)) chs 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 Jul 28 14:24:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:27:52 +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 MAA11666 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:27:34 +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 119JR9-000Brg-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 02:27:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 03:22:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Incorrect score In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > A correspondent writes: > >RHO (North) bid up to 4H on his own in a competitive auction. I doubled >(partly based on my hand, but it was the sort of auction where one could >double on the auction alone.) The contract made. I was in such a state >of shock it didn't really register at the time that RHO scored this as >4H undoubled. Some time later I said to my partner "Didn't I double >4H?" His reaction was to shrug (ie he'd noticed at the time and said >nothing). Does this fall into the category of not drawing attention to >an opponents error? Was it legal? Was it ethical? > > Comments? > L72A4 does seem to apply ... but I don't like it. L79A merely requires the number of tricks (10) to be agreed, not the score. Law 79C refers to an agreed-upon score, but not how it is determined. Law 77 is a table and has no directives. Ethical? No. It's like not walking when the ball just twitched your glove. The umpire won't have heard anything. I once had a table that agreed upon a score of 75 (they couldn't be bothered to work out if a stupid slam was down 1 or down 2). I couldn't find a law that stopped them. chs 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 Jul 28 15:06:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:27:50 +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 MAA11667 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:27:34 +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 119JR7-000N7m-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 02:27:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:57:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: How many people for running a tournament? (was L16A1) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990727090028.007a0b50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.19990727090028.007a0b50@mail.rz.uni- duesseldorf.de>, Richard Bley writes >Kojak wrote: >>As I can best remember it, this was put into the Laws at the request of the >>Portland Club where there is no TD during play. This was to indicate to the >>opponents your concern with what had, and was about to , happened, and gave >>notice that you might take umbriage at a latter time, AND establish the >>hesitation, etc. With a TD it is not necessary nor in my view desireable >for >>the players to come to these kinds of agreements without the presence of a >>TD. I think that is why ACBL says, either call the TD now, or forever hold >>your peace..........Kojak > >All the time I was a TD there was never a problem with reserving rights >here in germany. The problem I see is the additional work of a TD. The >players have to announce the TD, if there is no one available immediately, >they have to wait for him. That is no problem if you enough TDs to spare. > >That leads me to my question: > >For a tournament of 100 tables: >1) How many people do you need to get the tournament running (during play), >that is: >TD >Caddies >Scorers > >In germany we need 4. Is this a usual number? UK Typical 100 table Swiss. 1CTD, 4 TDs on the floor, 1 computer scorer. No caddies in the UK 100 tables of pairs. About the same, but 1 scorer per 3-4 sections of 14 tables Swiss pairs is very labour intensive. 1 TD per 15 (at a pinch 20) tables plus 1CTD plus 1 caddy and 1 scorer per 55 tables chs john > > >2) How do you pick the entry fee from the players? In germany we take it >from the players during the 1st/2nd round and found this impractible. > > -- 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 Jul 28 15:24:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:27:55 +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 MAA11689 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:27:43 +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 119JRC-000GAR-0B; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 02:27:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 03:17:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: "John B. Deville" , JOHN DEVILLE , Peter Probst , Anne Fouche , Martin S Taylor , Arthur & Barb Etkin , Jo & Jim Mollison From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Cat Diary In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , RCraigH@aol.com writes >CAT DIARY > > DAY 752 - My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling > objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while I am forced to eat dry > cereal. The only thing that keeps me going is the hope of escape, and the > mild satisfaction I get from ruining the occasional piece of furniture. > Tomorrow I may eat another houseplant. possibly off-topic? TD Diary Day 4. Thursday. hmm. Got up about 1230, made up set of boards for game. Shopped for revolting sickly sweet cakes to give the b****ds with their tea. Fed cat - it snagged my trousers as I walked out the door. Kicked cat, changed trousers, left again. traffic jam at King's Cross "oh shit". Got to club. Dressed tables. Cut up cakes, placed them on revolting little white doily things to hide the crack in the plates. Hid cakes, (Denise will pinch half of them if they're on show). Put on coffee, put t-bags in pot, boiled water. Was sickenly nice as everyone walked in. (God I hate myself). Sat them down. Collected table moneys. called moves. put out cakes, called tea break. Denise first to cakes (after being a full board behind). scraped cakes off floor, put ice cubes on the chewing gum, called moves, hid remaining cakes. chipped chewing gum off floor, broke a finger nail, called moves. Called last round, put out hand records, collected travellers, typed in scores, announced results, congratulated winners and gave out prize money. cleared tables, ate cakes, fought windoze to let me turn off computer, locked up. Car vandalised. climbed in through trunk, broke another finger nail. Got home, suited the boards. connected to blml. 40-15 and 3 games all in the second set between Herman and DWS. played okb, grumpy Yank who thinks that the best way to show a flat 19 count is to open a small doubleton. He played there. hehe, serve him right. It's now 330 am, kick cat, watch strange physical encounter game on late night tv between Mets and Packers (or was it Orioles and Expos) and so to bed chs 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 Jul 28 15:34:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:27:51 +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 MAA11679 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:27:38 +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 119JR5-000Brg-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 02:27:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:45:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Just checking L26 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Herman De Wael wrote: >>Steve Willner wrote: >>> >>> > From: David Stevenson >>> > If a Law is completely unambiguous, then we follow the written word >>> >>> Yes, I suppose there might be one or two laws like that. :-) >>> >> >>I would venture there could be more ... 4 at least. >>(L1-2-3-4) > > I love a challenge! > > In an infamous ruling where The Bridge World [very rarely] was >completely wrong, declarer played towards dummy's KJ1042 and called for >the "knave". The next player failed to play the queen because he >believed the king had been called for. [Innocent question: do the words >"king" and "knave" - or "top" and "knave" - sound the same in an >American accent?] > > The ruling was that declarer had failed to follow L46A in that he had >failed to state a rank for the card. The reason given that "knave" is >not a rank because it does not appear in Law 1. The interpretation of >Law 1 was that these are 'official' names for the rank of cards. A >question: > >If declarer asks for the "deuce" in the ACBL do the opponents call for >the Director and say that he did not designate a rank? If not, where >does the word "deuce" appear in Law 1? > > In fact, this is based on a mis-interpretation of Law 1: it assumes >that Law 1 gives the only possible names to the rank of the cards. The >English language would disagree: you have named a rank if you say >anything that will be interpreted as a rank, like "Play the curse of >Scotland" or "Hit me with the second card from the top". > If I Lead a seven from hand and there's only one seven in dummy and it would be legal to play it and I want to play it, I say "snap". But that's because proddy and I have a side game going where 3 snaps in one hand get you a beer. We also play jackpot coups, fullhouse coups and the beer card (D7) at trick 13. It actually helps concentration we find. Amusing story: County match: LHO (declarer) is running a long suit from dummy and I'm playing snap with my long suit. It goes 10S from dummy, 10D from me, 7S from dummy (this hurt) 7D from me. Declarer (who is *known* to have no sense of humour) asks partner "Is there any significance in your partner's carding" "Yes", says Proddy, "if he gets another 'snap' I have to buy him a pint!". We won the match. chs 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 Jul 28 16:19:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:27:48 +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 MAA11665 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:27:33 +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 119JR5-000Brh-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 02:27:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 02:45:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: How many people for running a tournament? In-Reply-To: <000d01bed81f$7c322740$d4307dc2@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000d01bed81f$7c322740$d4307dc2@oemcomputer>, Fearghal O'Boyle writes >Glad somebody has touched on this practical topic. > >Is it ever desirable to have the TD do everything on his/her own even with only >a small entry e.g. 12 tables? > >I don't think it's fair to the players or the TD if he/she is left to run the >show single handedly. If he's well organised I think a TD can handle about 15 tables on his own. 2 TDS can just manage 40 tables (3 sections) Club games I direct: In general boards are pre-duplicated. Club 1 7 tables, 1 TD, players clear up while I'm finishing the score input. Pay club treasurer at the door. Tough to direct as you have to look up the Law in the English edition, look for the number in the Japanese edition and then show them the Law in Japanese, and interpret it. Club 2 13 tables, 1 TD, Collect Table money and name slips in envelopes during round 1, issue subscription renewals during the game. I clear down the tables after finishing scoring. We're out of the club 20 minutes after play ceases. Club 3 30 tables. 3 sections, 1 room. 1 TD, 1 asst TD, extra staff for table money, prize money and collecting top copy of travellers after round 9 (of 12). Pretty busy just applying the Law and keeping the 3 sections going to time. Clear up one section each. Out of the door in 10 minutes. Results posted on internet at midnight Club 4 22-24 tables, 2 sections, 2 rooms. 1 TD, 1 asst to do all the administration. table money and name slips in envelopes during round 1 collected by TD while checking the movement is ok. Hand out local point certificates (printed out when the name list is entered) as you walk round. Collect subsription renewals (rolling 12 month, typically 3 or four). Enter results as tables finish - staggered starting time makes this ok. Calling the move in both rooms requires a good internal clock. Non-trivial UI calls. One is always busy and it can be a nightmare on Friday nights :)) County events at weekends in existing cardrooms. 2 sessions typically. 1 TD for up to about 20 tables. No other administration needed so you're just worrying about the moves. I sell entries at the door (ACBL-like one buys one's seat). With more than 15 tables I take and pay a caddy, and ask for a second TD if it got to 25 tables. Do own scoring (but I'm pretty quick and use my own programs) EBU events: 1 TD per room minimum (a 7 table C-flight gets it's own TD) and I think it's based on 1 CTD plus 1 TD per 26 tables (2 sections), plus scorers and caddies where appropriate. This would usually be 50-plus table event though. The toughest game to run is my wife's 13 player birthday individual. They won't move to time, they get drunk, they break my chairs, burn holes in my card tables (smoking is required in this game!!), they forget their systems, go to the wrong tables and I have to play and direct *and* I don't even get paid :))))) chs 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 Jul 28 17:43:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:43:44 +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 RAA12250 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:43:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:42:51 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990728094309.007a46c0@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, 28 Jul 1999 09:43:09 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Just checking L26 In-Reply-To: References: <199907272153.OAA25670@mailhub.irvine.com> <199907272153.OAA25670@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:00 28.07.99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Adam Beneschan wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> [Innocent question: do the words >>> "king" and "knave" - or "top" and "knave" - sound the same in an >>> American accent?] >> >>No, not in any part of the country. Not close. The vowels are far >>too far apart. > > The Bridge World claimed that they sounded similar [unless my memory >is at fault]. > And I thought this was a little joke form David... From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 19:24:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:28:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12383 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:28:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.66] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 119P4S-0006mv-00; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:28:17 +0100 Message-ID: <007401bed8d3$233c3540$425108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Just checking L26 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:32:25 +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 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 27 July 1999 23:01 Subject: Re: Just checking L26 > Law 1 does not say the only names for the ranking of the cards are as >shown but has been mis-interpreted to do so. > +++ Grattan +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 20:27:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:28:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12384 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:28:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.66] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 119P4V-0006mv-00; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:28:19 +0100 Message-ID: <007601bed8d3$249cafa0$425108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: L16A1 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:59:09 +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 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 27 July 1999 01:10 Subject: L16A1 >As one who lives in benighted North America, +++ I am never sure whether we move into the light five hours before you do, or nineteen hours after....+++ > -------------- \x/ -------------- >(Readers of RGB will see that David S. has surprised me with his >answer, so I'm particularly interested in replies from outside the >EBU.) > +++ I haven't looked at RGB just lately; are you saying that an EBU opinion that differed from David's could not have value? Not everyone in England sees it that way ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 20:32:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:28:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12382 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:28:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.66] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 119P4T-0006mv-00; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:28:18 +0100 Message-ID: <007501bed8d3$23f4d6e0$425108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Incorrect score Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:37:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 27 July 1999 14:07 Subject: Incorrect score > > A correspondent writes: > >RHO (North) bid up to 4H on his own in a competitive auction. I doubled >(partly based on my hand, but it was the sort of auction where one could >double on the auction alone.) The contract made. I was in such a state >of shock it didn't really register at the time that RHO scored this as >4H undoubled. Some time later I said to my partner "Didn't I double >4H?" His reaction was to shrug (ie he'd noticed at the time and said >nothing). Does this fall into the category of not drawing attention to >an opponents error? Was it legal? Was it ethical? > > Comments? ++++ I doubt this should be termed unethical. It is, however, appropriate to inform the Director - and, please note, this duty lies with David's correspondent as much as with his partner, ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 21:05:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:05:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12725 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:05:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-028.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.220]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA56377 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:04:48 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <007001bed8e9$01290e40$dc307dc2@oemcomputer> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: How many people for running a tournament? Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:04:44 +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 Thanks for your answers, I am of course looking for guidelines for Regional, County and National events. Regards, Fearghal. -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst >If he's well organised I think a TD can handle about 15 tables on his >own. 2 TDS can just manage 40 tables (3 sections) > >County events at weekends in existing cardrooms. 2 sessions typically. 1 >TD for up to about 20 tables. No other administration needed so you're >just worrying about the moves. I sell entries at the door (ACBL-like one >buys one's seat). With more than 15 tables I take and pay a caddy, and >ask for a second TD if it got to 25 tables. Do own scoring (but I'm >pretty quick and use my own programs) > >EBU events: 1 TD per room minimum (a 7 table C-flight gets it's own TD) >and I think it's based on 1 CTD plus 1 TD per 26 tables (2 sections), >plus scorers and caddies where appropriate. This would usually be >50-plus table event though. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 21:49:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:28:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12396 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:28:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.66] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 119P4X-0006mv-00; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:28:21 +0100 Message-ID: <007801bed8d3$2604cb20$425108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , Subject: Re: L16A1 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:19:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 27 July 1999 02:39 Subject: Re: L16A1 >In a message dated 7/26/99 7:49:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ \x/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >As I can best remember it, this was put into the Laws at the request of the >Portland Club where there is no TD during play. This was to indicate to the >opponents your concern with what had, and was about to , happened, and gave >notice that you might take umbriage at a latter time, AND establish the >hesitation, etc. With a TD it is not necessary nor in my view desireable for >the players to come to these kinds of agreements without the presence of a >TD. I think that is why ACBL says, either call the TD now, or forever hold >your peace..........Kojak > +++ I can not be sure, but I do not believe it was the Portland Club. We have quite a lot of club games in the UK with a playing Director, but my recollection is that the suggestion did not come from the UK. We tend to urge that the Director be called if there is a non-playing Director, or maybe a little stronger than 'urge' without making it mandatory. ~ Grattan ~ +++ ["Although there are circumstances under Law 16 where you may 'reserve your rights', it is better to call the TD. This assumes there is a non-playing TD to be called; in the case of a playing TD you may have no choice but to reserve your rights." English regulation. ] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 28 22:24:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:23:32 +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 VAA12763 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:23:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-22.uunet.be [194.7.148.22]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA23885 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:23:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <379ED7E3.1C196F9C@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:13:55 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L16A1 References: <793b3291.24cef149@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 7/27/99 6:34:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > I don't agree. (so what's new) > > > > In a friendly game, which does not mean there is a disregard > > for the Laws, it should be possible to say to your opponent: > > "I am certain you have the hand that you need to have to be > > able to make this call, but I still want you to acknowledge > > that there has been UI". > > > > That is what I call reserving my rights. > > Dear Herman....... There you go again "I don't agree" Big deal!! > .......Kojak.. > > > > I would expect my opponent to answer: "Yes indeed, I did > > notice the UI, and let's call the director afterwards in > > case you don't agree with my opinion that I have not broken > > my L16 obligations." > > > > I don't see why we should need to call the director at this > > time. > > Great, but the ACBL has exercised it's right to see it differently, and it > works. OK, I don't mind, but I was not commenting on the reasons for banning it, rather on the reasons for allowing it. > You, of course, when you make your above statements never have any > disagreement on the existence of UI. Who would dare to disagree with you! > However, what if the opponent says there was none? Then you do call the director, of course ! > In the real world we find > it greatly simplifies and avoids later problems to have a TD at the table at > that time. Have you ever considered that the TD could also find out at that > time what other actions the players might be willing to state they would > taken before seeing all 52 cards? And that the TD can explain the Laws to the > players who might not know them (yes, I know you and all your friends have a > deep understanding of the Laws at all times -- but I also know that there are > more high level players who do not know the Laws than there are those who do, > and that certainly holds true as you go lower in the expertise category) who > might then chose their actions more appropriately........Kojak > I all those cases, we do call the director. Of course we do. I'm only stating that there can be instances where it is not needed to call the director _at that time_, without losing the rights to redress that one could have had if we had called the director. After all, in such cases, what would a director in the ACBL say : "ok, you agree that your partner has hesitated ? So play on and call me back afterwards." > > There are other "high level clubs" who also use the Laws, and they do exactly > what you think you invented. It is an option BY LAW. Exactly. Although I never said I invented this. But some people on this thread want to see abolished exactly what is allowed BY LAW. As does the ACBL, apparently ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 29 00:24:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:29:58 +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 XAA13112 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:29:50 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.25) id 5BRMa28876 (14400); Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:27:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:27:40 EDT Subject: Re: L16A1 To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/28/99 8:26:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > But some people on this thread want to see abolished exactly > what is allowed BY LAW. > As does the ACBL, apparently ? A new height of reasoning a la Herman..... because a Sponsoring Organization exercises an option given by Law it means that they want to see the other option available abolished for everyone else. Beautiful.... but to me, if not stupid at least sophistry .........Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 29 02:44:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 02:44:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (IDENT:exim@sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA14128 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 02:44:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from paas03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.171] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 119Wo2-0005GG-00; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:43:50 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01bed917$c628f240$aba393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:38:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Date: 23 July 1999 18:01 Subject: Zonal options and Worldwide interpretation. > >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Marvin L. French wrote:>> > --------------- \x/ --------------- >> > >> >It seems to me that all Grattan is asking for is that SOs comply with >> >the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and the By-Laws of the World Bridge >> >Federation. That's not asking too much. >> >> I don't think this is the point. I have a feeling that there is a >> movement under way to rationalise interpretations - thus ZAs would not >> be permitted to differ in their interpretation of LAs. I may be wrong, >> of course, but that was my interpretation of what Grattan was referring >> to. --------------- \x/ -------------- ++++ What I do think is that we have to move with some finesse and to take account of and respect all the differing opinions in the world. It is no good anyone taking off and going it alone; we have to carry world-wide opinion with us. So I believe we have to construct, if we can, a skeletal jurisprudence for appeals committees - ergo for the guidance also of directors - but not to believe we can force all the people into one size of straitjacket. So I do advocate a spirit of compromise and consultation, and experimental trying things for size. and when we know what works best I think we should work to bring it into the laws as far as we are able, and beyond this to massage production of regulations to whatever extent we are able so that we do have something like a one world approach to the game. I just believe we have to work together to unify, and to stem the haemorrhages we have seen in recent times. To that end I am a solid supporter of what the WBF President is seeking to achieve and ready to contribute if I can to what might be considered a healing process. For this same reason I am trying not to preempt progress or damage sensitivities with statements that perch me on any particular limb from which I might have difficulty in retreating should it be desirable to do so in the interests of the game. This is no time for ego. My aim is to bring appeal committee philosophies closer together and to remove, where possible, those aspects that leave players (and often officials) bemused. Excuse me, then, if I am reluctant to respond to any invitation to take up an entrenched position. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 29 08:47:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:47:30 +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 IAA15376 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:47:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from kantoor.ripe.net (kantoor.ripe.net [193.0.1.98]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA05512; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:45:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA16987; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:45:01 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:45:00 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "John (MadDog) Probst" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, "John B. Deville" , JOHN DEVILLE , Peter Probst , Anne Fouche , Martin S Taylor , Arthur & Barb Etkin , Jo & Jim Mollison Subject: Re: Cat Diary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article , RCraigH@aol.com writes > >CAT DIARY Can we please stop this thread? 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 Jul 29 09:40:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA15454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:40:58 +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 JAA15448 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:40:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm6-5.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.202]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01309 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:40:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <379F95B1.A474806B@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:43:45 -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: messed up game!!! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This happened at the local game this afternoon, and I am still upset. The game was a 11 1/2 tables, three boards a round, for 9 rounds. Table twelve is the sit out table. Director, who has been ill is back for the first time in more than a month and not very spry!. His wife, (life master and club manager) is assisting him by calling rounds, moving boards, and picking up score slips. The game also has a traveler with each board for players info only, not an official score. At the beginning of round 4, it is discovered that boards 34, 35, 36 are still sitting on the sit out table and pair eleven has been given boards, 1,2,3 and 4,5,6 to play by club manager. The decision was made to throw out 34, 35, 36 and see what happens, maybe a double skip will solve the problems.!!??! After round 6, the director has everyone skip 2 tables, which does not solve the problem, so he has everyone shuffle the boards and play three rounds which he will score separately and add the two score together to produce the winners. Everyone is happy, but realize it is not the perfect solution. The director was using ACBL score and attempted to reassign the boards leaving out 34, 35, & 36 which the program would not accept for the whole game. (I think it would have handled the first 6 rounds OK but the director would not try this) He proceeded to score the first 6 rounds just as they appeared on the computer and when it was your turn to play 34, 35, 36 you got whatever score you made on whatever 3 boards you happened to be playing that round!!!!!! When restarting the last three rounds, he left everyone where they were after the two table skip, but put boards 34, 35, 36 on the sit out table and instructed pair 11 to play those boards after playing the boards that were already on their table. (16, 17, 18). After the three rounds were played, they were scored and the results were added to the first 6 rounds to produce the winners. When questioned about the scoring on the first six boards, the director said it was too complicated to correct and it was tough that it was not correct, and stop being such a pain in the you know where and not to sweat the small stuff, it was not worth being concerned about.. Players who asked for a summary of their scores were told that he wasn't printing summaries today. A recap sheet is never posted at this game! (sounds like he didn't want anyone to know how he had scored the game.) Today is month end and these illegal scores will be sent to ACBL which I think is dishonest. So, could this this error have been corrected and the game saved? (Game could have been stopped with 18 boards played and winner declared)). What kind of penalty should be given to whom and for what?? (North\South should be sure their board were coming in the proper order, but they thought they were and they were given to them by the club manager!! ( Beginners and they were not told how many boards were in play) and what about the incorrect scores being registered with ACBL? (Kojak, is your head spinning??) Obviously, this director passed only the true/false test and has only directed his wife's game. What should be done about this one???? Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 29 10:23:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:23:08 +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 KAA15513 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:23:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn26p34.ozemail.com.au [210.84.6.98]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA21780; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:22:09 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:22:09 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199907290022.KAA21780@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: ardelm@ozemail.com.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Incorrect score Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >>RHO (North) bid up to 4H on his own in a competitive auction. I doubled >>(partly based on my hand, but it was the sort of auction where one could >>double on the auction alone.) The contract made. I was in such a state >>of shock it didn't really register at the time that RHO scored this as >>4H undoubled. Some time later I said to my partner "Didn't I double >>4H?" His reaction was to shrug (ie he'd noticed at the time and said >>nothing). Does this fall into the category of not drawing attention to >>an opponents error? Was it legal? Was it ethical? >> >> Comments? Perahps I could relate a tale from the recently completed 14th NZ Annual National Congress (taken from Bulletin #4): 1) The Pairs final finishes and Pair A are announced as winners 2) After dinner, upon checking his personal score sheet, a player from the winning pair finds that a board has been mis-scored in his favour (-120 instead of +120) 3) He immediately tells the CTD 4) CTD confirms that there has been a scoring error which would have placed Pair B on top 5) Under the conditions of contest, the score had become final some time earlier. Pair A are the legal winners. They are totally distraught and find this totally unpalatable as they believe that morally they have lost. 6) Eventually, the two pairs are declared joint winners. This was graciously accepted by all 4 players, pair B congratulating pair A on their honesty. Isn't this how bridge should be played? Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 29 13:21:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:21:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from www.networksgy.com ([208.153.97.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15810 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:21:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from john ([208.153.97.81]) by www.networksgy.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id XAA01251; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:16:19 +0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <009b01bed968$d57085a0$4f6199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" To: "Nancy T Dressing" , "bridge-laws" References: <379F95B1.A474806B@pinehurst.net> Subject: Re: messed up game!!! Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:17:10 -0300 Organization: Central American & Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is one good reason to purchase the "infamous" Movements bible. Page 136 in Chapter 14 - Errors in a Mitchell. Odd Number of Tables, Plus One Pair. To quote" In this case you have started with an odd number of board sets. We suggest you continue to play as started until you have played half the number of board sets you should have had (with 11 1/2 tables you play rounds 1-6). Then you take the following measures: 1. Warn the stationary pairs at the tables with low numbers not to start the next round until you have taken the following measures: 2. Call a normal move for the next round. 3. Set up a board table between the first and last table. 4. Move the board sets on the tables before the middle table down one (extra) table (with 11 1/2 tables that is tables 1-6). One board set will thus be moved to the board table. 5. Instruct the players at the table just before the middle table that in the remaining rounds they will have to share boards with the middle table (with 11 1/2 tables, the board sharing will be between table 5 and 6). You can play one round less than the number of board sets in the described way. " end quote. As far as scoring goes, with a little bit of care and understanding, ACBLScore will allow you to make the changes in the movement file. It might take you a little time but the EDMOV function is very versatile and forgiving as well as reporting your errors in data entry. As far as the vailidity of the game, one could assume that the TD had established their own conditions of contest for the session. There is nowhere in the Laws that state how the movement should be organized. My feeling is that if the TD can defend their results then they stand as posted. John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation Current Residence: Georgetown, Guyana e-mail: johnmacg@hotmail.com CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Paradise/2245/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Nancy T Dressing To: bridge-laws Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 8:43 PM Subject: messed up game!!! | This happened at the local game this afternoon, and I am still upset. | The game was a 11 1/2 tables, three boards a round, for 9 rounds. Table | twelve is the sit out table. Director, who has been ill is back for the | first time in more than a month and not very spry!. His wife, (life | master and club manager) is assisting him by calling rounds, moving | boards, and picking up score slips. The game also has a traveler with | each board for players info only, not an official score. At the | beginning of round 4, it is discovered that boards 34, 35, 36 are still | sitting on the sit out table and pair eleven has been given boards, | 1,2,3 and 4,5,6 to play by club manager. The decision was made to throw | out 34, 35, 36 and see what happens, maybe a double skip will solve the | problems.!!??! After round 6, the director has everyone skip 2 tables, | which does not solve the problem, so he has everyone shuffle the boards | and play three rounds which he will score separately and add the two | score together to produce the winners. Everyone is happy, but realize | it is not the perfect solution. The director was using ACBL score and | attempted to reassign the boards leaving out 34, 35, & 36 which the | program would not accept for the whole game. (I think it would have | handled the first 6 rounds OK but the director would not try this) He | proceeded to score the first 6 rounds just as they appeared on the | computer and when it was your turn to play 34, 35, 36 you got whatever | score you made on whatever 3 boards you happened to be playing that | round!!!!!! When restarting the last three rounds, he left everyone | where they were after the two table skip, but put boards 34, 35, 36 on | the sit out table and instructed pair 11 to play those boards after | playing the boards that were already on their table. (16, 17, 18). | After the three rounds were played, they were scored and the results | were added to the first 6 rounds to produce the winners. When | questioned about the scoring on the first six boards, the director said | it was too complicated to correct and it was tough that it was not | correct, and stop being such a pain in the you know where and not to | sweat the small stuff, it was not worth being concerned about.. Players | who asked for a summary of their scores were told that he wasn't | printing summaries today. A recap sheet is never posted at this game! | (sounds like he didn't want anyone to know how he had scored the game.) | Today is month end and these illegal scores will be sent to ACBL which I | think is dishonest. So, could this this error have been corrected and | the game saved? (Game could have been stopped with 18 boards played | and winner declared)). What kind of penalty should be given to whom and | for what?? (North\South should be sure their board were coming in the | proper order, but they thought they were and they were given to them by | the club manager!! ( Beginners and they were not told how many boards | were in play) and what about the incorrect scores being registered with | ACBL? (Kojak, is your head spinning??) Obviously, this director | passed only the true/false test and has only directed his wife's game. | What should be done about this one???? Nancy | From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 29 13:22:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:22:29 +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 NAA15817 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:22:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.22]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA12757 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:22:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907290322.XAA16020@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is declarer's trump suit (spades): AT2 97654 - KQJ83 Declarer has just ruffed his last loser with the S2 in dummy, and now claims, "I'll take SA, ST overtaking with the SK, and take all the rest.: If director had just claimed "I'll draw trumps and take the rest", it could be ruled irrational for declarer not to notice the 5-0 break; he would take AT and then return to his hand in a side suit. As long as West couldn't ruff any side suit, declarer would get all the rest. However, is declarer held to his faulty statement here? -- 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 Jul 29 13:55:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:55:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15878 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:55:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.22]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA13349 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:55:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907290355.XAA16444@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: What is, and should be, on flowcharts? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There are references to flowcharts in the new appeals casebooks. It's valuable for TD's and AC's to have them, so that they take the correct steps in important cases. What is actually on these charts? One rule which should be on the flowcharts is in the awarding of adjusted scores, something like this. A. Determine whether each side is offending or non-offending. The side committing the irregularity is the offending side. If the irregularity is an incorrect TD ruling, both sides are entitled to a ruling as non-offenders (Law 82C). B. Assume that the irregularity (lead suggested by UI, bid made only because of MI, pull of slow double, etc.) had not occurred, and consider how the bidding and play would have developed. Determine all results which could be reached by reasonable play. C. If there is only one reasonable result, award it. If there are multiple results, award the offenders the worst result that was at all probable (1/6 chance) and award the non-offenders the best result that was likely (1/3 chance) (Law 12C2). D. If it is impossible to determine a reasonable result, award average-plus to the offenders, average-minus to the non-offenders (Law 12C1). Make a serious effort to avoid using this section if there is a table result; if a probable contract can be determined, then there must be at least one likely result in that contract, and section C above must apply. (I'd like to disallow 12C1 entirely when there is a result, but this is a concession to cases in which the result is too complicated. It is written to discourage TD's from using 12C1 as a cop-out; if N-S would have played in 4S had there been no MI, but the TD cannot tell whether they would score +650, +620, or -100, he must award one of those three scores, not average-plus. On the other hand, if North opens 1C forcing, East bids 1S, and West misexplains, the TD/AC may be unable to determine a reasonable continuation.) E. After applying either section C or D when there is a table result, award the table result to the non-offenders if it is more favorable than the adjusted score, and to the non-offenders if it is less favorable. -- 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 Jul 29 13:57:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:57:38 +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 NAA15893 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:57:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from p58s02a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.162.89] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 119eDl-0002RY-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 01:38:54 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: messed up game!!! Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 01:39:46 +0100 Message-ID: <01bed95a$db6891e0$178693c3@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 This could have been saved by making it a 11 table Mitchell with a Rover after R3, assigning results under L12 for R1/2/3. I have not got a copy of ACBL score so I do not know what it will, or will not, do, but if scoring by hand is necessary- so be it! We are only talking of 27 boards over 9 rounds. Yes there will be split scores because of the redeal. There may be instances of someone having played the board before, but hand scoring will deal with it. There is no reason that this cannot be scored accurately, albeit the balance of the movement is pretty poor. The other alternative, and the one I prefer, is... Cancel the results of this game. The players will have little faith in the results anyway. Assign table money to next session (TD will not expect to get paid will he?) Apologise to players and supply wine from saved table money. Assign results from previous week as being the last result of the month for ACBL records. Announce game cancelled due to a tornado or the like:-) Congratulate the TD for his great efforts. Because of his frailty others tried to help. Too many cooks spoiled the broth. It's only a game!! Cheers Anne -----Original Message----- From: Nancy T Dressing To: bridge-laws Date: Thursday, July 29, 1999 1:04 AM Subject: messed up game!!! >This happened at the local game this afternoon, and I am still upset. >The game was a 11 1/2 tables, three boards a round, for 9 rounds. Table >twelve is the sit out table. Director, who has been ill is back for the >first time in more than a month and not very spry!. His wife, (life >master and club manager) is assisting him by calling rounds, moving >boards, and picking up score slips. The game also has a traveler with >each board for players info only, not an official score. At the >beginning of round 4, it is discovered that boards 34, 35, 36 are still >sitting on the sit out table and pair eleven has been given boards, >1,2,3 and 4,5,6 to play by club manager. The decision was made to throw >out 34, 35, 36 and see what happens, maybe a double skip will solve the >problems.!!??! After round 6, the director has everyone skip 2 tables, >which does not solve the problem, so he has everyone shuffle the boards >and play three rounds which he will score separately and add the two >score together to produce the winners. Everyone is happy, but realize >it is not the perfect solution. The director was using ACBL score and >attempted to reassign the boards leaving out 34, 35, & 36 which the >program would not accept for the whole game. (I think it would have >handled the first 6 rounds OK but the director would not try this) He >proceeded to score the first 6 rounds just as they appeared on the >computer and when it was your turn to play 34, 35, 36 you got whatever >score you made on whatever 3 boards you happened to be playing that >round!!!!!! When restarting the last three rounds, he left everyone >where they were after the two table skip, but put boards 34, 35, 36 on >the sit out table and instructed pair 11 to play those boards after >playing the boards that were already on their table. (16, 17, 18). >After the three rounds were played, they were scored and the results >were added to the first 6 rounds to produce the winners. When >questioned about the scoring on the first six boards, the director said >it was too complicated to correct and it was tough that it was not >correct, and stop being such a pain in the you know where and not to >sweat the small stuff, it was not worth being concerned about.. Players >who asked for a summary of their scores were told that he wasn't >printing summaries today. A recap sheet is never posted at this game! >(sounds like he didn't want anyone to know how he had scored the game.) >Today is month end and these illegal scores will be sent to ACBL which I >think is dishonest. So, could this this error have been corrected and >the game saved? (Game could have been stopped with 18 boards played >and winner declared)). What kind of penalty should be given to whom and >for what?? (North\South should be sure their board were coming in the >proper order, but they thought they were and they were given to them by >the club manager!! ( Beginners and they were not told how many boards >were in play) and what about the incorrect scores being registered with >ACBL? (Kojak, is your head spinning??) Obviously, this director >passed only the true/false test and has only directed his wife's game. >What should be done about this one???? Nancy > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 29 19:55:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA16684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:55:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA16679 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:55:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-149-62.uunet.be [194.7.149.62]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA13793 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:55:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <379F0D32.8F7E9D24@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:01:22 +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: L16A1 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm very sorry, Kojak, but if you are going to interpret everything I write in some wrong fashion, I shall simply give up. Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 7/28/99 8:26:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > But some people on this thread want to see abolished exactly > > what is allowed BY LAW. > > As does the ACBL, apparently ? > > A new height of reasoning a la Herman..... because a Sponsoring Organization > exercises an option given by Law it means that they want to see the other > option available abolished for everyone else. > Beautiful.... but to me, if not stupid at least sophistry .........Kojak Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I gathered the ACBL (completely within their lawful rights) decides to disallow the "reserving of rights". I may have misunderstood that before, but I gather this is true from posts since and this one. Now maybe my choice of words is not completely adequate (don't forget I am also writing as quickly as anyone) but when I wrote : > > But some people on this thread want to see abolished exactly > > what is allowed BY LAW. I meant with "what" the "reserving of rights" and with "abolished" I meant disallowed. Which is a true statement. Some people (and I am certainly not accusing you - nor am I passing judgment) are arguing that the ACBL way is the correct one. I am only saying that a lot is to be said about the other way. no sophistry, and I hope no stupidity intended. Now there is one comment I would like to make about the ACBL stance. We have seen by several posts that it is largely up to custom whether it is good or bad to allow this. With "better" players comes a "better" understanding of ethics (I did _not_ say better ethics) and reserving of rights becomes a possibility. Also the playing director must allow reserving of rights, whereas the non-playing director can ask players not to do it. Thus it should maybe become a matter of regulation by the SO. I can imagine that clubs could state that in their tournament, the reserving of rights shall not be allowed. In fact that power is specifically given to the SO in L16A1. I read that the EBU has given advice that the reserving of rights should not be done with a non-playing director. That still leaves the matter up with the SO. Is the ACBL stance similar ? Discouraging but allowing SO's to use it anyway ? If that is indeed the case, then I owe the list an apology for misunderstanding. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 29 19:54:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA16674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:54:55 +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 TAA16668 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:54:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-149-62.uunet.be [194.7.149.62]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA13718 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:54:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <379F0D32.8F7E9D24@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:01:22 +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: L16A1 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm very sorry, Kojak, but if you are going to interpret everything I write in some wrong fashion, I shall simply give up. Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 7/28/99 8:26:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > But some people on this thread want to see abolished exactly > > what is allowed BY LAW. > > As does the ACBL, apparently ? > > A new height of reasoning a la Herman..... because a Sponsoring Organization > exercises an option given by Law it means that they want to see the other > option available abolished for everyone else. > Beautiful.... but to me, if not stupid at least sophistry .........Kojak Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I gathered the ACBL (completely within their lawful rights) decides to disallow the "reserving of rights". I may have misunderstood that before, but I gather this is true from posts since and this one. Now maybe my choice of words is not completely adequate (don't forget I am also writing as quickly as anyone) but when I wrote : > > But some people on this thread want to see abolished exactly > > what is allowed BY LAW. I meant with "what" the "reserving of rights" and with "abolished" I meant disallowed. Which is a true statement. Some people (and I am certainly not accusing you - nor am I passing judgment) are arguing that the ACBL way is the correct one. I am only saying that a lot is to be said about the other way. no sophistry, and I hope no stupidity intended. Now there is one comment I would like to make about the ACBL stance. We have seen by several posts that it is largely up to custom whether it is good or bad to allow this. With "better" players comes a "better" understanding of ethics (I did _not_ say better ethics) and reserving of rights becomes a possibility. Also the playing director must allow reserving of rights, whereas the non-playing director can ask players not to do it. Thus it should maybe become a matter of regulation by the SO. I can imagine that clubs could state that in their tournament, the reserving of rights shall not be allowed. In fact that power is specifically given to the SO in L16A1. I read that the EBU has given advice that the reserving of rights should not be done with a non-playing director. That still leaves the matter up with the SO. Is the ACBL stance similar ? Discouraging but allowing SO's to use it anyway ? If that is indeed the case, then I owe the list an apology for misunderstanding. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 29 21:25:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA16863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:25:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA16858 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:25:40 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id 5ELGa07437 (3936); Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:24:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <10f0a106.24d193dc@aol.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:24:12 EDT Subject: Re: L16A1 To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/29/99 5:57:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > Is the ACBL stance similar ? Discouraging but allowing SO's > to use it anyway ? No. > > If that is indeed the case, then I owe the list an apology > for misunderstanding. Thank you Herman, for expressing yourself as well as you have in this post. No, the ACBL says that: "....Law 16 A 1: At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be allowed to announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later. they should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." Since the ACBL considers itself the SO when sanctioning events, this therefore applies to bridge played for which ACBL masterpoints are awarded. And, in the strictest sense that means ACBL tournaments and Clubs affiliated with the ACBL. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 29 22:33:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:33:15 +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 WAA17053 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:33:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-95-194.uunet.be [194.7.95.194]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02414 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:33:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A02F71.C742982E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:39:45 +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: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim References: <199907290322.XAA16020@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > This is declarer's trump suit (spades): > > AT2 > 97654 - > KQJ83 > > Declarer has just ruffed his last loser with the S2 in dummy, and now > claims, "I'll take SA, ST overtaking with the SK, and take all the rest.: > > If director had just claimed "I'll draw trumps and take the rest", it > could be ruled irrational for declarer not to notice the 5-0 break; he > would take AT and then return to his hand in a side suit. As long as > West couldn't ruff any side suit, declarer would get all the rest. > > However, is declarer held to his faulty statement here? > No, he still gets the benefit of noticing the bad break, and changing his line to accomodate for this. It cannot be that someone who gives a more complete statement should be stuck with it, while we would allow a less complete statement. It is my firm opinion that a claim statement should be followed only to the point where it becomes obvious that the line won't work. From that point on, only "normal" lines shall be deemed "open" and the worst of these will be given to claimer. In the case you mention, I allow the claim. Claim statement says he starts with the Ace, and at the end of that trick the stated line becomes obviously faulted. Now all normal lines become open, but the line of overtaking the ten of trumps has become irrational and does not have to be followed, even when it is a stated line. > -- > 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. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 29 22:36:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:36:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17075 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:36:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-95-194.uunet.be [194.7.95.194]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02733 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:36:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A02F71.C742982E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:39:45 +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: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim References: <199907290322.XAA16020@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > This is declarer's trump suit (spades): > > AT2 > 97654 - > KQJ83 > > Declarer has just ruffed his last loser with the S2 in dummy, and now > claims, "I'll take SA, ST overtaking with the SK, and take all the rest.: > > If director had just claimed "I'll draw trumps and take the rest", it > could be ruled irrational for declarer not to notice the 5-0 break; he > would take AT and then return to his hand in a side suit. As long as > West couldn't ruff any side suit, declarer would get all the rest. > > However, is declarer held to his faulty statement here? > No, he still gets the benefit of noticing the bad break, and changing his line to accomodate for this. It cannot be that someone who gives a more complete statement should be stuck with it, while we would allow a less complete statement. It is my firm opinion that a claim statement should be followed only to the point where it becomes obvious that the line won't work. From that point on, only "normal" lines shall be deemed "open" and the worst of these will be given to claimer. In the case you mention, I allow the claim. Claim statement says he starts with the Ace, and at the end of that trick the stated line becomes obviously faulted. Now all normal lines become open, but the line of overtaking the ten of trumps has become irrational and does not have to be followed, even when it is a stated line. > -- > 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. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 29 22:40:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:40:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.va.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.va.home.com [24.2.32.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17095 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:40:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] ([24.6.177.10]) by mail.rdc1.va.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19990729124007.UDHY22019.mail.rdc1.va.home.com@[24.6.177.10]> for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 05:40:07 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: peterhaglich@mail.vbch1.va.home.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199907290322.XAA16020@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <199907290322.XAA16020@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:26:32 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Haglich Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems to me that if we don't hold the declarer to his IMHO careless claim then we might as well not bother holding any declarer to a claimed line of play at all. It seems that Declarer is more worried about a side suit ruff than a 5-0 trump split. His stated line of play can be understood and executed, it just happens to lose a trick. David Grabiner wrote: >This is declarer's trump suit (spades): > > AT2 >97654 - > KQJ83 > >Declarer has just ruffed his last loser with the S2 in dummy, and now >claims, "I'll take SA, ST overtaking with the SK, and take all the rest.: > >If director had just claimed "I'll draw trumps and take the rest", it >could be ruled irrational for declarer not to notice the 5-0 break; he >would take AT and then return to his hand in a side suit. As long as >West couldn't ruff any side suit, declarer would get all the rest. > >However, is declarer held to his faulty statement here? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 00:24:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA17238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 23:32:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA17224 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 23:32:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from p3fs09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.64] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 119qI9-0007Tu-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:32:13 +0100 Message-ID: <003101bed9c6$2b198f80$408993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Can we help a friend? Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:25:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 01:43:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from p6fs10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.112] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 119sLH-0001Mh-00; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:43:36 +0100 Message-ID: <009c01bed9d8$8584f880$408993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Haglich" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:05:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 29 July 1999 14:08 Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim >It seems to me that if we don't hold the declarer to his IMHO >careless claim then we might as well not bother holding any declarer >to a claimed line of play at all. It seems that Declarer is more >worried about a side suit ruff than a 5-0 trump split. His stated >line of play can be understood and executed, it just happens to lose >a trick. > +++++ Law 70D - Claimer proposes new line of play The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. [*Footnote: For the purposes of Law 69 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational.] So what do we know? (1) There are circumstances in which the Director may accept a fresh proposal as to the line of play. (2) The circumstances hinge upon the availability or otherwise of a line of play that is 'normal' and less successful. (3) 'Normal' is defined in the footnote so as to exclude a line of play that would be irrational for the standard of player concerned. (4) It is not alone the rationality or otherwise of the line of play in the original clarification that is crucial, it is with available lines of play in general that the Director must be concerned. So, quite simply, when the player cashes the Ace and notes the void, would it be rational or irrational to continue by playing the ten and overtaking it? If the answer is 'irrational', what rational line of play is there that would be unsuccessful? Comment: Suggestions that the Director should not allow the scope that the law evidently intends to a player who has been careless in not testing a suit break of which he would be aware in play before making the key decision to overtake compare strangely in my opinion with the commendation of the 'rescue' of an opponent who has scored up carelessly - From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 04:39:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 04:39:01 +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 EAA18197 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 04:38:50 +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 OAA00710 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:38:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA09973 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:38:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:38:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907291838.OAA09973@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I gathered the ACBL > (completely within their lawful rights) decides to disallow > the "reserving of rights". Yes, where the ACBL is the SO, i.e. its tournaments. The ACBL lets clubs decide their own policies on L16A1. > Thus it should maybe become a matter of regulation by the > SO. It is. > Is the ACBL stance similar ? Discouraging but allowing SO's > to use it anyway ? There is no discouragement as far as I can tell except insofar as unfamiliarity may discourage clubs from adopting an unusual policy. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 04:53:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 04:53:19 +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 EAA18238 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 04:53:09 +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 OAA02722 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:53:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA10006 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:53:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:53:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907291853.OAA10006@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > No, the ACBL says that: "....Law 16 A 1: At ACBL sanctioned events, > competitors will not be allowed .... > Since the ACBL considers itself the SO when sanctioning events.... This is certainly news to me, and it will come as a surprise to clubs that allow L16A1 (not to mention clubs that have their own convention regulations). As stated in my earlier message, I interpret this ACBL decision to affect tournaments only, but perhaps I'm wrong. If so, some clubs may reconsider their association with the ACBL. Perhaps the real policy, in this as in other matters, is "Don't ask, don't tell," i.e. clubs can do whatever they want as they don't flaunt their non-conformity. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 06:29:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 06:29:41 +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 GAA18510 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 06:29:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA00045; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:28:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-16.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.48) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rmaa29951; Thu Jul 29 15:28:10 1999 Message-ID: <007501beda01$62194bc0$30b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , "John (MadDog) Probst" Cc: , "John B. Deville" , "JOHN DEVILLE" , "Peter Probst" , "Anne Fouche" , "Martin S Taylor" , "Arthur & Barb Etkin" , "Jo & Jim Mollison" Subject: Re: Cat Diary Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:31:44 -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 Or to offer another view, may those talented enough continue it? It is one of the more enjoyable threads we have had recently. I don't think Henk can presume to speak for the majority...he certainly does not speak for me. Thanks to those on the list who are not terminally humour impaired. Surely you have a delete key Henk? The thread has only contained about 4 messages, not a crushing burden! -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) To: John (MadDog) Probst Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; John B. Deville ; JOHN DEVILLE ; Peter Probst ; Anne Fouche ; Martin S Taylor ; Arthur & Barb Etkin ; Jo & Jim Mollison Date: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 6:47 PM Subject: Re: Cat Diary >On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> In article , RCraigH@aol.com writes >> >CAT DIARY > >Can we please stop this thread? > >Henk > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net >RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk >Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 >1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 >The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > >The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was >lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 07:05:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:05:33 +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 HAA18620 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:05:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA05237 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:04:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-16.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.48) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma005086; Thu Jul 29 16:03:40 1999 Message-ID: <008201beda06$579516c0$30b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Incorrect score Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:07:16 -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 am surprised there have been so few comments on this. I had expected others to weigh in with this view, but since they have not I will essay it. I can make a case for adjustment under 90A as this appears to violate correct procedure or under 90b8 for failure to comply with tournament regulations. I had thought the specific mechanics of scoring had been deliberately left a matter for SO determination, so that this might be construed as a tournament regulation even when CoC are not reduced to writing. As to ethics, I would despise myself if I were to sneakily keep silent on such a matter. What pride could there ever be in such a tainted victory. Were a partner to engage in such chicanery I would be most unlikely to play with that unworthy again. Yes, it is ethically improper. If he really had not noticed, that's a different matter of course. In any case I would promptly seek out the director and endeavour to learn if there were a means to implement the scoring change to reflect what actually occured at the table. If this were an event involving pick up slips where partner had initialed the result as being correct while knowing it was wrong I think there might be ample cause for disciplinary penalty or referral to a conduct and ethics committee. This would constitute lying to a tournament official and should not be countenanced. -- Craig Senior > > A correspondent writes: > >RHO (North) bid up to 4H on his own in a competitive auction. I doubled >(partly based on my hand, but it was the sort of auction where one could >double on the auction alone.) The contract made. I was in such a state >of shock it didn't really register at the time that RHO scored this as >4H undoubled. Some time later I said to my partner "Didn't I double >4H?" His reaction was to shrug (ie he'd noticed at the time and said >nothing). Does this fall into the category of not drawing attention to >an opponents error? Was it legal? Was it ethical? > > Comments? > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 07:28:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:28:42 +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 HAA18686 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:28:34 +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 119xix-000GCa-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:28:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:53:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: messed up game!!! References: <379F95B1.A474806B@pinehurst.net> <009b01bed968$d57085a0$4f6199d0@john> In-Reply-To: <009b01bed968$d57085a0$4f6199d0@john> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director wrote: >As far as the vailidity of the game, one could assume that the TD had >established their own conditions of >contest for the session. There is nowhere in the Laws that state how the >movement should be organized. How about: In matchpoint scoring each contestant is awarded, for scores made by different contestants who have played the same board and whose scores are compared with his: two scoring units (matchpoints or half matchpoints) for each score inferior to his, one scoring unit for each score equal to his, and zero scoring units for each score superior to his. While any movement may be legal, I think that you have to score it by comparing scores on the same boards. >My feeling is that if the TD can defend their results then they stand as >posted. I see no way they can defend their results. In my view the TD should be prepared to use pencil and paper. ... too difficult ... I expect an unpaid Director to automatically score any size of club duplicate by hand if necessary. If I have understood correctly, he and his wife have a financial interest! >What kind of penalty should be given to whom and >| for what?? A financial penalty to the Director and the Club Manager for the scoring: everything else is forgivable. -- 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 Jul 30 07:28:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:28:47 +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 HAA18691 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:28:38 +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 119xj0-000GD1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:28:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:11:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is, and should be, on flowcharts? References: <199907290355.XAA16444@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907290355.XAA16444@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >There are references to flowcharts in the new appeals casebooks. It's >valuable for TD's and AC's to have them, so that they take the correct >steps in important cases. What is actually on these charts? > >One rule which should be on the flowcharts is in the awarding of >adjusted scores, something like this. > >A. Determine whether each side is offending or non-offending. The side >committing the irregularity is the offending side. If the irregularity >is an incorrect TD ruling, both sides are entitled to a ruling as >non-offenders (Law 82C). > >B. Assume that the irregularity (lead suggested by UI, bid made only >because of MI, pull of slow double, etc.) had not occurred, and consider >how the bidding and play would have developed. Determine all results >which could be reached by reasonable play. Also determine all the possible results that could be reached including the irregularity. >C. If there is only one reasonable result, award it. If there are >multiple results, award the offenders the worst result that was at all >probable (1/6 chance) and award the non-offenders the best result that >was likely (1/3 chance) (Law 12C2). In the case of offenders include possible results via the irregularity. >D. If it is impossible to determine a reasonable result, award >average-plus to the offenders, average-minus to the non-offenders (Law >12C1). Make a serious effort to avoid using this section if there is a >table result; if a probable contract can be determined, then there must >be at least one likely result in that contract, and section C above must >apply. No. >(I'd like to disallow 12C1 entirely when there is a result, but this is >a concession to cases in which the result is too complicated. It is >written to discourage TD's from using 12C1 as a cop-out; if N-S would >have played in 4S had there been no MI, but the TD cannot tell whether >they would score +650, +620, or -100, he must award one of those three >scores, not average-plus. On the other hand, if North opens 1C forcing, >East bids 1S, and West misexplains, the TD/AC may be unable to determine >a reasonable continuation.) Give me an example and I shall give you an assignment. There is no case where it is too difficult. People have made it too difficult by getting too much into detail unnecessarily. Just tell TDs and ACs that they *have* to assign - and to the cheers of the multitude they will not find it impossible after all. Example: North opens 1C forcing, East bids 1S, West misexplains, and North/South go two off in 3NT with a 24 point 6C available, you do not have to determine how the bidding would have gone. That is where people err! All you have to do is to consider whether there was any reasonable chance at all of N/S reaching it. Suppose you consider they did not have a cat in hell's chance of reaching 6C, to be honest, but 5C they might: assign 5C+1. Suppose you think that they might, but it is pretty unlikely: assign 6C= to the Os, 5C+1 to the NOs: suppose you think that some pairs might reach 6C though you are not really sure how: assign 6C= to both sides. Similarly for number of tricks: you have a look at the hand and come up with a reasonable guestimate as to the maximum and minimum number of tricks. This seems such an important principle that I shall repeat it [or, as our beloved meeja would say, repeat it again]: You do not have to decide how the bidding and play *would* go when assigning. >E. After applying either section C or D when there is a table result, >award the table result to the non-offenders if it is more favorable than >the adjusted score, and to the non-offenders if it is less favorable. E. After applying either section C or D when there is a table result, award the table result to the non-offenders if it is more favorable than the adjusted score, and to the **offenders** if it is less favorable. Actually, while I know what you mean, this would look different from the other side, so I think you need to express it differently. Overall, I like the approach. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 07:59:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:59:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from fan.net.au (fan.net.au [203.20.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA18798 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:59:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from g (dialup-nas4-14.gc.fan.net.au [203.23.134.198]) by fan.net.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA28767; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:59:12 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990809075711.00798af0@fan.net.au> X-Sender: jonesgra@fan.net.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 07:57:11 +1000 To: tkjones@acenet.net.au From: Grahame Jones Subject: change ISP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To all senders..... Starting August 01 please send E-Mail to jonesgra@magiccomputers.com.au On receipt of this I would appreciate your advising that you have updated your records. Bcc's have been sent. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Grahame Jones. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 07:59:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:59:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from fan.net.au (fan.net.au [203.20.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA18790 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:59:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from g (dialup-nas4-14.gc.fan.net.au [203.23.134.198]) by fan.net.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA28805 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:59:30 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990809075728.008c4750@fan.net.au> X-Sender: jonesgra@fan.net.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 07:57:28 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grahame Jones Subject: Change of address Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marcus...As I value your Bridge postings here is a special message toyou to ensure I remain on your list. jonesgra@magiccomputers.com.au from Aug.01 please. Thanks....Grahame Jones From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 09:51:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:51:01 +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 JAA19276 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:50:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from pe1s03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.226] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 119zwi-0004Lb-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:50:45 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Law v Regulation Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:51:51 +0100 Message-ID: <01beda1d$544705c0$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 Club game. Bidding box regs. in force. "A bid is considered made when the bidding card is removed from the box" North deals and after examining his cards says "No Bid". East asks, "aren't you going to use your bidding box?" North says, "sorry" and removes the 1H card and places it in front of him. TD is called and North announces "I forgot what system I was playing". How do you rule? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 09:59:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:59:21 +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 JAA19361 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:59:09 +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 TAA18761 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA10299 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:59:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:59:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907292359.TAA10299@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [generic UI case, North makes slow penalty double, South pulls] > From: David Stevenson > So what do I suggest? I recommend in a clear case of UI that you > suggest in a friendly way that UI exists: if your opponents disagree in > any way *or* if they do not seem to understand then you call the TD > immediately [do it yourself in a friendly fashion]. Thanks to David and others for comments, but I'm still confused about the _timing_ of this "reserving rights" business. I take it the above means immediately after North's double. That is how L16A1 is used here in clubs that allow it. >From other comments, though, I have the impression that reserving rights is expected to take place after South pulls the double. > However, I think that UI problems are lessened by Reserving Rights > because it is a fairly easy and casual agreement and leads to a Director > call at the end of the hand no more than one time in five. Let me give some more examples and ask how they are handled. Consider the UI case situation above and the following specifics. In each case, the TD is called after the hand is over, and EW think pass was a LA for South. Assume it is obvious that a hesitation, if one occurred, suggests pulling. There may be a dispute about whether a hesitation occurred. 1. After North's slow double, EW reserve their rights. NS express no objection. 2. Nothing is done after North's slow double, but after South's pull, EW reserve their rights. NS express no objection. 3. No rights are reserved. If you are the TD, how will you handle each case, and in particular, what differences are there between them? And if you had your choice, which would you prefer to have the players do? For that matter, what about 4. as in 2, but this time NS object when EW reserve their rights, and the TD is called immediately after South's bid? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 10:28:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:28:30 +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 KAA19448 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:28:21 +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 RAA03230; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:27:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199907300027.RAA03230@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law v Regulation In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:51:51 PDT." <01beda1d$544705c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:27:43 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > Club game. Bidding box regs. in force. "A bid is considered made when the > bidding card is removed from the box" Does this regulation also apply to non-bid calls such as Double, or only bids? :-) I'm not sure I could live with a regulation like that . . . Where I live (Southern California), it's a common occurrence for one card in the bidding box to get stuck to the front of the one you're trying to pull out. Thus, for example, I'd grab the 1S tab and pull, and when I do so, the 1H card comes out along with it. I have to shake it to make the 1H card fall off before I can put my 1S on the table. But on its face, it appears that under the regulation you cite, the 1H bid would be considered made. Does the regulation make an exception for these cases? Or do your clubs always clean the cards afterwards to make sure they are never sticky? (P.S. I'm sure the TD's there apply common sense in cases like these---I'm just wondering whether the regulations also exhibit common sense.) > North deals and after examining his cards says "No Bid". > East asks, "aren't you going to use your bidding box?" > North says, "sorry" and removes the 1H card and places it in front of him. > > TD is called and North announces "I forgot what system I was playing". > > How do you rule? Regulation or no regulation, I rule that North made a call when he said "No Bid", and therefore L25B applies. I can't imagine ruling any other way. Again, this is a common-sense thing---I cannot imagine the regulations' authors intending that a spoken call should be equivalent to a moment of silence. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 10:30:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:30:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19467 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:30:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA10870 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:30:30 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:30:30 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law v Regulation In-Reply-To: <01beda1d$544705c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Anne Jones wrote: > Club game. Bidding box regs. in force. "A bid is considered made when the > bidding card is removed from the box" > > North deals and after examining his cards says "No Bid". > East asks, "aren't you going to use your bidding box?" > North says, "sorry" and removes the 1H card and places it in front of him. > > TD is called and North announces "I forgot what system I was playing". > > How do you rule? If the player has momentarily forgotten system (when he passed), then I think we have a "Delayed or Purposeful Correction". I would apply Law 25B. This of course presumes that the original verbal pass is a call (Law says it is). Most SO's regulations cover verbal calls when bidding boxes are in use - what do your's say? Laurie Australia From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 10:37:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:37:33 +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 KAA19489 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:37:25 +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 11A0fh-000ARU-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:37:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 01:36:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim In-Reply-To: <199907290322.XAA16020@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199907290322.XAA16020@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu>, David Grabiner writes > >This is declarer's trump suit (spades): > > AT2 >97654 - > KQJ83 > >Declarer has just ruffed his last loser with the S2 in dummy, and now >claims, "I'll take SA, ST overtaking with the SK, and take all the rest.: > >If director had just claimed "I'll draw trumps and take the rest", it >could be ruled irrational for declarer not to notice the 5-0 break; he >would take AT and then return to his hand in a side suit. As long as >West couldn't ruff any side suit, declarer would get all the rest. > >However, is declarer held to his faulty statement here? > IMO yes chs 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 Jul 30 10:40:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:40:49 +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 KAA19509 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:40:42 +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 11A0iw-000BJ7-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:40:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 01:39:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law v Regulation In-Reply-To: <01beda1d$544705c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01beda1d$544705c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >Club game. Bidding box regs. in force. "A bid is considered made when the >bidding card is removed from the box" > >North deals and after examining his cards says "No Bid". >East asks, "aren't you going to use your bidding box?" >North says, "sorry" and removes the 1H card and places it in front of him. > >TD is called and North announces "I forgot what system I was playing". > >How do you rule? > >Anne > I apply Law 25B. chs 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 Jul 30 11:13:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:13:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (IDENT:exim@sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19578 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:13:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc9s05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.202] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11A1Ea-0002Uz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:13:17 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law v Regulation Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:14:21 +0100 Message-ID: <01beda28$dacd7ec0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, July 30, 1999 1:55 AM Subject: Re: Law v Regulation >In article <01beda1d$544705c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones > writes >>Club game. Bidding box regs. in force. "A bid is considered made when the >>bidding card is removed from the box" >> >>North deals and after examining his cards says "No Bid". >>East asks, "aren't you going to use your bidding box?" >>North says, "sorry" and removes the 1H card and places it in front of him. >> >>TD is called and North announces "I forgot what system I was playing". >> >>How do you rule? >> >>Anne >> >I apply Law 25B. chs John Even in view of the 1998(Lille) WBFLC edict that Law 25B should be used in such cases as protect the bidder from "silly" bids?. Whatever the different systems this bidder ,who had to pass, if for example playing precision, could open 1H if playing Acol, is not in the class of player who passes a response to Blackwood! Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 11:35:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:35:19 +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 LAA19660 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:35:10 +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 SAA04439; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:34:30 -0700 Message-Id: <199907300134.SAA04439@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law v Regulation In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:14:21 PDT." <01beda28$dacd7ec0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:34:32 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > Even in view of the 1998(Lille) WBFLC edict that Law 25B should be used in > such cases as protect the bidder from "silly" bids?. Whatever the different > systems > this bidder ,who had to pass, if for example playing precision, could open > 1H if > playing Acol, is not in the class of player who passes a response to > Blackwood! > > Anne I'm not familiar with this edict, and I haven't been able to find any reference to it on the WBF web page. Are they saying that Law 25B should *not* be used in cases where the bidder isn't making a "silly" bid? If it shouldn't, what should we use instead? The pre-1997 version of L25B2(b)(2) [the bidder must substitute a call and bar his partner for the entire auction]? This isn't part of the Laws any more, so how can we apply it? I'm confused. Could someone please clarify? -- thanks, Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 12:22:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:22:12 +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 MAA19745 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:22:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-7.pinehurst.net [12.20.137.213]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09650; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A10CEA.970E7E7@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:24:43 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: messed up game!!! References: <379F95B1.A474806B@pinehurst.net> <009b01bed968$d57085a0$4f6199d0@john> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E324DF10C8F010DAC7A8F7BE" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------E324DF10C8F010DAC7A8F7BE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" wrote: > This is one good reason to purchase the "infamous" Movements bible. > Page 136 in Chapter 14 - Errors in a Mitchell. > I assume you mean a "Groner". > > > As far as scoring goes, with a little bit of care and understanding, > ACBLScore will allow you to make the > changes in the movement file. It might take you a little time but the EDMOV > function is very versatile and forgiving as well as reporting your errors in > data entry. > Yes it will up to round 6, after that there was a loss by the 4 directors in the room as to how to proceed to correct the movement, so we could not adjust acblscor accordingly. But one of them knows now, for that I thank you.! > As far as the validity of the game, one could assume that the TD had > established their own conditions of contest for the session. There is nowhere > in the Laws that state how the movement should be organized. This is true but--- > My feeling is that if the TD can defend their results then they stand as > posted. > If my score on the board that I actually played gives me a clear top for that > board, I would be highly upset if it translated to a bottom on a board that I > did not play, but was scored as if I did!! I always thought that is was a > director's responsibility to score the boards correctly as played and not to > assign any score he saw fit to any board he might chose!!! > > John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director > Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation > Current Residence: Georgetown, Guyana > e-mail: johnmacg@hotmail.com > CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Paradise/2245/ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Nancy T Dressing > To: bridge-laws > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 8:43 PM > Subject: messed up game!!! > > | This happened at the local game this afternoon, and I am still upset. > | The game was a 11 1/2 tables, three boards a round, for 9 rounds. Table > | twelve is the sit out table. Director, who has been ill is back for the > | first time in more than a month and not very spry!. His wife, (life > | master and club manager) is assisting him by calling rounds, moving > | boards, and picking up score slips. The game also has a traveler with > | each board for players info only, not an official score. At the > | beginning of round 4, it is discovered that boards 34, 35, 36 are still > | sitting on the sit out table and pair eleven has been given boards, > | 1,2,3 and 4,5,6 to play by club manager. The decision was made to throw > | out 34, 35, 36 and see what happens, maybe a double skip will solve the > | problems.!!??! After round 6, the director has everyone skip 2 tables, > | which does not solve the problem, so he has everyone shuffle the boards > | and play three rounds which he will score separately and add the two > | score together to produce the winners. Everyone is happy, but realize > | it is not the perfect solution. The director was using ACBL score and > | attempted to reassign the boards leaving out 34, 35, & 36 which the > | program would not accept for the whole game. (I think it would have > | handled the first 6 rounds OK but the director would not try this) He > | proceeded to score the first 6 rounds just as they appeared on the > | computer and when it was your turn to play 34, 35, 36 you got whatever > | score you made on whatever 3 boards you happened to be playing that > | round!!!!!! When restarting the last three rounds, he left everyone > | where they were after the two table skip, but put boards 34, 35, 36 on > | the sit out table and instructed pair 11 to play those boards after > | playing the boards that were already on their table. (16, 17, 18). > | After the three rounds were played, they were scored and the results > | were added to the first 6 rounds to produce the winners. When > | questioned about the scoring on the first six boards, the director said > | it was too complicated to correct and it was tough that it was not > | correct, and stop being such a pain in the you know where and not to > | sweat the small stuff, it was not worth being concerned about.. Players > | who asked for a summary of their scores were told that he wasn't > | printing summaries today. A recap sheet is never posted at this game! > | (sounds like he didn't want anyone to know how he had scored the game.) > | Today is month end and these illegal scores will be sent to ACBL which I > | think is dishonest. So, could this this error have been corrected and > | the game saved? (Game could have been stopped with 18 boards played > | and winner declared)). What kind of penalty should be given to whom and > | for what?? (North\South should be sure their board were coming in the > | proper order, but they thought they were and they were given to them by > | the club manager!! ( Beginners and they were not told how many boards > | were in play) and what about the incorrect scores being registered with > | ACBL? (Kojak, is your head spinning??) Obviously, this director > | passed only the true/false test and has only directed his wife's game. > | What should be done about this one???? Nancy > | --------------E324DF10C8F010DAC7A8F7BE Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

"John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" wrote:

This is one good reason to purchase the "infamous" Movements bible.
Page 136 in Chapter 14 - Errors in a Mitchell.
I assume you mean a "Groner".
 

As far as scoring goes, with a little bit of care and understanding,
ACBLScore will allow you to make the
changes in the movement file.  It might take you a little time but the EDMOV
function is very versatile and forgiving as well as reporting your errors in data entry.
 

Yes it will up to round 6,  after that there was a loss by the 4 directors in the room as to how to proceed to correct the movement, so we could not adjust acblscor accordingly.  But one of them knows now, for that I thank you.!
As far as the validity of the game, one could assume that the TD had established their own conditions of contest for the session.  There is nowhere in the Laws that state how the movement should be organized.
This is true but---
My feeling is that if the TD can defend their results then they stand as
posted.
If my score on the board that I actually played gives me a clear top for that board, I would be highly upset if it translated to a bottom on a board that I did not play, but was scored as if I did!! I  always thought that is was a director's responsibility to score the boards correctly as played and not to assign any score he saw fit to any board he might chose!!!
 
John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director
Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation
Current Residence:  Georgetown, Guyana
e-mail:  johnmacg@hotmail.com
CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Paradise/2245/

----- Original Message -----
From: Nancy T Dressing <nancy@pinehurst.net>
To: bridge-laws <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 8:43 PM
Subject: messed up game!!!

| This happened at the local game this afternoon, and I am still upset.
| The game was a 11 1/2 tables, three boards a round, for 9 rounds. Table
| twelve is the sit out table.  Director, who has been ill is back for the
| first time in more than a month and not very spry!.  His wife, (life
| master and club manager) is assisting him by calling rounds, moving
| boards, and picking up score slips.  The game also has a traveler with
| each board for players info only, not an official score.  At the
| beginning of round 4, it is discovered that boards 34, 35, 36 are still
| sitting on the sit out table and  pair eleven has been given boards,
| 1,2,3 and 4,5,6 to play by club manager.  The decision was made to throw
| out 34, 35, 36 and see what happens, maybe a double skip will solve the
| problems.!!??! After round 6, the director has everyone skip 2 tables,
| which does not solve the problem, so he has everyone shuffle the boards
| and play three rounds which he will score separately and add the two
| score together to produce the winners.  Everyone is happy, but realize
| it is not the perfect solution.  The director was using ACBL score and
| attempted to reassign the boards leaving out 34, 35, & 36 which the
| program would not accept for the whole game.  (I think it would have
| handled the first 6 rounds OK but the director would not try this)  He
| proceeded to score the first 6 rounds just as they appeared on the
| computer and when it was your turn to play 34, 35, 36 you got whatever
| score you made on whatever 3 boards you happened to be playing that
| round!!!!!!   When restarting the last three rounds, he left everyone
| where they were after the two table skip, but put boards 34, 35, 36 on
| the sit out table and instructed pair 11 to play those boards after
| playing the boards that were already on their table.  (16, 17, 18).
| After the three rounds were played, they were scored and the results
| were added to the first 6 rounds to produce the winners.  When
| questioned about the scoring on the first six boards, the director said
| it was too complicated to correct and it was tough that it was not
| correct,  and stop being such a pain in the you know where and not to
| sweat the small stuff, it was not worth being concerned about..  Players
| who asked for a summary of their scores were told that he wasn't
| printing summaries today. A recap sheet is never posted at this game!
| (sounds like he didn't want anyone to know how he had scored the game.)
| Today is month end and these illegal scores will be sent to ACBL which I
| think is dishonest.  So, could this  this error have been corrected  and
| the game saved?   (Game could have been stopped with 18 boards played
| and winner declared)).  What kind of penalty should be given to whom and
| for what??  (North\South should be sure their board were coming in the
| proper order, but they thought they were and they were given to them by
| the club manager!! ( Beginners and they were not told how many boards
| were in play) and what about the incorrect scores being registered with
| ACBL?  (Kojak, is your head spinning??)   Obviously, this director
| passed only the true/false test and has only directed his wife's game.
| What should be done about this one????   Nancy
|

--------------E324DF10C8F010DAC7A8F7BE-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 12:28:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:28:47 +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 MAA19769 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:28:39 +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 11A2PL-0005GL-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:28:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:53:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Can we help a friend? References: <003101bed9c6$2b198f80$408993c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <003101bed9c6$2b198f80$408993c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id MAA19771 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"No-one tests the depth of a river with >both feet." - from the Ashanti. >................................................................. >============================= > >Offer from Pryor Resources Inc. :- > >How to become a Great Communicator. > >Dramatically Improve Your Ability to Build >Winning Relationships with Everyone, Every >Day! > >One day Seminar - Only £99 + VAT You were robbed. -- 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 Jul 30 12:28:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:28:50 +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 MAA19770 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:28:40 +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 11A2PL-0005GK-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:28:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:51:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Cat Diary References: <007501beda01$62194bc0$30b420cc@host> In-Reply-To: <007501beda01$62194bc0$30b420cc@host> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Or to offer another view, may those talented enough continue it? It is one >of the more enjoyable threads we have had recently. I don't think Henk can >presume to speak for the majority...he certainly does not speak for me. >Thanks to those on the list who are not terminally humour impaired. Surely >you have a delete key Henk? The thread has only contained about 4 messages, >not a crushing burden! TD diary Day 1 Got up at some awful hour of the morning. Put up tables and put chairs around them for an hour. Put stationery on tables. Checked boards are available. Went to pub for lunch. Got back for start. Give out starter cards. Let people pick their own by shuffling them and putting them face down on table. "Can we pick *any* one?" "Do we pick one?" "What happens if I do not like the choice?" "I have got an East-West: can I put it back?" "No, partner you choose." "But I might pick the wrong one." "Is this where I pay?" Get players into seats [mostly]. Deal with queries as to what system is permissible. "What do you mean, it is Level 3? It is a disgrace allowing all these people to play these fancy conventions and you should not allow it. I do not know why the EBU allows it. They are deliberately driving people away from their Congresses. What are you doing about it? What do you mean you are only the Tournament Director?" "What do you mean, it is Level 3? It is a disgrace in a top class congress not allowing people to play the Craig Senior 2D opening. I do not know why the EBU forbids it. They are deliberately driving people away from their Congresses. What are you doing about it? What do you mean you are only the Tournament Director?" Try to find players for the gaps. Reconcile the pairs where each member has picked a starter card. Ask the players to sit down. Give out the curtain cards for them to make the boards up. Deal with the new gaps that have appeared. "Director, why are there no score cards on the table?" "I don't know, sir, I shall get you some." "Bloody inefficient these Directors, can't be bothered to get off their .... oh, I have just found them under my Convention card." "Director, which way do I pass the boards?" "Director, do I have time to get a coffee?" "Director, what does Level 3 mean?" Play starts. They move the boards one way, move the pairs the other, and start play. "Director, it is *far* too hot in here. You would think the EBU could get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on them. What are you going to do about it?" "Director, it is awfully cold in here. You would think the EBU could get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on them. What are you going to do about it?" "DIRECTOR !!!!!!!! He opened 3S and he has ONLY GOT FIVE SPADES !!!!!! Why does the EBU not stop these cheats!" "He called me a cheat, David, what are you going to do about it?" "Oh, 'David' is it, I suppose you are going to rule in his favour because he is a friend." "Everyone knows David." "So? Does that mean you are allowed to cheat?" I manage to get a word in eventually, and get the charge of cheating reduced to a vague muttering. I sort it out, and then it is my lucky day: two young ladies approach me from opposite sides of the room. Yippee! And what do they say? "Director, it is *far* too hot in here. You would think the EBU could get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on them. What are you going to do about it?" "Director, it is awfully cold in here. You would think the EBU could get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on them. What are you going to do about it?" Great. I suppose if we turn the air-conditioning on for ten minutes then off for ten minutes both of them may think we are trying for them. I go to the Hotel Reception, and ask for the air-conditioning to be put on. "Please? You want a room?" Why do they employ Taiwanese who do not speak English? I eventually manage to get the air-conditioning switched on, and go back in. I am called for a ruling: it is a hesitation-type ruling. "HE HESITATED !!!!!" "NO, I DIDN'T!" "OH YES, YOU DID!" Did you think for a time, I ask. "Yes, I thought, why shouldn't I, look at my hand, but I did not HESITATE!" I avoid the hand thrust under my nose, and tell them there was a hesitation, and to call me back if necessary. "What do you mean, there was a hesitation? The EBU is always inventing these new rules. I pay all this money to play and they invent new rules that you may not hesitate. The stupid Director did not even look in my hand: I had a terribly difficult decision so of course I thought about it - why shouldn't I? Pardon? Get on with the hand? They never had these rules when I played in the Clacton congress." I get called back: there is no damage despite the UI. "I said that I had a reason to hesitate and this Director has agreed. The EBU has the best Directors in the world - I have always said so." "Can we appeal? Why do I have to pay ten pounds? An Appeals advisor? Why? Why do you want to help me: you ruled for him, didn't you? Oh, all right, if you think it is a good idea, but I know we were in the right. Bloody Directors - if you can play, you play: if you can't, you direct." One of my colleagues is an excellent female Director: she is called to a table. "Get me a real Director, there's a love." I have to deal with a psyche. "He cheated! What do you mean, it is legal to psyche? Grattan Endicott wrote to me and said that you may not psyche on the first round of the auction." I have a lead out of turn. I start to tell them that they have five options. "I want a heart lead, AND a penalty card." No, I explain. "Why not?" I explain the Laws. "When did they change them? I went on a training course for Directors twelve years ago and they said that you could choose whatever you want." Next I get a pair of British internationals. I explain the UI laws. "We were in Lille and that fellow with the funny name that sounds like a car said that there is no adjustment if I raised to three because I might have been thinking of bidding more, or less." Well, there is a sort of sense, but who sounds like a car? "You know: one of those eastern European cars." Lada? I know, I've got it: Skoda! "That's right, Skoda. Someone called him Kojak, but I have no idea why." "Director, it is *far* too hot in here. You would think the EBU could get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on them. What are you going to do about it?" "Director, it is awfully cold in here. You would think the EBU could get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on them. What are you going to do about it?" Someone throws a bidding box on the floor. I get him a replacement, and play patience [solitaire for Americans] for a time with the cards from the box on the floor. However, it does not come out! No 7NT card! It is time to tear off the top copy of the traveller, and put it face down on the table. This is explained over the loudspeaker *four* times. I go round to pick them up: the second table has not torn them off. "You did not tell us to!" "Of course, we would have done so, if you had told us to." Several other Directors come to consult with me. At EBU tournaments, Directors are often advised to consult with me rather than anyone else = it is considered my forte. I advise one extrovert lady Director. "Are you sure? They might appeal." I tell her not to worry, appeals are no big thing. Off she goes. Soon, she is back. "I do not know why I listen to you: they appealed! It is your fault!" The session ends. "Why is there two hours for dinner? It is far too long. The EBU deliberately make it too long to annoy us." Yeah, right. I wonder if I will get dinner. I collect the travellers, including two that are missing: strangely, they are three tables away from where they should be. I appease the scorer, who wants to know why I did not get them to her quicker, clear the tables, collect the boards, strip them of curtain cards, set out the stationery, check the computer input against the travellers. Eighty minutes left. I go to eat dinner with a few other TDs. The service is a bit slow, and it is ten minutes walk away. Eventually, I have eaten. Back to the hotel, change into a Tuxedo, back to the venue. "Why is there two hours for dinner? It is far too long. The EBU deliberately make it too long to annoy us." I try to get everyone sat down. There are posted instructions where they sit. "Where do we sit? No, I never saw a notice." I go and check for them, and get them sat down. Play starts. "Director, it is *far* too hot in here. You would think the EBU could get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on them. What are you going to do about it?" "Director, it is awfully cold in here. You would think the EBU could get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on them. What are you going to do about it?" I give a few rulings, people consult with me, I wander round. One particular female Director does what she *always* does, consults with me, listens carefully, then rules the opposite. She is very earnest, and I never understand why she does not follow my ideas! As usual, she is appealed. I have to find Appeals Committees [usually my job at EBU events]. I ask a player. "Well, I don't know, I could if you are desperate, but try and find someone else, will you?" That's a Yes. "No, Roy, you cannot be on an appeal, we have to go at the end, sorry David, he really has not got the time, OK?" That's a No. A few more rulings, a few Appeals Committees, tear off the top traveller ["you did not say so"], last few rounds, everyone finishes. "What time tomorrow?" "Two o'clock? Why? Is the EBU mad?" Now I have to organise the appeals. "Where is my Committee? It should be ready, now!" I explain that some members are not present, and go to the bar to get David Burn, thus losing two Dhondys who have moved elsewhere by the time I get back. Why do they not issue me with a sheepdog? I eventually get the Committees going, and now have to clear my area of the room: everyone else is gone. [Note: to be fair, with many EBU Directors, they will have cleared it for me once they realise I am busy, but not all of them.] I clear the tables, strip the boards, put them away, check the travellers against the computer input, and at about midnight, I am finished. "Where are the results? What do you mean, you do not know? You are a Director, aren't you?" I get to the bar in time to hear the bar-tender say it is closed. Damn. Still, I know one that is open to one o'clock. I greet my fellow Directors, and offer a round of drinks. Three whiskies, four pints, and a gin-and-orange. One of the players strolls in. "Hah! Taking it easy, as usual! Glad to see you have plenty of spare time to drink." Only three days to go. Sorry, Henk. -- 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 Jul 30 16:23:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:23:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20367 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:22:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.76] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11A640-000Jcl-00; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:22:40 +0100 Message-ID: <003a01beda53$ebc43e00$4c5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Can we help a friend? Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:20:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 30 July 1999 03:55 Subject: Re: Can we help a friend? Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"No-one tests the depth of a river with >both feet." - from the Ashanti. >................................................................. >============================= > >Offer from Pryor Resources Inc. :- > >How to become a Great Communicator. > >Dramatically Improve Your Ability to Build >Winning Relationships with Everyone, Every >Day! > >One day Seminar - Only £99 + VAT You were robbed. +++ Oh, no, not I. Could not face the thought of 'Everyone'. +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 18:00:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:00:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe010.worldonline.dk (fe010.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA21020 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:00:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 4058 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jul 1999 08:00:38 -0000 Received: from 2.ppp1-7.image.dk (212.54.69.130) by mail030.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 30 Jul 1999 08:00:38 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law v Regulation Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:00:37 GMT Message-ID: <37d55b92.9895614@mail.image.dk> References: <199907300027.RAA03230@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199907300027.RAA03230@mailhub.irvine.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 Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:27:43 PDT skrev Adam Beneschan: >pull out. Thus, for example, I'd grab the 1S tab and pull, and when I >do so, the 1H card comes out along with it. A note on how to use bidding boxes: Don't try to separate the 1S from the 1H card. Grab all af the 'smaller' cards along with 1S and put the whole bunch on the table. Thus, If you want to open 7NT, you empty the box entirely. It's much easier, and you won't need the cards anyway. It's even more of an advantage when you want to put the cards back in the box. Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 18:41:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:41:55 +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 SAA21123 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:41:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-149-86.uunet.be [194.7.149.86]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA19688 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:41:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A04CAA.2E9DF2CD@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:44:26 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L16A1 References: <10f0a106.24d193dc@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 7/29/99 5:57:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > Is the ACBL stance similar ? Discouraging but allowing SO's > > to use it anyway ? > > No. > > > > If that is indeed the case, then I owe the list an apology > > for misunderstanding. > > Thank you Herman, for expressing yourself as well as you have in this post. > > No, the ACBL says that: "....Law 16 A 1: At ACBL sanctioned events, > competitors will not be allowed to announce that they reserve the right to > summon the Director later. they should summon the Director immediately when > they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the > opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their > side." > > Since the ACBL considers itself the SO when sanctioning events, this > therefore applies to bridge played for which ACBL masterpoints are awarded. > And, in the strictest sense that means ACBL tournaments and Clubs affiliated > with the ACBL. > Which is, in effect, all duplicate bridge played in North America ? Am I now allowed for once to openly express my personal opinion that this is not a good regulation ? I agree that certain (or even most) SO's might want to disallow the practice, as they are indeed allowed to do under the Laws, but for the ACBL to do so in lieu of the local organiser seems to me rather restrictive. But that's just my personal opinion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 18:44:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:44:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk ([195.147.248.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21145 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:44:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from p65s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.102] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11A8Gc-0007nS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:43:51 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law v Regulation Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:44:50 +0100 Message-ID: <01beda67$c95f3860$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan To: BLML Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Friday, July 30, 1999 2:53 AM Subject: Re: Law v Regulation > >Anne Jones wrote: > >> Even in view of the 1998(Lille) WBFLC edict that Law 25B should be used in >> such cases as protect the bidder from "silly" bids?. Whatever the different >> systems >> this bidder ,who had to pass, if for example playing precision, could open >> 1H if >> playing Acol, is not in the class of player who passes a response to >> Blackwood! >> >> Anne > >I'm not familiar with this edict, and I haven't been able to find any >reference to it on the WBF web page. Are they saying that Law 25B >should *not* be used in cases where the bidder isn't making a "silly" >bid? If it shouldn't, what should we use instead? The pre-1997 >version of L25B2(b)(2) [the bidder must substitute a call and bar his >partner for the entire auction]? This isn't part of the Laws any >more, so how can we apply it? > >I'm confused. Could someone please clarify? > > -- thanks, Adam This was the subject of much discussion on this list at the time. Ad nauseum even. I am sorry you missed it. I quote from the Minutes of the WBFLC 1 September 1998 Lille. "4. The Committee considered the situation in regard to purposeful correction of call under Law 25B. It was agreed that the intention of the Committee in drafting this Law was to permit the correction of a "stupid mistake" (e.g. passing a cue bid after thinking whether to bid game or slam). It is not the intention that the Law should be used to allow of rectification of the player's judgement. As the intention of the Committee this statement of intention constitutes an interpretation of the Law." Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 18:44:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:44:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk ([195.147.248.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21147 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:44:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from p65s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.102] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11A8Gb-0007nS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:43:49 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law v Regulation Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:44:31 +0100 Message-ID: <01beda67$be0c0ce0$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: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, July 30, 1999 1:43 AM Subject: Re: Law v Regulation > > >On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Anne Jones wrote: > >> Club game. Bidding box regs. in force. "A bid is considered made when the >> bidding card is removed from the box" >> >> North deals and after examining his cards says "No Bid". >> East asks, "aren't you going to use your bidding box?" >> North says, "sorry" and removes the 1H card and places it in front of him. >> >> TD is called and North announces "I forgot what system I was playing". >> >> How do you rule? > >If the player has momentarily forgotten system (when he passed), then I >think we have a "Delayed or Purposeful Correction". I would apply Law 25B. > >This of course presumes that the original verbal pass is a call (Law says >it is). Most SO's regulations cover verbal calls when bidding boxes are in >use - what do your's say? Nothing that I can find. > >Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 19:16:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:16:54 +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 TAA21273 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:16:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <5133-4600>; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:15:34 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA22778 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:50:30 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Law v Regulation Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:56:54 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3A2@XION> 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: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837588DD0@XION> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Anne Jones wrote: > >> Club game. Bidding box regs. in force. "A bid is considered made when the >> bidding card is removed from the box" > >Does this regulation also apply to non-bid calls such as Double, or >only bids? :-) > >I'm not sure I could live with a regulation like that . . . Where I >live (Southern California), it's a common occurrence for one card in >the bidding box to get stuck to the front of the one you're trying to >pull out. Thus, for example, I'd grab the 1S tab and pull, and when I >do so, the 1H card comes out along with it. I have to shake it to >make the 1H card fall off before I can put my 1S on the table. But on >its face, it appears that under the regulation you cite, the 1H bid >would be considered made. Does the regulation make an exception for >these cases? Or do your clubs always clean the cards afterwards to >make sure they are never sticky? (P.S. I'm sure the TD's there apply >common sense in cases like these---I'm just wondering whether the >regulations also exhibit common sense.) This case falls under L25A, which allows for "mechanical" mistakes to be corrected. It is therefore never a problem. BTW, I thought that when you grab a bid, every lower bid comes out too :-) >> North deals and after examining his cards says "No Bid". >> East asks, "aren't you going to use your bidding box?" >> North says, "sorry" and removes the 1H card and places it in front of him. >> >> TD is called and North announces "I forgot what system I was playing". >> >> How do you rule? > >Regulation or no regulation, I rule that North made a call when he >said "No Bid", and therefore L25B applies. I can't imagine ruling any >other way. Again, this is a common-sense thing---I cannot imagine the >regulations' authors intending that a spoken call should be equivalent >to a moment of silence. > > -- Adam Even stronger; the Laws were always set up with spoken bids in mind, and only in the last modification an appendix was added describing how to handle bidding boxes (at least in the Dutch edition; I can't speak for other editions). So I also rule L25B. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 20:12:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA21402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:12:34 +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 UAA21387 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:12:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-93-200.uunet.be [194.7.93.200]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27907 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:12:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A1722E.A7E18125@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:36:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Handling of Claims - illustration Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please read the message "Handling of Claims" first. illustration of the principles - as applied to the case in the thread "Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim": 1) the claim statement indicates that the ace is played first (and some other things which turn out to be irrelevant. 2) although there are other normal lines, only one line is normal and stated, and this starts with the ace. 3) we start the first iteration, of only one possibility 4) the line breaks down immediately after the second card is played to the trick. 5) there are a few possible lines, but the one of taking over the ten is considered irrational (let's assume we agree on this - we need not but that's not the issue), but there are two other possible lines that are normal : coming to hand in suitA or in suitB 6a) coming to hand in suitA leads to all tricks (according to the statement) 6b) coming to hand in suitB leads to all tricks 7) the lowest number of these is : all tricks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 20:12:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA21400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:12:34 +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 UAA21386 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:12:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-93-200.uunet.be [194.7.93.200]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27902 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:12:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A16C31.21192E50@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:11:13 +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: L16A1 References: <199907292359.TAA10299@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > Thanks to David and others for comments, but I'm still confused about > the _timing_ of this "reserving rights" business. I take it the above > means immediately after North's double. That is how L16A1 is used here > in clubs that allow it. > > >From other comments, though, I have the impression that reserving > rights is expected to take place after South pulls the double. > Just to complicate matters, there is a third timing possible : just before the opening lead (when the bidding is over). But isn't that just the same as the problem of when to call the director? > > However, I think that UI problems are lessened by Reserving Rights > > because it is a fairly easy and casual agreement and leads to a Director > > call at the end of the hand no more than one time in five. > > Let me give some more examples and ask how they are handled. Consider > the UI case situation above and the following specifics. In each case, > the TD is called after the hand is over, and EW think pass was a LA for > South. Assume it is obvious that a hesitation, if one occurred, > suggests pulling. There may be a dispute about whether a hesitation > occurred. > > 1. After North's slow double, EW reserve their rights. NS express no > objection. > Consider the alternative : after the slow double, EW call the TD. Do you find this normal ? I don't. There is nothing wrong in doubling slowly. > 2. Nothing is done after North's slow double, but after South's pull, > EW reserve their rights. NS express no objection. > Consider the alternative : after South's pull, EW call the Director. This is already better. Well I consider the reserving of rights exactly the same as the effects of the TD call : he comes, asks NS if there has been a slow double, and if they agree, he says "please call me back at the end of the board". > 3. No rights are reserved. > So there is no problem about L16A1. He may or may not rule about the case. Depending on whether NS agree to the hesitation. If they do, he rules. If they don't, he may say to them : you should have called me earlier. Exactly the sort of non-ruling the reserving of rights tries to prevent. > If you are the TD, how will you handle each case, and in particular, > what differences are there between them? And if you had your choice, > which would you prefer to have the players do? > > For that matter, what about > 4. as in 2, but this time NS object when EW reserve their rights, and > the TD is called immediately after South's bid? Rule exactly as if EW had called the TD, and upon asking NS object that there was a hesitation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 20:12:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA21403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:12:36 +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 UAA21389 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:12:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-93-200.uunet.be [194.7.93.200]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27913 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:12:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A1724B.8A54B91@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:37:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Handling of Claims References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the thread "Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim" "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > >However, is declarer held to his faulty statement here? > > > IMO yes chs john > -- Not for the first time I am at odds with many a poster. I often believe I am in a too silent majority, but I am often proven wrong. I would like to suggest a general line on the handling of claims, and I would like to hear your comments. 1) the player repeats his claim statement. If he has made no claim statement, all normal lines shall be counted in point 2. 2) the director makes a list of all normal lines that are contained within the claim statement (normal is as defined in TFLB) 3) for each of these normal lines the points 4-6 are considered and the lowest number of tricks (to claimer) of any of these becomes the final result 4) [for each separate normal stated line] the line is followed using normal play and either : ends in a particular number of tricks (go to 7), or : breaks down in some way (go to 5) 5) [for any broken down line] the director lists all possible normal lines starting from the point of breakdown. This includes all lines, included in the stated lines or not. 6) [for each normal line after breakdown] the director determines the number of tricks normally made and selects the lowest for claimer. 7) every line has now reached a number of tricks and the lowest of these is the result on the board. In a separate message I illustrate this by applying the principles to the original case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 21:14:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 21:14:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21613 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 21:14:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-023.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.215]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA28791; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:13:26 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <004001beda7c$88c711a0$d7307dc2@oemcomputer> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "David Stevenson" Subject: Re: Cat Diary Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:13:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, This is a masterpiece! You mean a TD's ordeal is the same in the UK? Regards, Fearghal -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 30 July 1999 04:08 Subject: Re: Cat Diary >Craig Senior wrote: >>Or to offer another view, may those talented enough continue it? It is one >>of the more enjoyable threads we have had recently. I don't think Henk can >>presume to speak for the majority...he certainly does not speak for me. >>Thanks to those on the list who are not terminally humour impaired. Surely >>you have a delete key Henk? The thread has only contained about 4 messages, >>not a crushing burden! > >TD diary > >Day 1 > > Got up at some awful hour of the morning. Put up tables and put >chairs around them for an hour. Put stationery on tables. Checked >boards are available. Went to pub for lunch. > > Got back for start. Give out starter cards. Let people pick their >own by shuffling them and putting them face down on table. > >"Can we pick *any* one?" >"Do we pick one?" >"What happens if I do not like the choice?" >"I have got an East-West: can I put it back?" >"No, partner you choose." "But I might pick the wrong one." >"Is this where I pay?" > > Get players into seats [mostly]. Deal with queries as to what system >is permissible. > >"What do you mean, it is Level 3? It is a disgrace allowing all these >people to play these fancy conventions and you should not allow it. I >do not know why the EBU allows it. They are deliberately driving people >away from their Congresses. What are you doing about it? What do you >mean you are only the Tournament Director?" > >"What do you mean, it is Level 3? It is a disgrace in a top class >congress not allowing people to play the Craig Senior 2D opening. I do >not know why the EBU forbids it. They are deliberately driving people >away from their Congresses. What are you doing about it? What do you >mean you are only the Tournament Director?" > > Try to find players for the gaps. Reconcile the pairs where each >member has picked a starter card. Ask the players to sit down. Give >out the curtain cards for them to make the boards up. Deal with the new >gaps that have appeared. > >"Director, why are there no score cards on the table?" "I don't know, >sir, I shall get you some." "Bloody inefficient these Directors, can't >be bothered to get off their .... oh, I have just found them under my >Convention card." > >"Director, which way do I pass the boards?" >"Director, do I have time to get a coffee?" >"Director, what does Level 3 mean?" > > Play starts. They move the boards one way, move the pairs the other, >and start play. > >"Director, it is *far* too hot in here. You would think the EBU could >get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on >them. What are you going to do about it?" > >"Director, it is awfully cold in here. You would think the EBU could >get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on >them. What are you going to do about it?" > >"DIRECTOR !!!!!!!! He opened 3S and he has ONLY GOT FIVE SPADES !!!!!! >Why does the EBU not stop these cheats!" "He called me a cheat, David, >what are you going to do about it?" "Oh, 'David' is it, I suppose you >are going to rule in his favour because he is a friend." "Everyone >knows David." "So? Does that mean you are allowed to cheat?" > > I manage to get a word in eventually, and get the charge of cheating >reduced to a vague muttering. I sort it out, and then it is my lucky >day: two young ladies approach me from opposite sides of the room. >Yippee! And what do they say? > >"Director, it is *far* too hot in here. You would think the EBU could >get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on >them. What are you going to do about it?" > >"Director, it is awfully cold in here. You would think the EBU could >get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on >them. What are you going to do about it?" > > Great. I suppose if we turn the air-conditioning on for ten minutes >then off for ten minutes both of them may think we are trying for them. >I go to the Hotel Reception, and ask for the air-conditioning to be put >on. > >"Please? You want a room?" > > Why do they employ Taiwanese who do not speak English? I eventually >manage to get the air-conditioning switched on, and go back in. I am >called for a ruling: it is a hesitation-type ruling. > >"HE HESITATED !!!!!" "NO, I DIDN'T!" "OH YES, YOU DID!" > > Did you think for a time, I ask. > >"Yes, I thought, why shouldn't I, look at my hand, but I did not >HESITATE!" > > I avoid the hand thrust under my nose, and tell them there was a >hesitation, and to call me back if necessary. > >"What do you mean, there was a hesitation? The EBU is always inventing >these new rules. I pay all this money to play and they invent new rules >that you may not hesitate. The stupid Director did not even look in my >hand: I had a terribly difficult decision so of course I thought about >it - why shouldn't I? Pardon? Get on with the hand? They never had >these rules when I played in the Clacton congress." > > I get called back: there is no damage despite the UI. > >"I said that I had a reason to hesitate and this Director has agreed. >The EBU has the best Directors in the world - I have always said so." >"Can we appeal? Why do I have to pay ten pounds? An Appeals advisor? >Why? Why do you want to help me: you ruled for him, didn't you? Oh, >all right, if you think it is a good idea, but I know we were in the >right. Bloody Directors - if you can play, you play: if you can't, you >direct." > > One of my colleagues is an excellent female Director: she is called to >a table. > >"Get me a real Director, there's a love." > > I have to deal with a psyche. > >"He cheated! What do you mean, it is legal to psyche? Grattan Endicott >wrote to me and said that you may not psyche on the first round of the >auction." > > I have a lead out of turn. I start to tell them that they have five >options. > >"I want a heart lead, AND a penalty card." > > No, I explain. > >"Why not?" > > I explain the Laws. > >"When did they change them? I went on a training course for Directors >twelve years ago and they said that you could choose whatever you want." > > Next I get a pair of British internationals. I explain the UI laws. > >"We were in Lille and that fellow with the funny name that sounds like a >car said that there is no adjustment if I raised to three because I >might have been thinking of bidding more, or less." > > Well, there is a sort of sense, but who sounds like a car? > >"You know: one of those eastern European cars." > > Lada? I know, I've got it: Skoda! > >"That's right, Skoda. Someone called him Kojak, but I have no idea >why." > >"Director, it is *far* too hot in here. You would think the EBU could >get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on >them. What are you going to do about it?" > >"Director, it is awfully cold in here. You would think the EBU could >get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on >them. What are you going to do about it?" > > Someone throws a bidding box on the floor. I get him a replacement, >and play patience [solitaire for Americans] for a time with the cards >from the box on the floor. However, it does not come out! No 7NT card! > > It is time to tear off the top copy of the traveller, and put it face >down on the table. This is explained over the loudspeaker *four* times. >I go round to pick them up: the second table has not torn them off. > >"You did not tell us to!" "Of course, we would have done so, if you had >told us to." > > Several other Directors come to consult with me. At EBU tournaments, >Directors are often advised to consult with me rather than anyone else = >it is considered my forte. I advise one extrovert lady Director. > >"Are you sure? They might appeal." > > I tell her not to worry, appeals are no big thing. Off she goes. >Soon, she is back. > >"I do not know why I listen to you: they appealed! It is your fault!" > > The session ends. > >"Why is there two hours for dinner? It is far too long. The EBU >deliberately make it too long to annoy us." > > Yeah, right. I wonder if I will get dinner. I collect the >travellers, including two that are missing: strangely, they are three >tables away from where they should be. I appease the scorer, who wants >to know why I did not get them to her quicker, clear the tables, collect >the boards, strip them of curtain cards, set out the stationery, check >the computer input against the travellers. Eighty minutes left. I go >to eat dinner with a few other TDs. The service is a bit slow, and it >is ten minutes walk away. Eventually, I have eaten. Back to the hotel, >change into a Tuxedo, back to the venue. > >"Why is there two hours for dinner? It is far too long. The EBU >deliberately make it too long to annoy us." > > I try to get everyone sat down. There are posted instructions where >they sit. > >"Where do we sit? No, I never saw a notice." > > I go and check for them, and get them sat down. Play starts. > >"Director, it is *far* too hot in here. You would think the EBU could >get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on >them. What are you going to do about it?" > >"Director, it is awfully cold in here. You would think the EBU could >get a decent venue sometimes, considering all the money we spend on >them. What are you going to do about it?" > > I give a few rulings, people consult with me, I wander round. One >particular female Director does what she *always* does, consults with >me, listens carefully, then rules the opposite. She is very earnest, >and I never understand why she does not follow my ideas! As usual, she >is appealed. I have to find Appeals Committees [usually my job at EBU >events]. I ask a player. > >"Well, I don't know, I could if you are desperate, but try and find >someone else, will you?" > > That's a Yes. > >"No, Roy, you cannot be on an appeal, we have to go at the end, sorry >David, he really has not got the time, OK?" > > That's a No. > > A few more rulings, a few Appeals Committees, tear off the top >traveller ["you did not say so"], last few rounds, everyone finishes. > >"What time tomorrow?" "Two o'clock? Why? Is the EBU mad?" > > Now I have to organise the appeals. > >"Where is my Committee? It should be ready, now!" > > I explain that some members are not present, and go to the bar to get >David Burn, thus losing two Dhondys who have moved elsewhere by the time >I get back. Why do they not issue me with a sheepdog? I eventually get >the Committees going, and now have to clear my area of the room: >everyone else is gone. [Note: to be fair, with many EBU Directors, they >will have cleared it for me once they realise I am busy, but not all of >them.] > > I clear the tables, strip the boards, put them away, check the >travellers against the computer input, and at about midnight, I am >finished. > >"Where are the results? What do you mean, you do not know? You are a >Director, aren't you?" > > I get to the bar in time to hear the bar-tender say it is closed. >Damn. Still, I know one that is open to one o'clock. I greet my fellow >Directors, and offer a round of drinks. Three whiskies, four pints, and >a gin-and-orange. One of the players strolls in. > >"Hah! Taking it easy, as usual! Glad to see you have plenty of spare >time to drink." > > Only three days to go. > > > > Sorry, Henk. > > >-- >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 Jul 30 22:52:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:52:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe010.worldonline.dk (fe010.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA22223 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:52:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 15543 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jul 1999 12:51:57 -0000 Received: from 41.ppp1-16.image.dk (212.54.76.233) by mail030.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 30 Jul 1999 12:51:57 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Handling of Claims - illustration Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:48:09 GMT Message-ID: <37ae9deb.5506371@mail.image.dk> References: <37A1722E.A7E18125@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37A1722E.A7E18125@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: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:36:46 +0200 skrev Herman De Wael: >4) the line breaks down immediately No. It works fine till trick 13. Your method means that TD must help the player avoid some traps. I don't see how that can be fair. Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 30 23:08:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA22361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:08:56 +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 XAA22356 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:08:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from p69s04a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.164.106] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11ACOW-0007Rl-00; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 14:08:16 +0100 Message-ID: <001001beda8b$fbb672a0$6aa493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Cat Diary Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:26:33 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 30 July 1999 03:52 Subject: Re: Cat Diary ---------------- \x/ ----------- > I explain that some members are not present, and go to the bar to get >David Burn, thus losing two Dhondys > > +++ evidently not planning a unanimous committee+++ --------------------- \x/ ------------------ > Sorry, Henk. ++++ written on a hot tin roof?++++ > special concession for David: signature at the end: Grattan Endicott; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:40:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 55729 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jul 1999 14:39:52 -0000 Message-ID: <19990730143952.55728.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:39:51 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law v Regulation Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:39:51 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Bertel: >Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:27:43 PDT skrev Adam Beneschan: > > >pull out. Thus, for example, I'd grab the 1S tab and pull, and >when I >do so, the 1H card comes out along with it. > >A note on how to use bidding boxes: > [snip - this won't happen normally]. > Ok. I have long thumb nails (though last time I put this one to the list, I was told it's not just me :-). I go to open 2H. Finger grabs 2H (and all the ones below it), thumb nail (or static, or sticky, or...) grabs 2S, it comes out, and I shake it around a bit to drop the 2S bid before putting 2H on the table. What is the ruling? Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 01:14:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 01:14:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from IGNGATE.merck.de (igngate.merck.de [194.196.248.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA23029 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 01:14:37 +1000 (EST) From: James.Vickers@merck.de Received: from dedamsgnt02.merck.de (smtpgw.merck.de [155.250.248.234]) by IGNGATE.merck.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17635 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:14:27 +0200 (METDST) X-Internal-ID: 37A16CD000000F50 Received: from dedamsg4.merck.de (155.250.249.26) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:18:30 +0200 Received: by dedamsg4.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id C12567BE.0053B4B3 ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:14:17 +0200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:31:42 +0200 Subject: Antwort: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu am 29.07.99 05:22:07 An: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Kopie: (Blindkopie: James Vickers/EMD/Merck) Thema: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim This is declarer's trump suit (spades): AT2 97654 - KQJ83 Declarer has just ruffed his last loser with the S2 in dummy, and now claims, "I'll take SA, ST overtaking with the SK, and take all the rest.: If director had just claimed "I'll draw trumps and take the rest", it could be ruled irrational for declarer not to notice the 5-0 break; he would take AT and then return to his hand in a side suit. As long as West couldn't ruff any side suit, declarer would get all the rest. However, is declarer held to his faulty statement here? My one problem with allowing declarer to change his intended line of play when it becomes clear that this is irrational is that you might thereby be rescuing him from a bad score when he has simply miscounted trumps. The possibility that declarer thinks that he will have drawn all the outstanding trumps if he plays the ace, overtakes the ten and then takes two more rounds from the top cannot be ruled out. When faced with a theoretical problem on paper all bridge players can count up to thirteen, but we all know that at the table in the heat of the tournament every now and then even the best go wrong. You have to ask yourself, if declarer was aware that there were five trumps outstanding, why did he not make allowances for this in his statement? According to Law 70C if it was "at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand" a trump trick will be awarded to the opponents. Thus, I would rule that his statement as originally given should be followed. This would be in accordance with the principle of ruling in favour of the non-offending side in cases of doubt. It might also have the added benefit of teaching the declarer in question to ensure his claims are watertight in future; he has only himself to blame. James Vickers Darmstadt, Germany From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 01:24:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA22779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:43:43 +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 AAA22773 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:43:35 +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 11ADsc-000AJN-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 14:43:27 +0000 Message-ID: <7FmVFmAezZo3EwSn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:38:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law v Regulation References: <01beda67$c95f3860$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01beda67$c95f3860$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >"4. >The Committee considered the situation in regard to purposeful >correction of call under Law 25B. It was agreed that the intention > of the Committee in drafting this Law was to permit the >correction of a "stupid mistake" (e.g. passing a cue bid after >thinking whether to bid game or slam). It is not the intention that >the Law should be used to allow of rectification of the player's >judgement. As the intention of the Committee this statement >of intention constitutes an interpretation of the Law." The statements minuted in Lille were collated by Grattan for this list and appear on my Lawspage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm Following discussion behind the scenes, I am now of the opinion that this particular minute was slightly flawed. What the Committee apparently meant to say was that while the intention of this Law is as quoted above, it was meant to be the *player's* judgement as to whether to apply it, not the Director's or Committee's. Given that, this minute should not be used by TDs or ACs when applying L25B: they just tell the players the ruling, and let them decide whether to play for A-. -- 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 Jul 31 02:05:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:05:47 +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 CAA23396 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:05:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from kantoor.ripe.net (kantoor.ripe.net [193.0.1.98]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA22149; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:04:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA13508; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:04:52 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:04:52 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Craig Senior cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Cat Diary In-Reply-To: <007501beda01$62194bc0$30b420cc@host> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Graig, > Or to offer another view, may those talented enough continue it? It is one > of the more enjoyable threads we have had recently. I don't think Henk can > presume to speak for the majority...he certainly does not speak for me. > Thanks to those on the list who are not terminally humour impaired. Surely > you have a delete key Henk? Yes, I do, but I also get between 150 and 200 emails a day, which I have to open and at a very minimum glance through to see if I should read them, so I really appreciate it if mailing lists are use for what they were set up for, not for off-topic discussions. 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 Sat Jul 31 02:15:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:15:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe010.worldonline.dk (fe010.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA23475 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:15:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 2837 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jul 1999 16:15:10 -0000 Received: from 1.ppp1-5.image.dk (212.54.69.1) by mail030.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 30 Jul 1999 16:15:10 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law v Regulation Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:15:09 GMT Message-ID: <37a1ca2d.345628@mail.image.dk> References: <19990730143952.55728.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19990730143952.55728.qmail@hotmail.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, 30 Jul 1999 07:39:51 PDT skrev Michael Farebrother: >the ones below it), thumb nail (or static, or sticky, or...) grabs 2S, it >comes out, and I shake it around a bit to drop the 2S bid before putting 2H >on the table. >What is the ruling? No problem. You clearly haven't bid 2S. In those situations I sometimes during the struggle say: "I mean to bid 2H", but it's really not necessary. Even if you forget to look at your own bid (which you should always do), you still are not lost. If you change your bid to the right one /immediately/ when you discover the error, it is legal to change it with no penalty - until you partner bids. Law 25A is the relevant one. If somebody tries to get nasty in the first situation (struggle), one may refer to the same section. Bertel -- Denmark http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 02:21:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA22789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:43:54 +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 AAA22780 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:43:43 +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 11ADsg-000E4J-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 14:43:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:23:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim References: <199907290322.XAA16020@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <199907290322.XAA16020@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu>, David >Grabiner writes >> >>This is declarer's trump suit (spades): >> >> AT2 >>97654 - >> KQJ83 >> >>Declarer has just ruffed his last loser with the S2 in dummy, and now >>claims, "I'll take SA, ST overtaking with the SK, and take all the rest.: >> >>If director had just claimed "I'll draw trumps and take the rest", it >>could be ruled irrational for declarer not to notice the 5-0 break; he >>would take AT and then return to his hand in a side suit. As long as >>West couldn't ruff any side suit, declarer would get all the rest. >> >>However, is declarer held to his faulty statement here? >IMO yes chs john What do we do when we adjudge a disputed claim? We try to work out what would have happened if the hand had been played out. In the example case, there are two possibilities: [1] Declarer has not realised there are five trumps out. If he played them out he would have happily overtaken the ten and lost a trick. [2] Declarer does know there are five trumps out. If he played them out he would have realised the problem when someone showed out on the ace, and would have changed his line. If your really believe [1] to be the case, then you give the defence a trick. However, I doubt it myself. My guess is that [2] is the truth, and I would probably let the claim succeed. However, the main point is that you have to be there: this is the sort of claim to which there is no right answer when given as a problem on the screen. If I was ruling at the table, I would ask a few questions, and then rule [1] or [2], more likely [2], but [1] if I could not make my mind up. -- 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 Jul 31 02:24:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA22794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:43:57 +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 AAA22784 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:43:47 +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 11ADsn-000AJM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 14:43:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:30:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law v Regulation References: <01beda1d$544705c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <199907300027.RAA03230@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199907300027.RAA03230@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Anne Jones wrote: > >> Club game. Bidding box regs. in force. "A bid is considered made when the >> bidding card is removed from the box" > >Does this regulation also apply to non-bid calls such as Double, or >only bids? :-) Anne has not quoted the regulation accurately. It actually reads: A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent The ACBL regulation is: A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent. >I'm not sure I could live with a regulation like that . . . Where I >live (Southern California), it's a common occurrence for one card in >the bidding box to get stuck to the front of the one you're trying to >pull out. Thus, for example, I'd grab the 1S tab and pull, and when I >do so, the 1H card comes out along with it. I have to shake it to >make the 1H card fall off before I can put my 1S on the table. But on >its face, it appears that under the regulation you cite, the 1H bid >would be considered made. Does the regulation make an exception for >these cases? Or do your clubs always clean the cards afterwards to >make sure they are never sticky? (P.S. I'm sure the TD's there apply >common sense in cases like these---I'm just wondering whether the >regulations also exhibit common sense.) This is quite irrelevant. Even if the regulation were as originally quoted, you are referring to L25A cases, where of course the call may be changed. It is an uninteresting argument as to whether you may change it under the real regulation, since it was not with "apparent intent" or under L25A. The effect is the same. -- 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 Jul 31 02:53:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:53:03 +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 CAA23587 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:52:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.69]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA22902 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:52:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:52:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907301652.MAA25179@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:23:51 +0100) Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> In article <199907290322.XAA16020@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu>, David >> Grabiner writes >>> >>> This is declarer's trump suit (spades): >>> >>> AT2 >>> 97654 - >>> KQJ83 >>> >>> Declarer has just ruffed his last loser with the S2 in dummy, and now >>> claims, "I'll take SA, ST overtaking with the SK, and take all the >>> rest." > What do we do when we adjudge a disputed claim? We try to work out > what would have happened if the hand had been played out. > In the example case, there are two possibilities: > [1] Declarer has not realised there are five trumps out. If he played > them out he would have happily overtaken the ten and lost a trick. > [2] Declarer does know there are five trumps out. If he played them out > he would have realised the problem when someone showed out on the ace, > and would have changed his line. > If your really believe [1] to be the case, then you give the defence a > trick. However, I doubt it myself. My guess is that [2] is the truth, > and I would probably let the claim succeed. > However, the main point is that you have to be there: this is the sort > of claim to which there is no right answer when given as a problem on > the screen. I wasn't there; this was a ruling some of my friends encountered. What actually happened when West objected to the claim was that West faced her hand, and *dummy* spoke up before the director arrived, saying "He can get back to his hand in a side suit and draw the trumps anyway." The director ruled that dummy's suggested line would not be allowed. This was in a KO match which would have been tied had the claim been granted. The offenders did not appeal; even had an AC ruled the claim allowed, it would have imposed a procedural penalty against dummy for correcting declarer's claim, and the procedural penalty would have been enough to cost the offenders the KO match. -- 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 Jul 31 04:24:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 03:20:57 +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 DAA23636 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 03:20:42 +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 11AGKe-000BUH-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:20:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 04:06:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Cat Diary In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snipped one of the funniest things I've read for ages > > Only three days to go. > > > > Sorry, Henk. > > David, you missed the bit about the broken chair and the pair that went to the sitout table and stayed in the bar for 45 minutes to come back and join in the movement 2 tables behind where they should be and the player who lost her car keys and the player who wants a left handed bidding box and ........ chs 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 Jul 31 04:46:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 04:46:06 +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 EAA24042 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 04:45:58 +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 LAA18436; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:45:13 -0700 Message-Id: <199907301845.LAA18436@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law v Regulation In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:00:37 PST." <37d55b92.9895614@mail.image.dk> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:45:14 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: > Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:27:43 PDT skrev Adam Beneschan: > > >pull out. Thus, for example, I'd grab the 1S tab and pull, and when I > >do so, the 1H card comes out along with it. > > A note on how to use bidding boxes: > > Don't try to separate the 1S from the 1H card. Grab all af the > 'smaller' cards along with 1S and put the whole bunch on the > table. Thus, If you want to open 7NT, you empty the box entirely. > It's much easier, and you won't need the cards anyway. > > It's even more of an advantage when you want to put the cards > back in the box. Mea culpa---I got it backwards. Yes, that's how I pull cards out of the box, but I forgot to realize that I pull all the lower ones out of the box, not all the higher ones. OK, when I pull out the 1S card, the 1NT card comes out along with it, and I have to shake it off. That's what I meant. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 05:27:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 05:27:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA24238 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 05:27:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA03009; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 14:26:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-02.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.34) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002938; Fri Jul 30 14:25:59 1999 Message-ID: <004601bedac1$de811f60$22b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bertel Lund Hansen" , Subject: Re: Handling of Claims - illustration Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:29:37 -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 No, Herman is right. The line breaks down when opponent showsout of trumps as ace is led. It now becomes irrational to overtake. Even a declarer who might somehow have neglected the 5-0 break possibility until now is surely awakened to it by the surprising play by opponent. We want to encourage claims...to penalise this one would be wrong. We do not want the claim statement to always have to take in 1 or 2% possibilities that will clearly be revealed early enough to amend the line sanely. This is akin to allowing claimer a proven finesse even though none other would be allowed. To question this claim is BLing in the extreme and without merit; if appealed the deposit should be retained. I could question the ethics of any non-novice who would dispute this appeal. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Bertel Lund Hansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, July 30, 1999 8:52 AM Subject: Re: Handling of Claims - illustration >Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:36:46 +0200 skrev Herman De Wael: > >>4) the line breaks down immediately > >No. It works fine till trick 13. > >Your method means that TD must help the player avoid some traps. >I don't see how that can be fair. > >Bertel >-- >Denmark >http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 06:08:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:08:05 +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 GAA24413 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:07:54 +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 QAA10003 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:07:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA11102 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:08:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:08:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907302008.QAA11102@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law v Regulation X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > it's a common occurrence for one card in > the bidding box to get stuck to the front of the one you're trying to > pull out. As David points out, there's no practical difference between a call being "made" and then corrected under L25A versus the call being "not made." (I thought David once said there is a difference if the first call was illegal, but I can't find any difference myself.) > Regulation or no regulation, I rule that North made a call when he > said "No Bid", and therefore L25B applies. First of all, it's obvious that all of North's extraneous comments are UI to South. Beyond that, there are two possible rulings: 1. As Adam and others have said, the spoken "no bid" was a call. If it was, I see no reason not to allow L25B unless one of its conditions isn't met (for example, if East has called, in which case 1H is a BooT). Of course _all_ of L25B applies: South may be barred, and there may be lead penalties, depending on what North does. I don't see any application for the Lille interpretation; surely forgetting one's system can be considered a stupid error. 2. If the CoC call for bidding boxes, the spoken "no bid" was an extraneous comment, not a call. In that case, it is UI to South but otherwise has no effect. Personally, I'd choose between 1 and 2 on the basis of the language in the CoC, not on the basis of North's presumed intent. If the CoC explicitly call for bidding boxes to be used, I'd rule 2. If the CoC don't cover the question, and thus bidding box usage is merely a matter of custom and convenience, I'd rule 1. I can well imagine that others will choose differently, but I don't see any rulings besides those above. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 06:32:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:32:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24486 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:32:17 +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 NAA20251; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:31:37 -0700 Message-Id: <199907302031.NAA20251@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law v Regulation In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:08:00 PDT." <199907302008.QAA11102@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:31:37 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > First of all, it's obvious that all of North's extraneous comments are > UI to South. Beyond that, there are two possible rulings: > > 1. As Adam and others have said, the spoken "no bid" was a call. If it > was, I see no reason not to allow L25B unless one of its conditions > isn't met (for example, if East has called, in which case 1H is a > BooT). Of course _all_ of L25B applies: South may be barred, and there > may be lead penalties, depending on what North does. I don't see any > application for the Lille interpretation; surely forgetting one's > system can be considered a stupid error. > > 2. If the CoC call for bidding boxes, the spoken "no bid" was an > extraneous comment, not a call. In that case, it is UI to South but > otherwise has no effect. > > Personally, I'd choose between 1 and 2 on the basis of the language in > the CoC, not on the basis of North's presumed intent. If the CoC > explicitly call for bidding boxes to be used, I'd rule 2. If the CoC > don't cover the question, and thus bidding box usage is merely a matter > of custom and convenience, I'd rule 1. I can well imagine that others > will choose differently, but I don't see any rulings besides those > above. I'd rule #1 regardless of the CoC. It's clear that North's original "No Bid" was intentionally making a call, despite the fact that his call was not of the proper form required by the CoC. The fact that it wasn't the proper form cannot sensibly mean that North's call was something other than a call. All it can mean is that North may be subject to an additional PP for making a call in an improper form (in practice, of course, there would be a penalty only if North stubbornly and unreasonably continues to refuse to use the bidding box). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 06:51:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:51:50 +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 GAA24543 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:51:43 +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 11AJcr-000JBQ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:51:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:49:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Dropped card MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Another easy one for Jens. Sadly, Jens does not seem to be posting here much now - I am sure he would enjoy this. You accidentally drop the HK during the auction. Eventually, you find yourself on lead to 6S. And the ruling 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 Sat Jul 31 06:51:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:51:53 +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 GAA24542 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:51:43 +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 11AJcr-000JBP-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:51:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:46:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law v Regulation References: <19990730143952.55728.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19990730143952.55728.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >>Bertel: > >>Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:27:43 PDT skrev Adam Beneschan: >> >> >pull out. Thus, for example, I'd grab the 1S tab and pull, and >when I >>do so, the 1H card comes out along with it. >> >>A note on how to use bidding boxes: >> >[snip - this won't happen normally]. >> >Ok. I have long thumb nails (though last time I put this one to the list, I >was told it's not just me :-). I go to open 2H. Finger grabs 2H (and all >the ones below it), thumb nail (or static, or sticky, or...) grabs 2S, it >comes out, and I shake it around a bit to drop the 2S bid before putting 2H >on the table. > >What is the ruling? You have bid 2H. WTP? However, if it was not your turn, then you have made a call once it clears the box and are subject to penalty. But no-one makes you stick with an inadvertent call: L25A certainly 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 Sat Jul 31 07:32:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 07:32:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA24748 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 07:32:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.48]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990730213206.OXWU16853.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:32:06 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law v Regulation Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:32:05 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37a61973.6668759@post12.tele.dk> References: <01beda67$c95f3860$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <7FmVFmAezZo3EwSn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <7FmVFmAezZo3EwSn@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 HAA24749 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:38:54 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Following discussion behind the scenes, I am now of the opinion that >this particular minute was slightly flawed. What the Committee >apparently meant to say was that while the intention of this Law is as >quoted above, it was meant to be the *player's* judgement as to whether >to apply it, not the Director's or Committee's. Given that, this minute >should not be used by TDs or ACs when applying L25B: they just tell the >players the ruling, and let them decide whether to play for A-. We have a L25B that is quite clear in its wording and no problem to apply (except that some of us find it difficult to explain to players why the law should be so). Then we have an official "interpretation" from the WBFLC which says that L25B does not mean what it says: "a call may be substituted" does not mean that a call may be substituted, except in special circumstances. That interpretation also leaves us with no instructions about what to do if a call actually _is_ substituted when, according to the interpretation, it may not be substituted. And finally David provides this interesting opinion that L25B actually means what it says and that the WBFLC interpretation should be ignored (if David is right, no effect other than confusion can arise from the interpretation). I hope David is right: though L25B is a very bad law, it is at least possible to rule according to it, while an interpretation directly contrary to the law text is a really terrible thing to administer. I am confused. I would appreciate a comment from Ton or Grattan about what the WBFLC really means (but only if the WBFLC now has a reasonably well-defined opinion, of course). I think there may be something wrong with the way the WBFLC makes official interpretations: I have the impression that it is done in meetings over a few hectic days at a championship, with a not very large subset of the WBFLC members present. I suggest that decisions that change the way bridge is ruled all over the world should be thought through carefully over a period of weeks (and preferably by the whole WBFLC) before being made official. The WBFLC might even show BLML a draft: that should ensure that every possible interpretation and misinterpretation is detected in advance. (Of course, I may be completely wrong: possibly the interpretations announced at Lille were made available to the whole WBFLC in draft form a long time before they were decided upon - in that case, please ignore the rubbish above.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 08:33:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 08:33:44 +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 IAA25084 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 08:33:31 +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 SAA19972 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:33:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA11202 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:33:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199907302233.SAA11202@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L16A1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's the official ACBL position. I'm surprised. I'll refrain (with difficulty) from commenting on the merits. I wrote to 'rulings@acbl.org': > May clubs permit players to "reserve rights" under L16A1? The option > in the law is given to the Sponsoring Organization, but the election > by the ACBL Board of Directors refers to "At ACBL sanctioned > events...." and got back: > Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:01:32 -0500 > From: Gary Blaiss > To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu > Subject: L16A1 -Reply > The election by the ACBL Board of directors includes all ACBL > sanctioned events; therefore, ACBL sanctioned club games are > included. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 09:13:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 09:13:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.magi.com (InfoWeb.Magi.com [204.191.213.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA25255 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 09:13:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from ms01-18.ott.istar.ca (default) [137.186.208.18] by mail.magi.com with smtp (Exim 1.80 #5) id 11ALp8-0003Kf-00; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:12:22 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990730191414.007bb360@magi.com> X-Sender: david@magi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:14:14 -0400 To: James.Vickers@merck.de, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Kent Subject: Re: Antwort: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:31 30-07-99 +0200, James.Vickers@merck.de wrote: >My one problem with allowing declarer to change his intended line of play >when it becomes clear that this is irrational is that you might thereby be >rescuing him from a bad score when he has simply miscounted trumps. The >possibility that declarer thinks that he will have drawn all the >outstanding trumps if he plays the ace, overtakes the ten and then takes >two more rounds from the top cannot be ruled out. When faced with a >theoretical problem on paper all bridge players can count up to thirteen, >but we all know that at the table in the heat of the tournament every now >and then even the best go wrong. > >You have to ask yourself, if declarer was aware that there were five trumps >outstanding, why did he not make allowances for this in his statement? >According to Law 70C if it was "at all likely that claimer at the time of >his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand" a trump >trick will be awarded to the opponents. > >Thus, I would rule that his statement as originally given should be >followed. This would be in accordance with the principle of ruling in >favour of the non-offending side in cases of doubt. It might also have the >added benefit of teaching the declarer in question to ensure his claims are >watertight in future; he has only himself to blame. > As much as I hate to say "Me too.", I totally agree with this statement. David Kent david@magi.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 10:05:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:05:34 +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 KAA25462 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:05:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-204-208.s589.tnt4.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.204.208]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA22280 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:05:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005a01bedae8$12353fa0$d0cc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <004601bedac1$de811f60$22b420cc@host> Subject: Re: Handling of Claims - illustration Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:02:59 -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: Craig Senior To: Bertel Lund Hansen ; Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 3:29 PM Subject: Re: Handling of Claims - illustration > No, Herman is right. The line breaks down when opponent showsout of trumps > as ace is led. It now becomes irrational to overtake. Are you absolutely, positively sure that Declarer didn't think there were only four trumps out? Although it would never happen to someone on this list, I hear that in some places there are players who miscount. If Declarer did indeed miscount, the overtake is completely rational even if one opponent shows out. You can reverse this play only if you are convinced that Declarer was aware of the number of outstanding trumps at the time of the claim (he's certainly aware of what's happening by the time of the dispute). >Even a declarer who > might somehow have neglected the 5-0 break possibility until now is surely > awakened to it by the surprising play by opponent. We want to encourage > claims...to penalise this one would be wrong. We do not want the claim > statement to always have to take in 1 or 2% possibilities that will clearly > be revealed early enough to amend the line sanely. This is akin to allowing > claimer a proven finesse even though none other would be allowed. To > question this claim is BLing in the extreme and without merit; if appealed > the deposit should be retained. I could question the ethics of any > non-novice who would dispute this appeal. > > -- > Craig Senior > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 10:05:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:05:58 +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 KAA25469 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:05:50 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id vTDCa02406 (4266); Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:04:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8db3b968.24d39796@aol.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:04:38 EDT Subject: Re: L16A1 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 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/30/99 6:35:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > > The election by the ACBL Board of directors includes all ACBL > > sanctioned events; therefore, ACBL sanctioned club games are > > included. > How 'bout that. I guess I was correct for once. ......Koajk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 10:08:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:08:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25503 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:08:28 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id oECZa01404 (4266); Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:06:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <611eba68.24d397e8@aol.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:06:00 EDT Subject: Re: Antwort: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim To: david@magi.com, James.Vickers@merck.de, 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 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/30/99 7:14:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, david@magi.com writes: > As much as I hate to say "Me too.", I totally agree with this statement. May I be allowed to add "Me too" ? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 10:25:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 09:42:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA25360 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 09:42:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp177-244.worldonline.nl [195.241.177.244]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA02846 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 01:41:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002d01bedae5$4a7b19a0$f4b1f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: Subject: Re: Cat Diary Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 01:43:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Or to offer another view, may those talented enough continue it? It is one >of the more enjoyable threads we have had recently. I don't think Henk can >presume to speak for the majority...he certainly does not speak for me. >Thanks to those on the list who are not terminally humour impaired. Surely >you have a delete key Henk? The thread has only contained about 4 messages, >not a crushing burden! > >-- >Craig Senior Dear Craig, I did not react to your below the belt reaction yesterday, because if nobody would react the thread might be discontinued. I am glad Henk did speak up to prevent this thread from becoming a crushing burden, and I fully agree with him. Thank you, Craig, for pointing out that although I like cats, it is my lack of humour that makes me agree with Henk. Next time, you may also try to bring up our being Dutch, about which you undoubtedly can write some funny mails too. And David, this does not apply to your contribution, which does deal with what BLML is about. Jac (Jac Fuchs) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 11:28:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:50:44 +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 KAA25683 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:50:37 +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 11ANLq-00038a-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:50:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:05:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim References: <199907301652.MAA25179@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907301652.MAA25179@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >I wasn't there; this was a ruling some of my friends encountered. > >What actually happened when West objected to the claim was that West >faced her hand, and *dummy* spoke up before the director arrived, saying >"He can get back to his hand in a side suit and draw the trumps anyway." >The director ruled that dummy's suggested line would not be allowed. > >This was in a KO match which would have been tied had the claim been >granted. The offenders did not appeal; even had an AC ruled the claim >allowed, it would have imposed a procedural penalty against dummy for >correcting declarer's claim, and the procedural penalty would have been >enough to cost the offenders the KO match. I hope they would not have, since dummy has a perfect right to enter the discussion after a claim has been made. A PP would have been completely out of order. -- 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 Jul 31 11:58:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 11:58:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25827 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 11:58:07 +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 11AOPN-000DZS-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 01:57:57 +0000 Message-ID: <7OTnRXGQflo3EwTY@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:56:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Handling of Claims - illustration In-Reply-To: <004601bedac1$de811f60$22b420cc@host> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <004601bedac1$de811f60$22b420cc@host>, Craig Senior writes >No, Herman is right. The line breaks down when opponent showsout of trumps >as ace is led. It now becomes irrational to overtake. Even a declarer who >might somehow have neglected the 5-0 break possibility until now is surely >awakened to it by the surprising play by opponent. We want to encourage >claims...to penalise this one would be wrong. We do not want the claim >statement to always have to take in 1 or 2% possibilities that will clearly >be revealed early enough to amend the line sanely. This is akin to allowing >claimer a proven finesse even though none other would be allowed. To >question this claim is BLing in the extreme and without merit; if appealed >the deposit should be retained. I could question the ethics of any >non-novice who would dispute this appeal. > I am gobsmacked. If I made that claim, I'd *expect* the ruling to go against me. I'd have little time for a TD who didn't rule that way, even in a club game, and not much more for opponents who didn't both ask for and accept the penalty. Do we have a book of Laws which should be impartially applied or do we play some game which is related to but is not Contract Bridge? chs 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 Jul 31 12:03:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 12:03:34 +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 MAA25847 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 12:03:27 +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 11AOUY-000H3n-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:03:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 03:01:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dropped card In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > Another easy one for Jens. Sadly, Jens does not seem to be posting >here much now - I am sure he would enjoy this. > > You accidentally drop the HK during the auction. Eventually, you find >yourself on lead to 6S. And the ruling is? > The card is a major penalty card (Law 24 and Law 50). Declarer may ask the director to deem that it is not so. Law 24, use of the word "may" and the option give to the TD by Law 50, and declarers rights under L81C8. Seems straight forward. chs 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 Jul 31 12:16:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:50:32 +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 KAA25670 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:50:19 +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 11ANLj-0002Dm-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:50:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:16:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Handling of Claims - illustration References: <004601bedac1$de811f60$22b420cc@host> In-Reply-To: <004601bedac1$de811f60$22b420cc@host> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >No, Herman is right. The line breaks down when opponent showsout of trumps >as ace is led. It now becomes irrational to overtake. Even a declarer who >might somehow have neglected the 5-0 break possibility until now is surely >awakened to it by the surprising play by opponent. We want to encourage >claims...to penalise this one would be wrong. We do not want the claim >statement to always have to take in 1 or 2% possibilities that will clearly >be revealed early enough to amend the line sanely. This is akin to allowing >claimer a proven finesse even though none other would be allowed. To >question this claim is BLing in the extreme and without merit; if appealed >the deposit should be retained. I could question the ethics of any >non-novice who would dispute this appeal. I would dispute it. As I have explained fully elsewhere [and others have pointed out] there are two possibilities, not just the one you assume. For that reason [unless declarer said something to convice me] I would leave it to the Director. -- 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 Jul 31 12:18:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 12:18:23 +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 MAA25883 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 12:18:15 +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 11AOiq-000Cga-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:18:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 03:16:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L16A1 In-Reply-To: <199907302233.SAA11202@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199907302233.SAA11202@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >Here's the official ACBL position. I'm surprised. I'll refrain >(with difficulty) from commenting on the merits. > >I wrote to 'rulings@acbl.org': >> May clubs permit players to "reserve rights" under L16A1? The option >> in the law is given to the Sponsoring Organization, but the election >> by the ACBL Board of Directors refers to "At ACBL sanctioned >> events...." > >and got back: >> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:01:32 -0500 >> From: Gary Blaiss >> To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu >> Subject: L16A1 -Reply > >> The election by the ACBL Board of directors includes all ACBL >> sanctioned events; therefore, ACBL sanctioned club games are >> included. > Is not the club the SO in the States, or is that privilege removed by the granting of the licence to hold that game at that location at that time? Just curious. My view is that in the UK, the club is the SO and that they have applied for the rights to issue master-points. Under these circumstances there is a requirement to be governed by the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, but I'm not sure that there is a requirement to be governed by the Orange Book - which applies to EBU organised events and is, of course, adopted by any serious club. EBU Green Book "Master Point Book" 1.7.1 Master points are directly credited on to each eligible player's record by the EBU, based on information received from the Sponsoring Organisation this refers to sending a result sheet to the EBU for direct crediting (UK mostly still awards certificates) but the implication is that the SO is the club or county who ran the event. 1.8.3 A sponsoring Organisation, where authorised to do so by the EBU, may issue computerised master Point Certificates. The Young Chelsea does this, so they clearly are the SO here. chs 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 Jul 31 12:24:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:50:33 +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 KAA25671 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:50:19 +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 11ANLj-000CHo-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:50:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:14:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law v Regulation References: <199907302008.QAA11102@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907302008.QAA11102@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Adam Beneschan >> it's a common occurrence for one card in >> the bidding box to get stuck to the front of the one you're trying to >> pull out. > >As David points out, there's no practical difference between a call >being "made" and then corrected under L25A versus the call being >"not made." (I thought David once said there is a difference if the >first call was illegal, but I can't find any difference myself.) Until last September, the EBU rule was a call was made when it was placed on the table. We changed it to fall in line with the rest of the world, not because we consider the current regulation any better. Suppose last August, you took a 2H bid out of the box, realised that you meant to bid 2D, and changed it to 2D. Is that legal? Yes, in England because the call has not been made, so may be changed, and elsewhere because L25A allows a change. Suppose last August, you took a 2H bid out of the box, and then realised it was not your turn to call. What happened? In England you had made no call, so you put it back [subject to UI constraints]: in the rest of the world you have called out of turn and are subject to the relevant Law. People will sometimes complain that no-one has seen their call - that is not relevant, they must now put it down on the table and let it be dealt with. If you think that is unsatisfactory, then change the regulations as to when a call is made back to the old EBU 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 Jul 31 12:40:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 12:40:15 +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 MAA25962 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 12:40:06 +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 TAA26611; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:39:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199907310239.TAA26611@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Handling of Claims - illustration In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 31 Jul 1999 00:16:50 PDT." Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:39:26 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Craig Senior wrote: > >No, Herman is right. The line breaks down when opponent showsout of trumps > >as ace is led. It now becomes irrational to overtake. Even a declarer who > >might somehow have neglected the 5-0 break possibility until now is surely > >awakened to it by the surprising play by opponent. We want to encourage > >claims...to penalise this one would be wrong. We do not want the claim > >statement to always have to take in 1 or 2% possibilities that will clearly > >be revealed early enough to amend the line sanely. This is akin to allowing > >claimer a proven finesse even though none other would be allowed. To > >question this claim is BLing in the extreme and without merit; if appealed > >the deposit should be retained. I could question the ethics of any > >non-novice who would dispute this appeal. > > I would dispute it. > > As I have explained fully elsewhere [and others have pointed out] > there are two possibilities, not just the one you assume. For that > reason [unless declarer said something to convice me] I would leave it > to the Director. For what it's worth, I usually wouldn't dispute it, at least not if I think declarer is a reasonably experienced and intelligent player. I figure in that case, the chance that declarer was going to get it wrong and give me a trick is so minuscule that I don't feel a need to try to get the trick back by disputing the claim---I wouldn't feel like I had lost anything by acquiescing. Besides, there can be a cost to disputing a claim like this. First of all, you might create bad feeling among your opponents toward you (something I try not to do without good reason), no matter how polite you are in calling the director and asking for a ruling. Second, calling the TD takes time away from the game, and not calling him gives me extra time to spend on better things such as berating my partner in the post-mortem. Or even better, spending extra time planning the play on the next hand to make sure I don't mangle it like I usually do. I do agree, however, that this ruling can go either way and that one has to be at the table to rule it correctly. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 15:11:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA26494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:11:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26489 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:11:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.175] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11ARQD-000OTH-00; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:11:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001001bedb13$1440b880$af5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Dropped card Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:08:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan > You accidentally drop the HK during the auction. Eventually, you find >yourself on lead to 6S. And the ruling is? > ???? Obviously I am overlooking something. I take it the card was exposed? If so, the Director will offer declarer the option that the card be treated as a penalty card (and led). If the declarer does not want it as a penalty card the Director "designates otherwise" (Law 50 - a good example of the use of this provision) - and the card will still probably be led, freely chosen by its possessor. During the auction the non-offending side may manoeuvre the contract to have the player on lead, if say holding singleton Ace of the suit, or to have the partner on lead so that the lead of the suit may be forbidden. OK. What's wrong with this? Please say. ~ Grattan ~ ???? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 15:44:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA26620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:44:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26605 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:44:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.214] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11ARwH-000OlA-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:44:09 +0100 Message-ID: <005a01bedb17$b4f2e2e0$af5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Cat Diary Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:22:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 31 July 1999 01:50 Subject: Re: Cat Diary >> ------------------ \x/ ------------- > >>Or to offer another view, > ------------------ \x/ ------------ > >I did not react to your below the belt reaction yesterday, > ------------------ \x/ ----------- >Thank you, Craig, for pointing out that although I like cats, it is my lack >of humour that makes me agree with Henk. Next time, you may also try to >bring up our being Dutch, > ++++ Come on, fellers, let us leave it there, ~Grattan~++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 15:44:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA26622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:44:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26610 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:44:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.214] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11ARwG-000OlA-00; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:44:08 +0100 Message-ID: <005901bedb17$b44b0a20$af5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , Subject: Re: L16A1 Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:14:35 +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 To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 31 July 1999 01:29 Subject: Re: L16A1 > >How 'bout that. I guess I was correct for once. ......Koajk > + Except for the spelling of 'Kojak'.+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 15:44:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA26621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:44:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26606 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:44:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.214] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11ARwI-000OlA-00; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:44:10 +0100 Message-ID: <005b01bedb17$b59abba0$af5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Handling of Claims - illustration Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:41:39 +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 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: 31 July 1999 04:06 Subject: Re: Handling of Claims - illustration > >David Stevenson wrote: -------------- \x/ --------------- > >> Craig Senior wrote: >> >No, Herman is right. +++ Treasure this, Herman :-)) +++ >> I would dispute it. ------------------ \X/ -------------------- >> As I have explained fully elsewhere [and others have pointed out] >> there are two possibilities, not just the one you assume. For that >> reason [unless declarer said something to convice me] I would leave it >> to the Director. > > >I do agree, however, that this ruling can go either way and that one >has to be at the table to rule it correctly. > +++ Ah! a gift for Grattan. In other circles I am currently arguing the case that ACs should listen to people. Directors, for example. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 19:19:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:19:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26898 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:19:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp236-26.worldonline.nl [195.241.236.26]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA13519; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 11:19:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 11:21:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Subject: Re: Cat Diary >---------------- \x/ ----------- >> I explain that some members are not present, and go to the bar to get >>David Burn, thus losing two Dhondys > >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"No-one tests the depth of a river with >both feet." - from the Ashanti. >................................................................. I liked your diary, could have changed some of the names without making it less realistic. When mentioning your name, do you allow us to translate it and put it in our quarterly TD-magazine? Not sure yet it will happen, we need to find time to translate it. To Grattan: you shouldn't believe all those one-liners: never heard about that statistician? He crossed a river which average depth of one meter (3 feet for the ACBL) and drowned. About the drop of the K of hearts during the auction. It is not so difficult to read the laws but it is not so easy to make the ruling at the table. What does 'may treat every such card as a penaltycard' mean? I never have understood it, law 50 tells us it is a penaltycard! Trying to interpret the combination of 24 and 50 the Dutch B. federation has decided that it IS a penaltycard. If this is considered to be wrong the consequence is that the player may pick up his card if declarer does not want to treat it as a penaltycard. I have asked Kaplan this a long time ago and his answer was that in a friendly game using L24 declarer may wave the penalty, which I considered to be a strange, law-alien, possibility. Proposal for 2007: ...,every such card becomes a penalty card. ton From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 22:31:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:31:53 +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 WAA27114 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:31:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.81]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990731123248.QQWL25458.fep2@jd-private.internal> for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 14:32:48 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Cat Diary and Heart K Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 14:31:33 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37a5ec61.1594512@post12.tele.dk> References: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <005c01bedb36$085d4600$1aecf1c3@kooijman> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id WAA27115 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 11:21:03 +0200, "ton kooijman" wrote: >About the drop of the K of hearts during the auction. It is not so difficult >to read the laws but it is not so easy to make the ruling at the table. What >does 'may treat every such card as a penaltycard' mean? I never have >understood it, law 50 tells us it is a penaltycard! Trying to interpret the >combination of 24 and 50 the Dutch B. federation has decided that it IS a >penaltycard. That is the way I would interpret it too. I don't understand what it means to treat a card as a penalty card - a card either is or is not a penalty card. Of course the intention could be that declarer can choose whether the HK is a penalty card or not. IMO that does not make much sense: when can it ever be advantageous not to restrict an opponent's free choice of lead? The only possible reason I can see for not choosing to have it as a penalty card is covered adequately by L81C8. >If this is considered to be wrong the consequence is that the >player may pick up his card if declarer does not want to treat it as a >penaltycard. I have asked Kaplan this a long time ago and his answer was >that in a friendly game using L24 declarer may wave the penalty, which I >considered to be a strange, law-alien, possibility. I agree. If we really want that kind of friendly games we still have L81C8. Otherwise just about all automatic penalties should have a "may treat" wording: why should a revoke be penalized in a friendly game if this HK should not? > Proposal for 2007: >...,every such card becomes a penalty card. Yes, please. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 22:33:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:33:49 +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 WAA27131 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:33:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-40.uunet.be [194.7.146.40]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA14425 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 14:33:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A1CC05.8C67E78A@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:00:05 +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: Handling of Claims - illustration References: <37A1722E.A7E18125@village.uunet.be> <37ae9deb.5506371@mail.image.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: > > Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:36:46 +0200 skrev Herman De Wael: > > >4) the line breaks down immediately > > No. It works fine till trick 13. > > Your method means that TD must help the player avoid some traps. > I don't see how that can be fair. > Well, it is a clearly understood principle that a line breaks down when one opponent shows out. L70E. The Director shall not accept ... any unstated line ... unless an opponent ... would subsequently fail to (that) the suit (of that card) on any normal line of play. The line breaks down the instant one defender shows out, because it becomes clear that the line will not work. We have often determined that a claimer is deemed to notice a defender showing out. Claimer is allowed the benefit of the doubt of the worst of all normal lines once his original line(s) break(s) down. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 22:33:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:33:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27132 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:33:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-40.uunet.be [194.7.146.40]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA14429 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 14:33:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37A1CDEA.3B6F1F41@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:08:10 +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: Antwort: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk James.Vickers@merck.de wrote: > > > My one problem with allowing declarer to change his intended line of play > when it becomes clear that this is irrational is that you might thereby be > rescuing him from a bad score when he has simply miscounted trumps. The > possibility that declarer thinks that he will have drawn all the > outstanding trumps if he plays the ace, overtakes the ten and then takes > two more rounds from the top cannot be ruled out. When faced with a > theoretical problem on paper all bridge players can count up to thirteen, > but we all know that at the table in the heat of the tournament every now > and then even the best go wrong. > > You have to ask yourself, if declarer was aware that there were five trumps > outstanding, why did he not make allowances for this in his statement? > According to Law 70C if it was "at all likely that claimer at the time of > his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand" a trump > trick will be awarded to the opponents. > > Thus, I would rule that his statement as originally given should be > followed. This would be in accordance with the principle of ruling in > favour of the non-offending side in cases of doubt. It might also have the > added benefit of teaching the declarer in question to ensure his claims are > watertight in future; he has only himself to blame. > > James Vickers > Darmstadt, Germany Hello James, is this your first posting? Welcome to the list! One small point to begin with : you should try to avoid settings that include Antwort in your response. As you see, other people's mailers will not recognise this and add another Re: to the subject line. Now to your post. Your point is quite valid. Really. The director should in any case examine what led the claimer to claim, and why his claim turns out to be faulty. In a case such as this, there are indeed two possible reasons : - claimer miscounted trumps. - claimer forgot to allow for the 5-0 break. It is up to the Director to determine which of these two it is. Personally, I would rule that a person who claims in this situation has not miscounted trumps. After all, there are still 13 of them. This is probably a claim very early in the game. Now of course, if the Director rules that claimer has miscounted, he should rule against him. But if Director is however certain that claimer just failed to take account of the bad break, he must rule that claimer is allowed to rescue himself if all normal stated lines lead to him discovering the bad break before it is too late. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 23:42:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:42:35 +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 XAA27296 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:42:24 +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 11AZOs-000KKf-0A; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:42:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 14:40:54 +0100 To: David Kent Cc: James.Vickers@merck.de, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Antwort: Irrational(?) action in line statd with claim References: <3.0.6.32.19990730191414.007bb360@magi.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990730191414.007bb360@magi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.6.32.19990730191414.007bb360@magi.com>, David Kent writes >At 16:31 30-07-99 +0200, James.Vickers@merck.de wrote: > >>My one problem with allowing declarer to change his intended line of play >>when it becomes clear that this is irrational is that you might thereby be >>rescuing him from a bad score when he has simply miscounted trumps. The >>possibility that declarer thinks that he will have drawn all the >>outstanding trumps if he plays the ace, overtakes the ten and then takes >>two more rounds from the top cannot be ruled out. When faced with a >>theoretical problem on paper all bridge players can count up to thirteen, >>but we all know that at the table in the heat of the tournament every now >>and then even the best go wrong. >> >>You have to ask yourself, if declarer was aware that there were five trumps >>outstanding, why did he not make allowances for this in his statement? >>According to Law 70C if it was "at all likely that claimer at the time of >>his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand" a trump >>trick will be awarded to the opponents. >> >>Thus, I would rule that his statement as originally given should be >>followed. This would be in accordance with the principle of ruling in >>favour of the non-offending side in cases of doubt. It might also have the >>added benefit of teaching the declarer in question to ensure his claims are >>watertight in future; he has only himself to blame. >> > >As much as I hate to say "Me too.", I totally agree with this statement. > > >David Kent >david@magi.com > Where I was a TD recently a declarer claimed the remaining 5 tricks - with these trumps AK9xx opposite Q10xx The player over the AK held Jxxx and both declarer and dummy tried to assure me that it was never rational to cash the Q first - while of course this is true it is not rational to claim in this situation without mention of the safety play - and so I ruled 4 tricks not 5 This was not appealed In the same vein I guess I have awarded a trump against the claimer here mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 23:49:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:49:51 +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 XAA27314 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:49:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11AZVx-0008u9-0B; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:49:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 14:47:56 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Handling of Claims - illustration References: <199907310239.TAA26611@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199907310239.TAA26611@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199907310239.TAA26611@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Craig Senior wrote: >> >No, Herman is right. The line breaks down when opponent showsout of trumps >> >as ace is led. It now becomes irrational to overtake. Even a declarer who >> >might somehow have neglected the 5-0 break possibility until now is surely >> >awakened to it by the surprising play by opponent. We want to encourage >> >claims...to penalise this one would be wrong. We do not want the claim >> >statement to always have to take in 1 or 2% possibilities that will clearly >> >be revealed early enough to amend the line sanely. This is akin to allowing >> >claimer a proven finesse even though none other would be allowed. To >> >question this claim is BLing in the extreme and without merit; if appealed >> >the deposit should be retained. I could question the ethics of any >> >non-novice who would dispute this appeal. >> >> I would dispute it. >> >> As I have explained fully elsewhere [and others have pointed out] >> there are two possibilities, not just the one you assume. For that >> reason [unless declarer said something to convice me] I would leave it >> to the Director. > >For what it's worth, I usually wouldn't dispute it, at least not if I >think declarer is a reasonably experienced and intelligent player. I >figure in that case, the chance that declarer was going to get it >wrong and give me a trick is so minuscule that I don't feel a need to >try to get the trick back by disputing the claim---I wouldn't feel >like I had lost anything by acquiescing. Besides, there can be a cost >to disputing a claim like this. First of all, you might create bad >feeling among your opponents toward you (something I try not to do >without good reason), no matter how polite you are in calling the >director and asking for a ruling. Second, calling the TD takes time >away from the game, and not calling him gives me extra time to spend >on better things such as berating my partner in the post-mortem. Or >even better, spending extra time planning the play on the next hand to >make sure I don't mangle it like I usually do. > >I do agree, however, that this ruling can go either way and that one >has to be at the table to rule it correctly. > > -- Adam > I agree with this too - as a player I would not call the TD - nor think it remarkable that I had acquiesced in this claim mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 31 23:52:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:52:05 +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 XAA27328 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:51:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.77]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990731135304.QUOW25458.fep2@jd-private.internal> for ; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:53:04 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L16A1 Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:51:49 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37a8f6cf.4264471@post12.tele.dk> References: <199907292359.TAA10299@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199907292359.TAA10299@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 XAA27329 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:59:12 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >1. After North's slow double, EW reserve their rights. NS express no >objection. > >2. Nothing is done after North's slow double, but after South's pull, >EW reserve their rights. NS express no objection. > >3. No rights are reserved. I dislike the meaningless term "reserve their rights": it should be "establish agreement that UI was passed". In all three cases the question is whether I judge that there actually was a hesitation. In 1 & 2, that is easy: NS has admitted so. In 3, I may need to judge it. If there is disagreement, my judgment may be influenced by the fact that EW did not establish agreement about the hesitation earlier: in particular, if S is dummy, I would wonder why EW did not call me when dummy went down. >And if you had your choice, >which would you prefer to have the players do? I would prefer them to agree on whether there was a hesitation or not. And if they do agree, I don't care at what time they agree. This means that among ethical players, a pause that is so long that everybody must have noticed it is never a problem - because they will then agree. But if they do not agree, EW will have a better chance of getting me to rule UI if they establish the disagreement and call me early. If the hand (S's) that they believe violated L16A becomes dummy and they do not call me at that time, their case is significantly weakened. >For that matter, what about >4. as in 2, but this time NS object when EW reserve their rights, and >the TD is called immediately after South's bid? At that time, I will try to get what information I can about the slowness of the double. If I'm called back after the hand, I now have a better chance of getting the judgment right. Players do not (in Denmark) have a duty to do anything about their opponents' hesitations before the time when it becomes probable that there is an irregularity: i.e., when they see the hand. It is often easier if they establish agreement about the hesitation earlier, but some players do not like to accuse their opponents of comtemplating a L16A violation. Those players are still entitled to an adjustment if there actually was a breach of L16A which damaged them. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).