From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 00:42:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 00:42:45 +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 AAA21195 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 00:42:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id QAA05758; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:42:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JFFA1BCTXE000WA0@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:41:36 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:41:30 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:41:29 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: YC psyches (was: What happened?) To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C23C@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 This leads to the > situation where > > one of us responds 1S in a 2-card suit (holding 4H) to > partner's opening > > 1H and partner rebids 1NT on a 4243 hand having opened the > doubleton. > > Here both sides are just "at it" having both decided to > psyche on the > > same board. I adjust if there's damage and the players > just shrug. > > It's best to do this because the game is "seen to be" clean > if I do and > > there is no suggestion to anybody that anything is wrong. > > > > I've no doubt that there will be those who scream "Cheat" > and "Line 'em > > up against the wall" but the players who will be involved in these > > shenanegins all have impeccable ethics. Specifically they > *need* to have > > impeccable ethics otherwise I have a really serious problem with the > > legality of the YC game. It's a tough game to rule. > > > > Now really John, under which Laws do you explain this ruling > ? > > No regulations please, Laws. > > Misinformation? seems to me there is ample information all > round. Does this everlasting discussion bring us anywhere? Of course there is misinformation, unless the 1H is alerted and explained as doubleton plus 4 spades etc (I hope you understand what I mean). These players forgot to explain their system, which is an infraction. And a big one this time, worth a reasonable procedural penalty, if not a disciplinary one. In my first international ChiefTD-ship in EU-Ch in Valkenburg '87 exactly this happened on one of the first boards. Opener and his partner psyched in their first calls. I took a big sheet and wrote 'WE DO PSYCHE VERY OFTEN' and told them to show this as a supplementary sheet to their opponents at the start of each round. No problem anymore. No, I didn't need anymore proof of their habits. Yes, I would have adjusted the score if their opponents had been damaged by the lack of information. Yes, I would do exactly the same in a comparable situation and in my opinion each TD should do so. I don't agree with the suggestion of cheating Herman puts in it. Lack of disclosure of agreements most of the time is not cheating. Isn't cheating something you try to hide? They obviously didn't. ton > Unauthorised Information? you don't mention any, and I can > see the poker faces already. > > What then? > > Oh, I think I see : Concealed Partnership Understanding. > > But as we just said - there's nothing concealed about it ! > > System Regulations anybody? > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 01:20:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 01:20:41 +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 BAA21347 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 01:20:33 +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 IAA06470; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:19:53 -0700 Message-Id: <199908311519.IAA06470@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: unappealing psychic In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:07:52 PDT." Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:19:53 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >P.S. If I had *both* a 4=3=3=3 hand and weak spades, I probably > >wouldn't bid 1S even without the takeout double . . . > > xxxx AKQx > Jxx xx > Kxx Qx > Kxx AQJTx Sigh . . . okay, if I had a 4=3=3=3 hand and weak spades, and partner made a bid that by agreement shows AKQx xx Qx AQJTx, then I *would* bid 1S. What's the point of showing *one* hand on which a particular action doesn't work? Any time there's two or more possible calls in an auction, you can always construct at least one hand in which each of those calls will fail spectacularly. Show me a simulation of several hundred hands that shows that my action fails significantly more often than 1S fails, and then I might be persuaded. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 04:32:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 04:32:26 +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 EAA22512 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 04:32:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa0s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.161] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11LshN-0007c2-00; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:32:02 +0100 Message-ID: <006201bef3df$1d119260$a18193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Development Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:31:00 +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 Date: 31 August 1999 13:06 Subject: Re: unappealing psychic >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> > >I have nothing whatsoever against using a single occurrence >as "compelling evidence" (I've been told not to use the word >proof) for something. But that something MUST be illegal to >start with. > +=+ Now we are getting somewhere. All that remains to be done is to remind you that a bid which is the subject of an understanding that may not be apparent to opponents is an illegal bid per Law 40B, whether it shows 27 HCP or 0 HCP, if its meaning is not disclosed to opponents in the manner prescribed by the sponsoring organisation. Since the laws say it may not be made the Director has the power to cancel it and any result that has been obtained following its use. That would lead to a 12C1 adjustment, so I consider it wholly apparent that anything less than 60% for the innocent side in such circumstances is 'damage'. I have no objection to the use of 'proof' in the sense that, in the opinion of the Director or as it may be the AC, it is compelling evidence. Might save a keystroke or two unless David adds CE to the abbreviations. ~G~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 04:32:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 04:32:26 +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 EAA22513 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 04:32:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa0s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.161] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11LshQ-0007c2-00; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:32:04 +0100 Message-ID: <006401bef3df$1e9b3fa0$a18193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Coincidence in Evidence Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:40:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 31 August 1999 08:01 Subject: Re: What happened? >Adam Beneschan wrote, regarding the RoC/PoC: --------------- \x/ ---------------: > >> Marvin then wrote: >The "rule" was blasted by Edgar Kaplan in *The Bridge World*, November 1993. >-------------- \x/ ----------------- >Kaplan's remarks are too extended for this typist, but he started out with >saying of the "Rule of Coincidence" that "there ain't no such animal." He >followed a long tirade against the RoC by noting that there was no >disciplinary action taken against the OS, "so they could not have been >suspected of collusion, cheating. Well, if there was no collusion there was no >infraction of Law (only an infraction of the imaginary Rule of Coincidence), >so how could there be a score adjustment?" > +=+ Hmm. Ve-e-ery intere-essting! It was Edgar who first expounded the Principle to me. In committee, WBF LC or AC, he loyally supported its evidence as occasion served. I guess the mix of lawyer and journalist must be the devil's brew . ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 04:32:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 04:32:23 +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 EAA22511 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 04:32:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa0s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.161] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11LshP-0007c2-00; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:32:03 +0100 Message-ID: <006301bef3df$1de29e00$a18193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Ed Reppert" Subject: Decision time. Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:26:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 31 August 1999 08:12 Subject: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >David Stevenson writes: > >>However, fielding provides evidence of an illegal bid. > >Um. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that making a call which _appears_ >to field a psyche provides evidence the call _may_ be illegal (because it >is made on the basis of a concealed, albeit implicit, understanding)? > +=+ Er, no. It is for the Director to judge whether the action constitutes 'fielding'. If he determines it is so, then the fielding is evidence of a probable understanding; whether the evidence is conclusive to the mind of the Director is again for him to decide. At each stage the Director is to make a decision. Either or both decisions may be appealed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 05:59:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA23041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 05:59:37 +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 FAA23036 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 05:59:29 +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 PAA20399; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:55:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990831155218.007a3920@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:52:18 -0400 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience In-Reply-To: <199908311352.JAA07749@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [posted and e-mailed] >> From: Tim Goodwin >> One hand up. The other is is protesting any quantification. > >I don't think I agree. A strong meaning for a multi-2D probably occurs >less than one time in ten for most pairs, but is there any doubt it is >subject to systemic regulations? (Most authorities choose not to >regulate the strong meanings, but is there any doubt that they could if >they wanted to?) If the strong variety came up once in 1000 2D openings, it would be subject to regulation, because it is an agreement and there are presumably systemic methods to uncover the strong variety. No such agreement and control are present with a psyche. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 06:18:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA23149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 06:18:13 +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 GAA23144 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 06:18:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA00335; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:17:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-198.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.198) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma000271; Tue Aug 31 15:17:00 1999 Message-ID: <008301bef3ee$915538c0$c684d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:22:34 -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 >Herman De Wael wrote: >> If the psychic meaning occurs, say, less than once in ten, >> and there are no systemic controls, then a psyche is a >> psyche, and can not be subject to systemic regulations. >> >> Hands up who agrees with this statement ! >> -- >Both hands up! > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Add another hand. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 06:29:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA23192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 06:29:53 +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 GAA23187 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 06:29:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegm6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.198]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA06141 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:29:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990831162724.01277d9c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:27:24 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Third party effects. In-Reply-To: <001401bef388$921e1760$535108c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:07 AM 8/31/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I infer it from 40E1. As to the >remainder of what you say, you will >find it frustrating that national and >international authorities ignore your >views. Oh, hardly. My national authority, for one, tends to ignore the Laws when it suits their purpose. I have zero expectation that views which require rigorous adherence to the rule of law would receive a very sympathetic ear from organizations which have a much greater orientation toward politics and marketing. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 07:00:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA23364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 07:00:00 +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 GAA23359 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 06:59:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA06662; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:59:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-198.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.198) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006619; Tue Aug 31 15:58:40 1999 Message-ID: <00b801bef3f4$6392fde0$c684d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:04:15 -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, can we not admit that in this example at least, the RoC is really a euphemism for "we think you 2 are probably operating but we don't want a lawsuit" ? Applied blindly it is bad, used as evidence it can be a good technique. In a case involving experienced players it would take a lot of admittedly self serving testimony from the pair involved to persuade me against an adjustment. If responder had most often played a weak NT, forgot and misbid that could be an argument. The six convention cards in her purse showing a 12-14 range with her other partners could also be evidence. But if this is an established and experienced partnership something does smell rotten. That's what RoC was, I think, intended for...to give you a polite non-accusatory way to adjust when the stench was there but you did not have enough to go to a C&E hearing. As others have mentioned, the principle has been misapplied by ill trained directors...but that has been an ACBL-wide problem not confined to this area. (I refer especially to qualified and certified directors at club level...many of the folks at NABC's and larger regionals seem to know better.) Craig >At 03:02 AM 8/30/99 +0100, David wrote: > >> When we decide on the classification of a psyche we certainly use >>input from the players: there is a particular box on the form for the >>players. So, assuming we are using input from the players as part of >>our decision-making process, is there anything wrong with us using the >>RoC or PoC? > >Let's use the ACBL's example. Partner opens 1NT, announced as 15-17, and >you choose to bid 2NT with a balanced 10-count. > >If your action was based entirely on your exercising your judgment, it is >legal. > >If your action was based (wholly or in part) on a CPU (the knowledge that >partner may well have less than 15 HCP for his opening 1NT bid), it is >illegal. > >Your action is either legal or illegal, depending on what you based it on. >Therefore, a TD or AC who must decide whether it is legal or illegal must >make a judgment as to the the basis for your action. > >The RoC says that the TD/AC need not make such a judgment. Instead, they >make their determination as to the legality of your action based on what >partner happens to hold for his 1NT bid. I find nothing in the laws which >permits them to do this. > >It seems to me that if your action is legal (or illegal) when partner >happens to hold a 17-count, it must be equally legal (or illegal) when >partner happens to hold a 14-1/2-count, and vice versa. In any case, it is >either legal or illegal, regardless of what partner holds. The RoC says >otherwise. > > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 08:26:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:26:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA23745 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:26:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11LwLf-0007m7-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:25:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:25:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Misinformation from an English Club MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B4/W/All 10982 W N E S Q10 1D P 1H 2C J54 P 3C 4C* P/5C AQ4 9732 KJ53 P P X AP 65 AKJ8 K109873 AQ6 K10 Q5 76 97432 2 AJ864 After South had passed the 4C bid, West asked whether she should have alerted it and explained it was "Blackwood" asking for aces. Given this information, South took back his pass and replaced it with a bid of 5C, which went round to East who doubled. 5CX went 4 down for -1100 NS. After the play South enquired from East what the 4C bid meant and was told it was a general force, ideally asking his partner if she had a club control so that he could bid the slam. South claims that he has been damaged by the misinformation as he would not have bid over a general force (he had already passed 4C, which although not alerted could hardly be natural and appeared to be either a general force, cue bid or splinter to him). He argues that this is a purely destructive auction by NS so far in which they are trying to attack the information content - he does not want EW to be able to exchange Blackwood type info to enable them to decide whether to bid the slam, but was quite happy to leave them to their own devices over a 4C general force. South argues that if he passes then West is likely to bid 4H intending it to show one ace, although East should interpret it as secondary heart support as the explanation that West gave is unauthorised information to him. Given East's situation he still does not know whether the slam is off two top club tricks and even if West would take a 4NT bid as Blackwood here, he cannot find out about the KC below slam level. South argues that he is entitled to the most favourable result. He claims that logical alternative contracts for EW include 4H, 5D, 6D and 6H. He does not believe that EW should be allowed to bid the making D slam when there are several other alternative contracts, some of which fail e.g. 6H. NS are both county standard players. E is a club player. W is a weak club player. All conventional calls are alertable in England. How do you rule? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 09:14:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:14:22 +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 JAA23968 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:14:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-196-67.s67.tnt5.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.196.67]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA07791 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <013401bef406$14914b40$43c47ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com> <006401bef105$a76e3260$f8e6a4d8@hdavis> <064001bef1e2$968a46e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <4IYFmRAO9Uy3EwT0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <069301bef287$139e49c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <37CA241D.5D6CFE57@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:10:53 -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 R. Mayne Cc: Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 2:26 AM Subject: Re: What happened? > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > Let me take this a little further. I am basically answering a > > criticism that we use something similar to the RoC or PoC over here. > > What I am asking is if there is anything wrong with the Rule or > > Principle *if* used correctly. > > I can't find it, but somewhere you talked about using the rule as > evidence, rather than as dispositive. If so, we agree. > Exactly. The PoC provides a good starting point for investigation of a Law 40 violation. > > > > When we decide on the classification of a psyche we certainly use > > input from the players: there is a particular box on the form for the > > players. So, assuming we are using input from the players as part of > > our decision-making process, is there anything wrong with us using the > > RoC or PoC? > > If it's dispositive, yes. The rule of coincidence should be *evidence* > but not conclusive evidence. That interpretation is something that, as I > understand it, the ACBL intended from the start on the RoC. > The problem is that the "coincidence" is being treated as the infraction, be it the PoC or a "Red Psyche". It's not. Illegal calls are an infraction. Failure to fully disclose is an infraction. A partnership that makes odd calls that appear to compensate for each other is not in and of itself illegal, unless there is an underlying infraction. The real danger of the PoC is that it allows a TD to take the lazy way out: adjust on the basis of the coincidence alone, and not determine whether or not there was really an infraction of Law. Genuine coincidence happens in bridge. If the calls were legal and full disclosure was practiced, what grounds do we have for adjustment? In some cases, we may never really know for sure, and have to take our best guess. The PoC will certainly be part of that judgement. But IMO it is an abdication of a TD's responsibilities to rule based on this principle alone, instead of a full investigation and determination of the actual infraction based on all available evidence. It's convenient to be able to adjust for a CPU without having to make a finding of a CPU. But IMO there is no basis for this kind of ruling in law. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 10:08:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:08:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24215 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:07:58 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id RAA08588; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA24377; 31 Aug 99 17:04:16 -0700 Date: 31 Aug 99 17:02:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199908311704.AA24377@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Misinformation from an English Club Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Unfortunately, I'd have to leave N/S with their good score. But I think I'd keep their deposit, county players or no. If this description of the intent is allowed, we are back in the situation that Kaplan described and deprecated so many years ago -- hesitiations that 'just happen' to occur when they may do the most damage to opponents, and actions such as 5C on this hand that lend themselves to double shots. Although I have no proof^Wcompelling evidence of dissimulation on the part of the S player, I find it hard to credit any other description of his appeal. If he is *still* screaming about the injustice of it all, I might be persuaded (for the forfeit of an additional deposit? No, I guess that's too much to expect) to adjust to 50% of 720 + 50% of 1470. Rounded *up*, of course. Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} [posted and e-mailed] ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- SENT 08-31-99 FROM SMTPGATE (bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk) B4/W/All 10982 W N E S Q10 1D P 1H 2C J54 P 3C 4C* P/5C AQ4 9732 KJ53 P P X AP 65 AKJ8 K109873 AQ6 K10 Q5 76 97432 2 AJ864 After South had passed the 4C bid, West asked whether she should have alerted it and explained it was "Blackwood" asking for aces. Given this information, South took back his pass and replaced it with a bid of 5C, which went round to East who doubled. 5CX went 4 down for -1100 NS. After the play South enquired from East what the 4C bid meant and was told it was a general force, ideally asking his partner if she had a club control so that he could bid the slam. South claims that he has been damaged by the misinformation as he would not have bid over a general force (he had already passed 4C, which although not alerted could hardly be natural and appeared to be either a general force, cue bid or splinter to him). He argues that this is a purely destructive auction by NS so far in which they are trying to attack the information content - he does not want EW to be able to exchange Blackwood type info to enable them to decide whether to bid the slam, but was quite happy to leave them to their own devices over a 4C general force. South argues that if he passes then West is likely to bid 4H intending it to show one ace, although East should interpret it as secondary heart support as the explanation that West gave is unauthorised information to him. Given East's situation he still does not know whether the slam is off two top club tricks and even if West would take a 4NT bid as Blackwood here, he cannot find out about the KC below slam level. South argues that he is entitled to the most favourable result. He claims that logical alternative contracts for EW include 4H, 5D, 6D and 6H. He does not believe that EW should be allowed to bid the making D slam when there are several other alternative contracts, some of which fail e.g. 6H. NS are both county standard players. E is a club player. W is a weak club player. All conventional calls are alertable in England. How do you rule? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 10:42:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:42:35 +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 KAA24275 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:42:26 +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 RAA16873; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:41:46 -0700 Message-Id: <199909010041.RAA16873@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:25:14 PDT." Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:41:47 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > B4/W/All 10982 W N E S > Q10 1D P 1H 2C > J54 P 3C 4C* P/5C > AQ4 9732 KJ53 P P X AP > 65 AKJ8 > K109873 AQ6 > K10 Q5 > 76 > 97432 > 2 > AJ864 > > After South had passed the 4C bid, West asked whether she should have > alerted it and explained it was "Blackwood" asking for aces. Given this > information, South took back his pass and replaced it with a bid of 5C, > which went round to East who doubled. > > 5CX went 4 down for -1100 NS. > > After the play South enquired from East what the 4C bid meant and was > told it was a general force, ideally asking his partner if she had a > club control so that he could bid the slam. > > South claims that he has been damaged by the misinformation as he would > not have bid over a general force (he had already passed 4C, which > although not alerted could hardly be natural and appeared to be either a > general force, cue bid or splinter to him). He argues that this is a > purely destructive auction by NS so far in which they are trying to > attack the information content - he does not want EW to be able to > exchange Blackwood type info to enable them to decide whether to bid the > slam, but was quite happy to leave them to their own devices over a 4C > general force. > > South argues that if he passes then West is likely to bid 4H intending > it to show one ace, although East should interpret it as secondary heart > support as the explanation that West gave is unauthorised information to > him. Given East's situation he still does not know whether the slam is > off two top club tricks and even if West would take a 4NT bid as > Blackwood here, he cannot find out about the KC below slam level. One missing piece of information: Did West's first pass deny 3-card heart support? (It would for many pairs here in the U.S.) > South argues that he is entitled to the most favourable result. He > claims that logical alternative contracts for EW include 4H, 5D, 6D and > 6H. South must not be a very good player if he left notrump and spade contracts off the list. (I don't know what "county standard" means.) > He does not believe that EW should be allowed to bid the making D > slam when there are several other alternative contracts, some of which > fail e.g. 6H. > > NS are both county standard players. > E is a club player. > W is a weak club player. > All conventional calls are alertable in England. > > How do you rule? My first impression is that South is like the man who bought a winning ticket in an $80 million lottery, and complained because he had to split the prize money with another fellow who also bought a winning ticket and thus came out $40 million poorer than he would have otherwise. (I wish I had his problems.) South started out with a bid that said "Please give me -800", but got lucky that his partner had some clubs. Then he followed up this dangerous bid with another dangerous bid and got doubly lucky---lucky that it talked the opponents out of their cold slam, and lucky that partner didn't have a defensive trick that would have resulted in -800 or worse against no slam. Plus he got lucky not to go down -1400 like he deserved (two hearts, West overruffs dummy twice in hearts, two spades and a diamond). So South got lucky four times, and he's still complaining about his score. OK, so assuming I have to rule based on the Laws and not my personal lack of sympathy. The main questions are: (1) What was E-W's actual agreement about 4C? (2) If there was MI, were N-S damaged by the MI? (3) Was South's 5C a double shot based on the suspicion that he might have been given MI? I can't answer (1) or (3) without being there. Assuming that there was MI and that 5C wasn't a double shot (or an "egregious error" in some jurisdictions), the ruling turns on whether there was damage. Unfortunately, the Laws don't define "damage." One definition is that if the infraction deprives you of a reasonable opportunity to get a better score than you actually did, you were damaged. It does seem that if South hadn't gotten the MI, he would have passed, and the auction might have progressed differently and may have led to an inferior contract. On the other hand, in this case, the only way South could have gotten a better score is if E-W had the same misunderstanding they were having but West in addition violated EBU regulations by not alerting the 4C call she thought to be conventional. This really isn't something that could have happened in real life---or, at least, the chance was really tiny. This kind of reminds me of a BLML discussion from a couple months ago involving a revoke, where I argued that the only way the NO could get an extra trick is if the offender had revoked and not revoked at the same time, and that was impossible, therefore there was no damage. Here, the only way the NO could do any better is if the opponents had a misunderstanding and explained everything correctly---virtually the same kind of contradiction. So I'm going to rule "no damage" and no adjustment, but I realize I'm splitting hairs and I expect others to disagree. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 10:52:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:52:31 +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 KAA24319 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:52:22 +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 RAA17010; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:51:41 -0700 Message-Id: <199909010051.RAA17010@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:41:47 PDT." <199909010041.RAA16873@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:51:42 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > B4/W/All 10982 W N E S > > Q10 1D P 1H 2C > > J54 P 3C 4C* P/5C > > AQ4 9732 KJ53 P P X AP > > 65 AKJ8 > > K109873 AQ6 > > K10 Q5 > > 76 > > 97432 > > 2 > > AJ864 > . . . Plus he got lucky not to go down -1400 like he deserved (two > hearts, West overruffs dummy twice in hearts, two spades and a > diamond). Oops, make that -1700. South can't pick up the club queen. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 15:20:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA25104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 15:20:19 +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 PAA25082 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 15:19:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.101] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11M2o5-0001cf-00; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 06:19:37 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01bef439$94327300$655208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Show me the authority for your action. Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 01:47:46 +0100 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 August 1999 05:32 Subject: Re: Third party effects. ------------- \x/ --------------- >>What I resist totally is the false >>suggestion that is sometimes bandied around >>here, that absence of a prohibition is >>authorisation. 'Authorising' is a positive >>action. > >It is unrealistic to expect the Laws to cover every exigency, +=+ We are discussing whether they contain authorization for everything that a player properly uses to make his decisions. The intention of the lawmakers was that they should, and the lawmakers believe they do, whether explicitly or by implication.+=+ >so >"meta-rules" like this can be useful. But while I am prepared to concede >the semantic point that "Authorizing is a positive action", +=+ I observe at times how people who do not like what the law actually says turn to 'semantics' for a stick to beat it with. ["Semantics" : The branch of linguistics that deals with meaning. "Authorize" : make legally valid, give formal approval to. "Unauthorized" : not authorized.] +=+ >I am not >willing to concede that only those factors which are specifically >authorized can be the basis for legal decision-making. Mostly, the >"authorization" for the use of the types of information I have listed >derives neither from explicit legal language nor even from any legitimate >inferential exercise. It derives rather from our shared understanding and >experience at the bridge table. We don't need Laws to "allow" us to base >our bids on our judgements concerning the opponents, for example; such >judgements are intrinsic to our experience of the game. > +=+ *Information* that may be used is explicitly or implicitly authorized in the laws. Use of judgement is implicitly authorized. Your confusion of matters where you act on your judgement with matters where you act on information is smoke in your eyes. 'Factors' is a beautiful fudge. But the fact remains that authorization is the result of action, not of inaction, by the lawgiver or regulator, and failure to prohibit is not to authorize. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 16:32:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA27989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:32:13 +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 QAA27979 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:31:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA29803 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003f01bef435$f7a0b0e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <006401bef3df$1e9b3fa0$a18193c3@pacific> Subject: Re: Coincidence in Evidence Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:45:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: Marvin L. French <> > > >Adam Beneschan wrote, regarding the RoC/PoC: > --------------- \x/ ---------------: > > > >> Marvin then wrote: > >The "rule" was blasted by Edgar Kaplan in *The Bridge World*, November 1993. > >-------------- \x/ ----------------- > >Kaplan's remarks are too extended for this typist, but he started out with > >saying of the "Rule of Coincidence" that "there ain't no such animal." He > >followed a long tirade against the RoC by noting that there was no > >disciplinary action taken against the OS, "so they could not have been > >suspected of collusion, cheating. Well, if there was no collusion there was no > >infraction of Law (only an infraction of the imaginary Rule of Coincidence), > >so how could there be a score adjustment?" > > > +=+ Hmm. Ve-e-ery intere-essting! It was Edgar > who first expounded the Principle to me. In > committee, WBF LC or AC, he loyally supported > its evidence as occasion served. I guess the > mix of lawyer and journalist must be the devil's > brew . ~ G ~ +=+ > Could it be that Edgar supported the Principle when a coincidence involved strong players who don't make stupid bids, but not otherwise? "Knowing" that a pair is up to something, but unable to prove it, could very well make one cast about for some "principle" to handle the situation. Do you remember the sort of players who were involved? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 19:50:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA28533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 19:50:27 +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 TAA28523 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 19:50:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-211.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.211]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA08891 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 11:50:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CBF555.F0D27EC2@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:31:33 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <199908311352.JAA07749@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry Steve, but this is simply not true ... Steve Willner wrote: > > > If there's a quantitative test at all, surely it has to be related to > the fraction of times a player holding the given hand will take the > action in question. If it is "always," and that is known to both > partners, then it's part of their system. The K-S "controlled psych" > comes to mind; it wasn't a psych at all, in spite of the common name. > When holding the appropriate hand (and non-vul IIRC), the player would > always open 1M. That is system, not psyching. If, on the other hand, a > player were to open 1M with only, say, 10% of suitable hands, one could > reasonably argue that those are psychs. (One would have a very strong > case indeed the _first_ time it happened, but after that, reasonable > people would undoubtedly disagree.) Which is the worst : - a player who always opens on 0HCP or - a player who opens once in ten on 0-3HCP ? I believe the latter is worse. Yet by your definition, the second is a genuine psyche, the first is not. My criterium is the frequency of the psyched meaning versus the "real" one. The first hand will come up once every ten thousand, so the psyched meaning will occur 0.01% of every opening. The second hand will come up once every 500, so even if the player only psyches in this way once every ten times, his psyching frequency is still 0.02%. (all figures just to prove a point, not correctly calculated - but you do see my point). Your argument that my definition would fail to catch "multi" is also invalid. The frequency is only one part of my definition. Another, very important part is the catering. When a multi opener answers anything else than 2Sp over the almost-always 2He, his partnership clearly reveal that they have more understanding. Besides, my definition of "psyche" is used in two areas. It does not exclude a possibility of a ruling based on misinformation, while it is (IMO) excluded from rulings about system regulation. Neither of these is applicable to the "Multi" question. To reiterate, my definition of a "genuine psyche" has three elements: - a gross misstatement - of low frequency, compared to the "real" meaning of the bid - without any systemic catering by partner Under those conditions, it is my opinion that a "genuine psyche" can be included in partnership experience, and should therefor be disclosed to opponents (in any appropriate manner), but will not be part of partnership agreement, and can therefore not be ruled illegal by any regulation that limits system use. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 19:50:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA28534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 19:50:28 +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 TAA28524 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 19:50:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-211.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.211]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA08903 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 11:50:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CBF6C4.5AA64E60@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:37:40 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C23C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > Does this everlasting discussion bring us anywhere? Of course there is > misinformation, unless the 1H is alerted and explained as doubleton plus 4 > spades etc (I hope you understand what I mean). These players forgot to > explain their system, which is an infraction. And a big one this time, worth > a reasonable procedural penalty, if not a disciplinary one. In my first > international ChiefTD-ship in EU-Ch in Valkenburg '87 exactly this happened > on one of the first boards. Opener and his partner psyched in their first > calls. I took a big sheet and wrote 'WE DO PSYCHE VERY OFTEN' and told them > to show this as a supplementary sheet to their opponents at the start of > each round. No problem anymore. No, I didn't need anymore proof of their > habits. > Yes, I would have adjusted the score if their opponents had been damaged by > the lack of information. > Yes, I would do exactly the same in a comparable situation and in my opinion > each TD should do so. I don't agree with the suggestion of cheating Herman > puts in it. Lack of disclosure of agreements most of the time is not > cheating. Isn't cheating something you try to hide? They obviously didn't. > I don't put a suggestion of cheating in there. I'm suggesting the EBU and ACBL do ! I agree with evrything that Ton is saying (of course). But unless I have read a few things very misatkenly, that only means that Ton also disagrees with the YC psyche ruling. There was misinformation (or perhaps not even that) but no damage. There was no unauthorised information. I don't believe they ruled illegal system. Then why was there an adjusted score at the Young Chelsea ? > ton > > > Unauthorised Information? you don't mention any, and I can > > see the poker faces already. > > > > What then? > > > > Oh, I think I see : Concealed Partnership Understanding. > > > > But as we just said - there's nothing concealed about it ! > > > > System Regulations anybody? > > -- > > 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 Wed Sep 1 20:30:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 20:30:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28609 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 20:30:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <3025-18702>; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 12:30:25 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA02995 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 11:19:51 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Misinformation from an English Club Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 11:32:38 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3AE@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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883758915E@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> B4/W/All 10982 W N E S >> Q10 1D P 1H 2C >> J54 P 3C 4C* P/5C >> AQ4 9732 KJ53 P P X AP >> 65 AKJ8 >> K109873 AQ6 >> K10 Q5 >> 76 >> 97432 >> 2 >> AJ864 >> >> After South had passed the 4C bid, West asked whether she should have >> alerted it and explained it was "Blackwood" asking for aces. Given this >> information, South took back his pass and replaced it with a bid of 5C, >> which went round to East who doubled. >> >> 5CX went 4 down for -1100 NS. >> >> After the play South enquired from East what the 4C bid meant and was >> told it was a general force, ideally asking his partner if she had a >> club control so that he could bid the slam. >> >> South claims that he has been damaged by the misinformation as he would >> not have bid over a general force (he had already passed 4C, which >> although not alerted could hardly be natural and appeared to be either a >> general force, cue bid or splinter to him). He argues that this is a >> purely destructive auction by NS so far in which they are trying to >> attack the information content - he does not want EW to be able to >> exchange Blackwood type info to enable them to decide whether to bid the >> slam, but was quite happy to leave them to their own devices over a 4C >> general force. >> >> South argues that if he passes then West is likely to bid 4H intending >> it to show one ace, although East should interpret it as secondary heart >> support as the explanation that West gave is unauthorised information to >> him. Given East's situation he still does not know whether the slam is >> off two top club tricks and even if West would take a 4NT bid as >> Blackwood here, he cannot find out about the KC below slam level. >> South argues that he is entitled to the most favourable result. He >> claims that logical alternative contracts for EW include 4H, 5D, 6D and >> 6H. >> He does not believe that EW should be allowed to bid the making D >> slam when there are several other alternative contracts, some of which >> fail e.g. 6H. >> >> NS are both county standard players. >> E is a club player. >> W is a weak club player. >> All conventional calls are alertable in England. >> >> How do you rule? > >My first impression is that South is like the man who bought a winning >ticket in an $80 million lottery, and complained because he had to >split the prize money with another fellow who also bought a winning >ticket and thus came out $40 million poorer than he would have >otherwise. (I wish I had his problems.) South started out with a bid >that said "Please give me -800", but got lucky that his partner had >some clubs. Then he followed up this dangerous bid with another >dangerous bid and got doubly lucky---lucky that it talked the >opponents out of their cold slam, and lucky that partner didn't have a >defensive trick that would have resulted in -800 or worse against no >slam. Plus he got lucky not to go down -1400 like he deserved (two >hearts, West overruffs dummy twice in hearts, two spades and a >diamond). So South got lucky four times, and he's still complaining >about his score. This is a player who probably gets his good score in the next deal. By that time, the opponents are probably very intimidated and don't play a card correctly anymore. So it's a man who invested his $40 million winnings into a $200 million lottery which he is fairly sure to win. This is also the kind of player I would like to ban from a tournament; they are taking all the fun out of bridge for others. >OK, so assuming I have to rule based on the Laws and not my personal >lack of sympathy. The main questions are: (1) What was E-W's actual >agreement about 4C? (2) If there was MI, were N-S damaged by the MI? >(3) Was South's 5C a double shot based on the suspicion that he might >have been given MI? I can't answer (1) or (3) without being there. >Assuming that there was MI and that 5C wasn't a double shot (or an >"egregious error" in some jurisdictions), the ruling turns on whether >there was damage. Unfortunately, the Laws don't define "damage." One >definition is that if the infraction deprives you of a reasonable >opportunity to get a better score than you actually did, you were >damaged. It does seem that if South hadn't gotten the MI, he would >have passed, and the auction might have progressed differently and may >have led to an inferior contract. Why would South pass on a general forcing and bid on a Blackwood? When players ask for aces, they usually know what denomination they are playing. A general forcing shows that they don't know that. That's a much better argument to disturb the bidding. >On the other hand, in this case, the only way South could have gotten >a better score is if E-W had the same misunderstanding they were >having but West in addition violated EBU regulations by not alerting >the 4C call she thought to be conventional. This really isn't >something that could have happened in real life---or, at least, the >chance was really tiny. This kind of reminds me of a BLML discussion >from a couple months ago involving a revoke, where I argued that the >only way the NO could get an extra trick is if the offender had >revoked and not revoked at the same time, and that was impossible, >therefore there was no damage. Here, the only way the NO could do any >better is if the opponents had a misunderstanding and explained >everything correctly---virtually the same kind of contradiction. I agree. South demands that West gives the correct information (4C is general forcing), yet bids as if she explained wrongly (4C is Blackwood). That is, as Spock would call it, "most illogical". >So I'm going to rule "no damage" and no adjustment, but I realize I'm >splitting hairs and I expect others to disagree. > > -- Adam As you see, I agree with you. In Dutch we would call it "eten van twee walletjes" (roughly translated as: getting the best from two sides): South tries something (probably silly); if it succeeds, all is well, and if it fails, TD will adjust the score. The stupid thing is that this South player not even realized that he already had his good score. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 20:55:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 20:55:49 +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 UAA28635 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 20:55:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-42.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.42]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA16989 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 12:55:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CCFD15.BC58CA71@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 12:16:53 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Development References: <006201bef3df$1d119260$a18193c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > +=+ Now we are getting somewhere. All that remains > to be done is to remind you that a bid which is the subject > of an understanding that may not be apparent to opponents > is an illegal bid per Law 40B, whether it shows 27 HCP or > 0 HCP, if its meaning is not disclosed to opponents in the > manner prescribed by the sponsoring organisation. OK, we really are getting somewhere. I will admit that it is illegal to use concealed partnership undertandings. That it may well be possible to award an adjusted score for that reason alone. I find the practice very horrible, and an adjusted score seems too small a punishment. 3 months suspension seems about right to me. I do not admit that it is possible for a SO to make a regulation which defines CPU any stricter that is intended in the Laws, and orders a TD to award an artificial adjusted score on the basis of scant evidence. Concealed partnership understanding, the way I interpret the term and the words of L40A and B, and L73E, is a highly unethical type of behaviour. > Since > the laws say it may not be made the Director has the power > to cancel it and any result that has been obtained following > its use. That would lead to a 12C1 adjustment, so I consider > it wholly apparent that anything less than 60% for the > innocent side in such circumstances is 'damage'. There is only a small step from there to a regulation which says that any failure to alert will result in an artificial adjusted score. OK, let's leave it there. I consider this a wrong type of regulation. It may or may not be illegal. I believe it is, but I am in no way concerned. > I have no objection to the use of 'proof' in the sense > that, in the opinion of the Director or as it may be the AC, > it is compelling evidence. Might save a keystroke or two > unless David adds CE to the abbreviations. ~G~ +=+ Exactly the meaning I intended. Bowing to David though, I will use compelling evidence in future, but if somewhere a "proof" slips through, please understand I mean CE. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 21:18:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 21:18:54 +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 VAA28722 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 21:18:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA24040; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 12:18:13 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA11518; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 12:17:11 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 01 Sep 1999 11:17:11 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA15087; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 12:17:09 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA00681; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 12:16:54 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 12:16:54 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909011116.MAA00681@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > But unless I have read a few things very misatkenly, that > only means that Ton also disagrees with the YC psyche > ruling. > > There was misinformation (or perhaps not even that) but no > damage. > There was no unauthorised information. > I don't believe they ruled illegal system. Why not? > Then why was there an adjusted score at the Young Chelsea ? > Let me explain how I understand the YC treatment of psyches. Some of the regulars psyche (e.g. routinely bid 1S third in hand without enough spades or enough points), this is known by their partners (even if they haven't played before). This is not a permitted agreement so they are playing an illegal system. If a player psyches and partner does not produce abnormal action, there is deemed to be no problem. If a player psyches and partner does something abnormal this is probably a genuine co-incidence (given the high frequency of abnormal actions), but if the abnormal action fields the psyche a ruling is given on the basis of having an illegal agreement. As John says, this is to keep the players honest not because he believes they deliberately fielded; but to prevent players becoming dishonest by fielding under cover of being randomly abnormal. [ I use field in the sence of taking abnormal action which protects the psyche before the psyche has become obvious. ] The alternative approach is to cancel the board everytime a regular produces a routines psyche. This may be the only legal approach (though this is not clear, given the length of our discussions), but would not endear itself to the membership. Have I got this right, John? Robin (speaking as YC member) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 22:11:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 22:11:52 +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 WAA28875 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 22:11:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA25816 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:12:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990901081216.006df804@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 08:12:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What happened? In-Reply-To: <37CBC6CF.3809AB94@village.uunet.be> References: <069301bef287$139e49c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <01bef01c$b2b7e7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19990827083052.006d3a3c@pop.cais.com> <006401bef105$a76e3260$f8e6a4d8@hdavis> <064001bef1e2$968a46e0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <4IYFmRAO9Uy3EwT0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <069301bef287$139e49c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990830101227.006ee1a4@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:13 PM 8/31/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >This problem only arises from the fact that you choose to >call the bid of 2NT illegal. Again I ask, why ? Because it's shorter than calling it "automatic grounds for an unfavorable score adjustment", which is what it is under the RoC. Granted, it's not technically "illegal", but rather prima facie evidence of an illegality (CPU) unrelated to the bid itself, but in practice that makes no difference to the consequences of making it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 1 23:31:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 22:40:20 +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 WAA28951 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 22:40:12 +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 IAA27569 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:41:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990901084045.0069e3b8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 08:40:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What happened? In-Reply-To: <00b801bef3f4$6392fde0$c684d9ce@host> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:04 PM 8/31/99 -0400, Craig wrote: >Eric, can we not admit that in this example at least, the RoC is really a >euphemism for "we think you 2 are probably operating but we don't want a >lawsuit" ? > >Applied blindly it is bad, used as evidence it can be a good technique. Something like the RoC could appropriately be used as Craig suggests; if the TD/AC thinks that a pair is "probably operating", it can cite the "coincidence" as a factor contributing to the "appearance" of irregularity (CPU), subject to adjustment without the need to render an official finding that the partnership acted improperly (but they would do that perforce; no "rule" is needed). In today's litigious world, such euphemistic wording of the rules is necesssary, and I have often argued that this view gives insight into the ambiguous-sounding wording of some of our rules (L73F2 comes to mind). But the RoC -- at least as promulgated in the ACBL -- is worded in such a way that it *must* be applied blindly, not "we think you 2 are probably operating but...", but rather "we don't have to think about whether you are probably operating; we're required by the rules to assume you are even if we're sure you're not". Of course the "coincidence" should be considered as a factor in making the judgment that the law requires the TD/AC to make in such cases, but the "rule" makes it not a contributing factor to that judgment, but rather a substitute for it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 01:07:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA29069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 23:05:23 +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 XAA29063 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 23:05:14 +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 JAA29401 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:06:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990901090546.006e41a4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 09:05:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:25 PM 8/31/99 +0100, David wrote: >B4/W/All 10982 W N E S > Q10 1D P 1H 2C > J54 P 3C 4C* P/5C >AQ4 9732 KJ53 P P X AP >65 AKJ8 >K109873 AQ6 >K10 Q5 > 76 > 97432 > 2 > AJ864 > >After South had passed the 4C bid, West asked whether she should have >alerted it and explained it was "Blackwood" asking for aces. Given this >information, South took back his pass and replaced it with a bid of 5C, >which went round to East who doubled. > >5CX went 4 down for -1100 NS. > >After the play South enquired from East what the 4C bid meant and was >told it was a general force, ideally asking his partner if she had a >club control so that he could bid the slam. > >South claims that he has been damaged by the misinformation as he would >not have bid over a general force (he had already passed 4C, which >although not alerted could hardly be natural and appeared to be either a >general force, cue bid or splinter to him). He argues that this is a >purely destructive auction by NS so far in which they are trying to >attack the information content - he does not want EW to be able to >exchange Blackwood type info to enable them to decide whether to bid the >slam, but was quite happy to leave them to their own devices over a 4C >general force. > >South argues that if he passes then West is likely to bid 4H intending >it to show one ace, although East should interpret it as secondary heart >support as the explanation that West gave is unauthorised information to >him. Given East's situation he still does not know whether the slam is >off two top club tricks and even if West would take a 4NT bid as >Blackwood here, he cannot find out about the KC below slam level. > >South argues that he is entitled to the most favourable result. He >claims that logical alternative contracts for EW include 4H, 5D, 6D and >6H. He does not believe that EW should be allowed to bid the making D >slam when there are several other alternative contracts, some of which >fail e.g. 6H. > >NS are both county standard players. >E is a club player. >W is a weak club player. >All conventional calls are alertable in England. > >How do you rule? On the evidence, I have no trouble finding that S would not have bid 5C without the MI. Adjudicating further would require me to learn something about E-W's methods. I would find that W would indeed bid 4H, as S suggests, but if they bid as I do, E will not pass, as 4H won't be the right contract given W's pass of 2C. So I'd probably adjust to 5D+1 for both sides. 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 Sep 2 01:31:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA29002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 22:50:55 +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 WAA28997 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 22:50:35 +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 NAA27347 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 13:50:14 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA21822 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 13:49:16 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 01 Sep 1999 12:49:16 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA15753 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 13:49:13 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA00709 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 13:48:59 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 13:48:59 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909011248.NAA00709@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm sure some people are bored of the psyche threads .... if so, hit delete now. We have seen how the EBU/WBU and YC deal with psyches and people from outside England/Wales have voiced concerns about these methods. We also know that players within England are unsure as to how they should act opposite a known psycher [the OBook regulations do not translate easily into guidance for players]. Some posters have given the impression that they would never take action (as a TD at the table) against a pair who appear to have an agreement that they bid 1S third in hand NV on all 0-3HCP. For example: West deals, East bids 1S after two passes. West alerts 1S and explains that they psyche frequently (the CTD has instructed him to do this). All pass, and West has 4-2-4-3 10HCP, East has a 2-4-3-4 1HCP. How is this handled by TDs in your juristiction? Which laws/regulations would be applied? If the TD would not give an adjusted score, what would they do if the same thing happens on the next round? .... and the next?? To my mind there is a significant difference in how they should be treated between a psyche which would be legal if it were an agreement and a psyche which would be illegal. In England, a 2H response to a weak 2D meaning "asking for heart support, may not have hearts, subsequent 3NT strictly to play" is permitted (because any response is permitted). Once a partnership has had the auction 2D-2H-3H-3NT a couple of times and pass (rather than bidding 4H) was the right thing to do, they will have developed an implicit understanding. Hopefully, opener will recognise this the next time partner responds 2H (and he will alert/explain as appropriate), then he will be free to pass 3NT. The problems occur while the experience is accumulating and the implicit understanding is conciously recognised. Opponents are not being properly informed as to the pair's actual methods; and when opener does pass 3NT (acting on some subconcious impression that it is "right thing to do") do we accuse opener of having an agreement which he forgot to disclose (failure to alert, possible MI, possible PP) or of having an agreement he deliberately concealed (suspend from session, disqualify from event, expulsion). Again in England, a 1S opener showing 10+HCP and 5+ spades or 0-3 HCP and 0-3 spades, is not permitted. Once a partnership has had the auction P-1S-1NT/2suit-P some number of times when opener has 0-3 HCP and 0-3 spades, they will have developed an implicit understanding. In this case they must: (a) alert/explain their implicit understanding next time they open 1S? but the understanding is not permitted, cancel board: av- (b) say to each other "we will not do it again"? now they do not have an agreement, and can psyche 1S again (?) (c) do nothing, but bid as if partner has 10+HCP and 5+spades? [you may choose more than one answer] Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 01:39:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA29590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 01:39:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA29585 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 01:38:57 +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 KAA55575 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:38:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0EY9S00C Wed, 01 Sep 99 10:38:36 Message-ID: <9909011038.0EY9S00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 01 Sep 99 10:38:36 Subject: MISINFORMATION FROM AN To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is 4C ace asking really known to good players in England as Blackwood? Any player who bids to the 5 level is presumed willing to play it there doubled against strong bidding opponents. I would judge that any player who was so intensely interested in disturbing the response to an ace asking question would also have the same intensity in disturbing a cue-bid sequence as there should be little difference as to how east finds out about aces and kings, only that he finds out. By south's own statement he knew that east was pursuing a slam investigation when he bid 4C. His claim that he would only bid after Blackwood, a specific force, and not after a general force does not have much credibility. South's own statement was that the purpose of 5C was to break the continuity of the EW auction and it did. It also broke the connection between the MI and any potential score for EW without interference. I can see no LA to east doubling 5C which is what he did. As such the Lillie interpretation of L12 calls for the table result to stand. I would think that what gets real meaty is the case with no 5C bid where UI issues would probably come up given that the active and vulnerable bidding of NS on weak hands strongly suggests the defense has a lot of short suits that east should consider. Roger Pewick B>B4/W/All 10982 W N E S B> Q10 1D P 1H 2C B> J54 P 3C 4C* P/5C B>AQ4 9732 KJ53 P P X AP B>65 AKJ8 B>K109873 AQ6 B>K10 Q5 B> 76 B> 97432 B> 2 B> AJ864 B>After South had passed the 4C bid, West asked whether she should have B>alerted it and explained it was "Blackwood" asking for aces. Given this B>information, South took back his pass and replaced it with a bid of 5C, B>which went round to East who doubled. B>5CX went 4 down for -1100 NS. B>After the play South enquired from East what the 4C bid meant and was B>told it was a general force, ideally asking his partner if she had a B>club control so that he could bid the slam. B>South claims that he has been damaged by the misinformation as he would B>not have bid over a general force (he had already passed 4C, which B>although not alerted could hardly be natural and appeared to be either a B>general force, cue bid or splinter to him). He argues that this is a B>purely destructive auction by NS so far in which they are trying to B>attack the information content - he does not want EW to be able to B>exchange Blackwood type info to enable them to decide whether to bid the B>slam, but was quite happy to leave them to their own devices over a 4C B>general force. B>South argues that if he passes then West is likely to bid 4H intending B>it to show one ace, although East should interpret it as secondary heart B>support as the explanation that West gave is unauthorised information to B>him. Given East's situation he still does not know whether the slam is B>off two top club tricks and even if West would take a 4NT bid as B>Blackwood here, he cannot find out about the KC below slam level. B>South argues that he is entitled to the most favourable result. He B>claims that logical alternative contracts for EW include 4H, 5D, 6D and B>6H. He does not believe that EW should be allowed to bid the making D B>slam when there are several other alternative contracts, some of which B>fail e.g. 6H. B>NS are both county standard players. B>E is a club player. B>W is a weak club player. B>All conventional calls are alertable in England. B>How do you rule? B>-- B>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ B>Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ B> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= B> Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ B> Roger Pewick r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 02:11:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:11:42 +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 CAA29817 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:11:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-009.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.201]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA44276 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:10:53 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <004b01bef496$5b763da0$c9307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:23:39 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: B4/W/All 10982 W N E S Q10 1D P 1H 2C J54 P 3C 4C* P/5C AQ4 9732 KJ53 P P X AP 65 AKJ8 K109873 AQ6 K10 Q5 76 97432 2 AJ864 After South had passed the 4C bid, West asked whether she should have alerted it and explained it was "Blackwood" asking for aces. Given this information, South took back his pass and replaced it with a bid of 5C, which went round to East who doubled. 5CX went 4 down for -1100 NS. After the play South enquired from East what the 4C bid meant and was told it was a general force, ideally asking his partner if she had a club control so that he could bid the slam. South claims that he has been damaged by the misinformation as he would not have bid over a general force (he had already passed 4C, which although not alerted could hardly be natural and appeared to be either a general force, cue bid or splinter to him). He argues that this is a purely destructive auction by NS so far in which they are trying to attack the information content - he does not want EW to be able to exchange Blackwood type info to enable them to decide whether to bid the slam, but was quite happy to leave them to their own devices over a 4C general force. South argues that if he passes then West is likely to bid 4H intending it to show one ace, although East should interpret it as secondary heart support as the explanation that West gave is unauthorised information to him. Given East's situation he still does not know whether the slam is off two top club tricks and even if West would take a 4NT bid as Blackwood here, he cannot find out about the KC below slam level. South argues that he is entitled to the most favourable result. He claims that logical alternative contracts for EW include 4H, 5D, 6D and 6H. He does not believe that EW should be allowed to bid the making D slam when there are several other alternative contracts, some of which fail e.g. 6H. NS are both county standard players. E is a club player. W is a weak club player. All conventional calls are alertable in England. How do you rule? Does the 'screen test' help? I think South and West are normally on the same side which doesn't help but suppose we move the screen so that South and East were on the same side? Now South gets the correct explanation from East and passes the 4C bid while West bids on thinking that 4C was Gerber. In this scenario there has been damage. But are we allowed to mentally move the screen? Regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 02:30:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:30:09 +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 CAA29909 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:30:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from p98s10a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.170.153] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11MDGh-0001q8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:29:51 +0100 Message-ID: <001901bef497$35c9a8c0$99aa93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:28:40 +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 ; hermandw@village.uunet.be Date: 01 September 1999 12:39 Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) ------------- \x/ ---------------- >Let me explain how I understand the YC treatment of psyches. > >Some of the regulars psyche (e.g. routinely bid 1S third in hand >without enough spades or enough points), this is known by their >partners (even if they haven't played before). This is not a >permitted agreement so they are playing an illegal system. > >If a player psyches and partner does not produce abnormal action, >there is deemed to be no problem. ------------------ \x/ ---------------- +=+ So the players' responsibilities to their opponents, their obligations to disclose, go by the board? Well, the game is not being played according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge if this is the case. Does blml reckon to deal with games other than duplicate bridge? In the absence of respect for the Law no doubt common courtesy ensures any stranger to the club is informed? It is no wonder that patient man, Ton, is getting irritated; all this futile discussion is enough to try a saint. Hi, Saint! ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 02:30:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:30:14 +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 CAA29914 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:30:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from p98s10a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.170.153] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11MDGg-0001q8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:29:50 +0100 Message-ID: <001801bef497$351a2ee0$99aa93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:15:23 +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 Discussion List Date: 01 September 1999 15:13 Subject: Re: What happened? > --------- \x/ -------- >Of course the "coincidence" should be considered as a factor in making the >judgment that the law requires the TD/AC to make in such cases, but the >"rule" makes it not a contributing factor to that judgment, but rather a >substitute for it. > +=+ The terms of Law 40C are such that the Director is empowered to make his decision on the basis of the single item of evidence alone, if he finds it compelling. And that is a matter for the Director alone to judge ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 02:37:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:37:22 +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 CAA29948 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:37:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA28076 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:37:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ac01bef498$2db51100$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <004701bef2d2$917b8d80$1f5108c3@swhki5i6> Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:33:35 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: Marvin L. French > > > Herman(?): > >> I reiterate : understandings and experiences must both be > >> disclosed, but only understandings can be regulated upon. > > > +=+ Where experience gives rise to understandings these > partnership methods are subject to regulation within the > terms of Law 40D. +=+ > > >If a psych is not protected in any way, other than by a disclosed > partnership > >understanding or experience, L73E permits it. I have a (common) agreement > with > >partners who preempt that they are not to bid again unless forced to do so. > >After 2D-P-2H-P; 3H-P-3NT, the 3NT bid (non-forcing) must be Alerted and > >explained as: "I must pass." The possible psych is protected, but the > >protection is not concealed. The 3H bid should also be Alerted: "She is not > >permitted to go to the four level." > > > +=+ Do you recognize that partner may not > have a suit he has named? If yes, do you > disclose this to opponents? ~G~ +=+ > I don't think this is necessary, since I will presume she has hearts when making my next call. Most players know that major suit responses to weak two bids (as with major suit responses over a double) are not always cricket. Alerting every bid by partner that could be deceptive, when I am going to take the bids at face value, doesn't seem appropriate. Now, if we have a system for handling such responses, and the system caters to the possibility of a psych, then that should be disclosed. But when? IMO the time to do so is not when partner makes a new suit response, but when opener makes a rebid that per-system is designed to allow for a psych If opener is not allowed to raise to the four level, then that should be disclosed when he bids 3H. Now, I realize that this is not ideal. Responder's RHO may need to know the protective system before making her call. It reminds me of a thread some time ago. which to my knowledge was was never resolved. Over an opposing takeout double, the next hand may wish to know how his opponents handle a redouble. Is a pass of the redouble "to play," or is it non-committal? In this particular situation, however, I don't see why responder's LHO would need to know about the three-level limit for opener's next call. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 02:47:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:47:29 +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 CAA29985 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:47:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA02793 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b701bef499$98a3d540$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3773ea4e.1471609@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> <013401bebeac$aba7b620$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <37744857.5251506@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:46:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: Marvin L. French wrote (in re Don Oakie's article in *The Bulletin*) > > >Somebody please write to Director Nadine Wood and find out what's > >going on in this area. She would know. I just don't have the time to do it > >myself. > > > > I'd oblige, if I had her e-mail address, but it may be a > little better if it came from someone who is actually a > member of the ACBL. > The e-mail address is woodhere@erols.com While I'm at it, here are more BoD e-mail addresses: (not sure these are up to date) George Retek justkey@macten.net Jonathan Steinberg jonathan.st@sympatico.ca Joan Levy Gerard joanandron@worldnet.att.net Raymond L. Gaskin rayraskin@aol.com Sharon Fairchild sseakgj@en.com Bruce Reeve onahook@aol.com Glenn F. Smith (treasurer) gfsmith1@worldnet.att.net Dr Philip Altus paltus@pol.net Charles D. Wilkinson: cwilkin@aol.com Jim Reiman: jrmfd@richnet.net Wayne Hascall: sbreidel174@aol.com Hariette Buckman: buckmans@interaccess.com Val Covalciuc (president) vcovalci@mitec.net Virgil V. Anderson, Jr (virles486@aol.com Dan E. Morse: anjoanm@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 03:31:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA00320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 03:31:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f116.hotmail.com [207.82.251.46]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA00315 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 03:31:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 55851 invoked by uid 0); 1 Sep 1999 17:31:24 -0000 Message-ID: <19990901173124.55850.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 01 Sep 1999 10:31:24 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 10:31:24 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >To reiterate, my definition of a "genuine psyche" has three >elements: >- a gross misstatement >- of low frequency, compared to the "real" meaning of the >bid >- without any systemic catering by partner > >Under those conditions, it is my opinion that a "genuine >psyche" can be included in partnership experience, and >should therefor be disclosed to opponents (in any >appropriate manner), but will not be part of partnership >agreement, and can therefore not be ruled illegal by any >regulation that limits system use. > To this I agree, under conditions (and most regulars on BLML know my personal psyching tendency). However, IMFO(*), if a call is *always* made with a particular hand/situation, then no matter how different it is from the "normal" meaning of the call, it is not a misstatement, gross or otherwise; it's a two-way call. Therefore, it cannot be a psychic call (per the Definitions); it is systemic, whether or not the rest of the system has any way of catering for it. Most SOs that I know the regs for require both players in a pair to be playing the same system. Judgement is allowed to differ, but the system cannot be different. If partner is doing the same thing, then we regulate on the status of the systemic "agreement"; if partner is not, then we rule on "pair not playing the same system". I am willing to be convinced otherwise (especially as I hold the opinion that "Dear opponents: if someone is psyching in this auction, it is at least 10-1 that it is our side, not yours" is not illegal), but I can't see anything different between 1H, third in hand: 12-21, 5+hearts or 0-3, 42(34) concealed, unconcealed, known about by partner or not, or written down in system notes, and 2D: weak 2 in either major or 28+, no 4-card major. that was used as an example of trying to get around SO regs on mini-multi by having a strong option that comes up once in 1000 times. It's still system, and it's still regulable, if it's always done. It's not system without the always (where the line should be drawn I don't know). Same goes for "always psych with 0 points" or "always psych with 0-3 points and no 4-card major", or others brought up in this thread. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 03:55:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA00437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 03:55:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f179.hotmail.com [207.82.251.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA00431 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 03:54:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 22370 invoked by uid 0); 1 Sep 1999 17:54:16 -0000 Message-ID: <19990901175416.22369.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 01 Sep 1999 10:54:15 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 10:54:15 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Robin Barker >I'm sure some people are bored of the psyche threads >.... if so, hit delete now. >For example: >West deals, East bids 1S after two passes. >West alerts 1S and explains that they psyche frequently >(the CTD has instructed him to do this). All pass, >and West has 4-2-4-3 10HCP, East has a 2-4-3-4 1HCP. > >How is this handled by TDs in your juristiction? >Which laws/regulations would be applied? > I can't believe there is anywhere where this would not be adjusted, given the circumstances stated, because the pass will only be right *if partner has psyched*. Unless West can convince me that he was trying to operate out a balance that he would double (probably by the fact that he actually did, given that NS have 29 points, after all), and I would take a lot of convincing that the chance of that was significantly higher than the "I'd better tread warily", I rule controlled psych, CPU, Red Field, whatever my jurisdiction allows. I also will on my own account fill out a recorder form (in those places where the psych ruling doesn't already record it), and, of course, remind EW of their right to appeal. I won't be too disheartened if the appeal reverses my decision, because if this happens often enough, the ?&E committee will be brought in on these people, and large LARTs(*) will be applied. >Again in England, a 1S opener showing 10+HCP and 5+ spades or >0-3 HCP and 0-3 spades, is not permitted. Once a partnership has >had the auction P-1S-1NT/2suit-P some number of times when opener >has 0-3 HCP and 0-3 spades, they will have developed an implicit >understanding. In this case they must: > (a) alert/explain their implicit understanding next time they open > 1S? but the understanding is not permitted, cancel board: av- > (b) say to each other "we will not do it again"? > now they do not have an agreement, and can psyche 1S again (?) > (c) do nothing, but bid as if partner has 10+HCP and 5+spades? >[you may choose more than one answer] > c). and perhaps the first part of a). See my note in the other thread about the word "always", and my unsureness about where the line should be drawn, and that the words used by Robin were "regularly" and "frequently". Michael (*) (L)user Attitude Readjustment Tool (from alt.sysadmin.recovery - the (L) is silent). The prototypical LART is a large heavy blunt object - 2x4, mace; in this case I expect it would really mean suspension, fines, et al., even though the Ethics committee would wish otherwise. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 04:01:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 04:01:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f60.hotmail.com [207.82.251.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA00496 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 04:01:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 23285 invoked by uid 0); 1 Sep 1999 18:00:45 -0000 Message-ID: <19990901180045.23284.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 01 Sep 1999 11:00:45 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Simon Templar" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 18:00:45 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >-----Original Message----- >From: Robin Barker > >------------- \x/ ---------------- > > >Let me explain how I understand the YC treatment of psyches. > > > >Some of the regulars psyche (e.g. routinely bid 1S third in hand > >without enough spades or enough points), this is known by their > >partners (even if they haven't played before). This is not a > >permitted agreement so they are playing an illegal system. > > > >If a player psyches and partner does not produce abnormal action, > >there is deemed to be no problem. >------------------ \x/ ---------------- > >+=+ So the players' responsibilities to their opponents, >their obligations to disclose, go by the board? Well, the >game is not being played according to the Laws of >Duplicate Bridge if this is the case. Does blml reckon >to deal with games other than duplicate bridge? In >the absence of respect for the Law no doubt common >courtesy ensures any stranger to the club is informed? I assume that the psyching frequency and tendencies are given to anyone who either does not know them or the game, or who asks. Anything else would be uncivilized, never mind incorrect. > It is no wonder that patient man, Ton, is getting >irritated; all this futile discussion is enough to try a >saint. Hi, Saint! ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Good afternoon yourself, Mr. Endicott. _ 0 _|/ | / \ P.S. many thanks to Michael F. for allowing me to inhabit his mind for a few minutes. S. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 04:43:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 04:43:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f218.hotmail.com [207.82.251.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA00680 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 04:43:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 66102 invoked by uid 0); 1 Sep 1999 18:42:45 -0000 Message-ID: <19990901184245.66101.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 01 Sep 1999 11:42:44 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 18:42:44 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry - I forgot my footnote! silly me... M. >From: "Michael Farebrother" >However, IMFO(*), if a call is *always* made with a particular >hand/situation, then no matter how different it is from the "normal" >meaning of the call, it is not a misstatement, gross or otherwise; >it's a >two-way call. (*) Fallible. What did you think I meant? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 05:08:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA00806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 05:08:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from luna.worldonline.nl (luna.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA00801 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 05:07:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp229-198.worldonline.nl [195.241.229.198]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA26907; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 21:07:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006901bef000$67c0afe0$c6e5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: Coincidence in Evidence Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:20:03 +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 >>> Marvin then wrote: >>The "rule" was blasted by Edgar Kaplan in *The Bridge World*, November 1993. >>-------------- \x/ ----------------- >>Kaplan's remarks are too extended for this typist, but he started out with >>saying of the "Rule of Coincidence" that "there ain't no such animal." He >>followed a long tirade against the RoC by noting that there was no >>disciplinary action taken against the OS, "so they could not have been >>suspected of collusion, cheating. Well, if there was no collusion there was no >>infraction of Law (only an infraction of the imaginary Rule of Coincidence), >>so how could there be a score adjustment?" >> >+=+ Hmm. Ve-e-ery intere-essting! It was Edgar >who first expounded the Principle to me. In >committee, WBF LC or AC, he loyally supported >its evidence as occasion served. I guess the >mix of lawyer and journalist must be the devil's >brew . ~ G ~ +=+ I have the feeling to understand what Kaplan 's vision was. Each of our boys out in the field loves to have guide lines and rules to use when asked to make a ruling. And then Kaplan's statement as well as mine is that the TD does not have available a rule or simple law in this case, but needs to collect the facts and to use his experience to make a ruling. And having to decide on such a case in a AC it certainly will use remarkable coincidence. On the other hand Kaplan didn't have a high opinion abvout TD's, which attitude brought us the exagerated approach of ruling in favour of the non offending side. The only quality aTD needs for that is to find out whom the innocent side is. So we are lucky he didn't make it a rule. ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 05:08:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA00820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 05:08:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA00815 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 05:08:41 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id MAA04725; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA29497; 1 Sep 99 12:05:05 -0700 Date: 1 Sep 99 12:04:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199909011205.AA29497@gateway.tandem.com> To: mdfarebr@hotmail.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What did I think you meant? Why, *Fabulous*. of course -- as in RTFLB, RTFM, etc. Are you *sure* you meant 'fallible'? Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- SENT 09-01-99 FROM SMTPGATE (mdfarebr@hotmail.com) Sorry - I forgot my footnote! silly me... M. >From: "Michael Farebrother" >However, IMFO(*), if a call is *always* made with a particular >hand/situation, then no matter how different it is from the "normal" >meaning of the call, it is not a misstatement, gross or otherwise; >it's a >two-way call. (*) Fallible. What did you think I meant? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 06:46:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 06:46:02 +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 GAA01084 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 06:45:54 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id pQBJa09400 (3977) for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:44:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:44:29 EDT Subject: Email Address for Nadine Wood 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 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Did someone post an email address for Nadine? I tried it but me email was returned "addressee unknown." Anyone know her correct email address? Thanks, Karen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 06:44:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 06:44:25 +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 GAA01072 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 06:44:18 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id bBOCa06252 (4244); Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:43:24 EDT Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience To: mlfrench@writeme.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 9/1/99 12:38:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mlfrench@writeme.com writes: > Now, if we have a system for handling such responses, and the system caters > to > the possibility of a psych, then that should be disclosed. Am I the only one who reads Law 40A to state that YOU MAY NOT HAVE AN AGREEMENT ON PSYCHIC BIDDING? Or am I getting greatly irritated for the wrong reasons? My Delete key is getting worn out. Sorry Marv if I stopped on you posting, but I repeatedly read about psychic agreements.....Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 06:47:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 06:47:55 +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 GAA01111 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 06:47:47 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id iIECa16296 (4244); Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <14e8e6b8.24feea7c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:45:48 EDT Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) To: mdfarebr@hotmail.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 9/1/99 1:56:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mdfarebr@hotmail.com writes: > I'm sure some people are bored of the psyche threads > >.... if so, hit delete now. > Hear! Hear! Delete.......Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 06:50:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 06:50:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA01128 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 06:50:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg0k.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.20]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA28516 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:50:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990901164738.01273b08@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 16:47:38 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Show me the authority for your action. In-Reply-To: <000c01bef439$94327300$655208c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:47 AM 9/1/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: (Michael): >>It is unrealistic to expect the Laws to cover every exigency, > >+=+ We are discussing whether they contain authorization >for everything that a player properly uses to make his >decisions. The intention of the lawmakers was that they >should, and the lawmakers believe they do, whether >explicitly or by implication.+=+ > In my earlier posting, I listed several types of information upon which we all routinely rely in making bidding decisions. They included such things as the vulnerability and form of scoring, information about the skill level of opponents or partner, and "state of the match" considerations. My claim is that none of these pieces of information are either explicitly or inferentially "Authorized" within the Laws as an appropriate basis for making bidding decisions. In response, you have cited L40E1 and its somewhat decontextualized use of the word "judgement" as the necessary authorization. By judgement, I am assuming that you (and the Laws) mean something like the following: the ability to evaluate and choose among a range of options, based upon personal estimation of the significance of available authorized information. Having saddled you with my own definition ;), I don't think that this reference suffices as even inferential authorization for the use of the above types of information. In fact, any commonly understood usage of term "judgement", absent a qualifier about what is or may be judged, simply restates the question: what information are we authorized to consider in making these decisions (or "judgements", if you prefer)? But suppose, for a moment, that we give this single out-of-context word the power that you wish it to carry: authorization for making bidding decisions upon some unspecified categories of information, including in particular the ones I have listed. What then limits the power of that word to authorize? Certainly we could agree upon the specifically dis-authorized sources listed in L16. But notably, "partner's tendency to psych" is not in that list. I think the de facto answer (though not the de jure one, IMO) is hinted at in another posting from you: "As to the remainder of what you say, you will find it frustrating that national and international authorities ignore your views." That is, the Laws are in fact somewhat ambiguous about exactly which information is Authorized and which is not, and the various SO's or even TD's stand ever ready to exploit that ambiguity to impose their own views on the rest of us. I have no idea whether this ambiguity is deliberate or merely careless. But it is clear that the final answer to my question about which information is authorized is not to be found in the Laws, but in the policies of those who are empowered to enforce them. Like umpires who define their own strike zones, these enforcers thumb their noses at those who demand legal authority for their interpretations. And maybe that is just a teensy bit frustrating to me, after all. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 07:34:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA01307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 07:34:33 +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 HAA01302 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 07:34:22 +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 RAA02431 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA08819 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:34:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:34:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909012134.RAA08819@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What happened? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Hirsch Davis" > Genuine coincidence happens in bridge. If the calls were legal and full > disclosure was practiced, what grounds do we have for adjustment? L16A. The case cited in the BW editorial is a good example. I wasn't there, and of course we can never know for sure, but it isn't far- fetched to suspect that the offshape takeout doubler "wiggled his ears" (in the BW's phrase) before making the double. It is quite possible that his partner wasn't even consciously aware of the mannerism. > In some > cases, we may never really know for sure, and have to take our best guess. > The PoC will certainly be part of that judgement. But IMO it is an > abdication of a TD's responsibilities to rule based on this principle alone, > instead of a full investigation and determination of the actual infraction > based on all available evidence. Exactly so. For example, if the hand had been played behind screens, UI would be wildly unlikely, but in face to face play, it is worth considering. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 07:56:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA01367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 07:56:25 +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 HAA01362 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 07:56:15 +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 RAA03258 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA08885 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:56:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909012156.RAA08885@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > Here, the only way the NO could do any > better is if the opponents had a misunderstanding and explained > everything correctly---virtually the same kind of contradiction. Isn't this the normal way to rule in a MI case? South's 5C looks wild and gambling to me. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 08:18:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 08:18:31 +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 IAA01440 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 08:18:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.172] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11MIho-0005I8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 23:18:12 +0100 Message-ID: <002201bef4c7$df2d26a0$ac5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: What happened? Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 23:16:23 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 01 September 1999 00:38 Subject: Re: What happened? > >----- Original Message ----- >From: John R. Mayne >Cc: >Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 2:26 AM >Subject: Re: What happened? > > >Genuine coincidence happens in bridge. If the calls were legal and full >disclosure was practiced, what grounds do we have for adjustment? In some >cases, we may never really know for sure, and have to take our best guess. >The PoC will certainly be part of that judgement. But IMO it is an >abdication of a TD's responsibilities to rule based on this principle alone, >instead of a full investigation and determination of the actual infraction >based on all available evidence. > +=+ If there is other evidence the players will inform the TD of it. In England they will refer to it in their comments on the form. It remains for the Director to use his 40C authority to make a decision. Incidentally, I rarely hear of a Director who makes a decision contrary to the 'instructions' given him by the SO or NBO, not recently anyway, although the Director's authority stems primarily from the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 09:01:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:01:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01563 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:01:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.192] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11MJMX-0006Nr-00; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 00:00:18 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01bef4cd$c09c62e0$c05208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: Coincidence in Evidence Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 23:56:53 +0100 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: 01 September 1999 08:18 Subject: Re: Coincidence in Evidence >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> +=+ Hmm. Ve-e-ery intere-essting! It was Edgar >> who first expounded the Principle to me. In >> committee, WBF LC or AC, he loyally supported >> its evidence as occasion served. I guess the >> mix of lawyer and journalist must be the devil's >> brew . ~ G ~ +=+ >> >Could it be that Edgar supported the Principle when a coincidence involved >strong players who don't make stupid bids, but not otherwise? "Knowing" that a >pair is up to something, but unable to prove it, could very well make one cast >about for some "principle" to handle the situation. > >Do you remember the sort of players who were involved? > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com +++ Well, it was not just once. But I agree that our collaboration was on the international stage, so that the standard was slightly better on average than most of your local duplicate evenings. I do recall one matter that involved a partnership of outstanding abilities, but the less experienced players who participate are more likely candidates, and I can go along with the thought that the Director may well have a different standard for the goodish player at regional level who has just moved up a grade. ~ G ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 09:16:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:16:37 +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 JAA01638 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:16:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03871; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:15:46 -0700 Message-Id: <199909012315.QAA03871@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Sep 1999 17:56:17 PDT." <199909012156.RAA08885@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 16:15:47 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > Here, the only way the NO could do any > > better is if the opponents had a misunderstanding and explained > > everything correctly---virtually the same kind of contradiction. > > Isn't this the normal way to rule in a MI case? Assuming I understand you correctly: it doesn't seem normal to me. I've seen lots of MI cases where the non-offenders were deprived of their opportunity to get a good board, or even an average board; but I don't recall seeing a case where the NO's claimed that the infraction deprived them of an opportunity to get a good board, where the good board would have come solely from the opponents' having a major accident. That's why I balked. When MI comes from a misunderstanding, it doesn't necessarily affect the offender's auction, and it doesn't necessarily lead to the offenders getting into deep trouble. The last appeal I was involved in was an MI case: Partner RHO Me LHO 1C(1) 3H(2) pass pass dbl 3S 4D pass 4H pass ? (1) Precision (2) LHO alerted and said he thought this showed both majors, although he wasn't sure whether they were doing it over a strong club. In truth, their agreement was that 3H was natural, but RHO was psyching with long spades. Given the MI, I couldn't take partner's bid as natural---RHO's bidding seemed consistent with the explanation, perhaps with better or longer spades. Without the MI, I probably would have fielded the psych and passed. Note here that LHO misunderstood his partner's call, but his bidding was unaffected by it (he had a weak 3=3=3=4 and wasn't going to take any action). So the MI clearly did damage (and the TD and AC agreed). 4H was the normal contract (and our last making contract), and there was damage because the MI prevented me from getting to the normal spot. That seems to be the usual MI situation: where MI prevents the non-offenders from bidding effectively. In such cases, the NO's will do better if the opponents do *not* have a misunderstanding and there are no misexplanations; this is a result clearly possible in the "real world", and there is damage if the NO's are prevented by MI from getting it. The case we're discussing is different from normal MI cases, though, because the good result South claimed he was prevented from getting is an oddball result, not a normal one. So it's harder for me to see "damage". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 11:10:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA01925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:10:31 +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 LAA01920 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:10:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA29464 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 18:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <016e01bef4df$da38ea40$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Fw: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 18:07:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin has discovered a typo of mine, in the e-mail address for Nadine Wood. Sorry about that. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > At 09:46 AM 9/1/99 -0700, you wrote: > >The e-mail address is woodhere@erols.com > > Actually it's woodthere@erols.com, notice the 't'. > > Tim > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 11:30:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:30:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01996 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:30:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA04521 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 18:30:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <017101bef4e2$b167aae0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 18:24:27 -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 Kojak wrote; Marvin L. French wrote: > > > Now, if we have a system for handling such responses, and the system caters > > to > > the possibility of a psych, then that should be disclosed. > > > Am I the only one who reads Law 40A to state that YOU MAY NOT HAVE AN > AGREEMENT ON PSYCHIC BIDDING? Or am I getting greatly irritated for the > wrong reasons? My Delete key is getting worn out. Sorry Marv if I stopped > on you posting, but I repeatedly read about psychic agreements.....Kojak Your capitalized words are an inference, not a quote of L40A. I don't believe that having a system that caters to the possibility of a psych means that the psych is *based on a partnership understanding.* When Kaplan-Sheinwold and Roth-Stone used the 2NT response to an opening bid to investigate the possibility of a psych, that was not held to be a violation of L40A. Now, the ACBL has outlawed "psychic controls," which are typified by that 2NT response, and it is therefore illegal in ACBL-land. The 2NT response was a convention, hence controllable. A partnership agreement that a major suit response to a weak two bid may be raised no higher than the three level is a treatment, not a convention. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 11:44:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:44:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02040 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:44:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc1s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.194] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11MLux-0001x9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:44:00 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:46:38 +0100 Message-ID: <01bef4e4$ff6ce500$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 11:44 PM Subject: Misinformation from an English Club > > >B4/W/All 10982 W N E S > Q10 1D P 1H 2C > J54 P 3C 4C* P/5C >AQ4 9732 KJ53 P P X AP >65 AKJ8 >K109873 AQ6 >K10 Q5 > 76 > 97432 > 2 > AJ864 > >After South had passed the 4C bid, West asked whether she should have >alerted it and explained it was "Blackwood" asking for aces. Given this >information, South took back his pass and replaced it with a bid of 5C, Without the TD (who may or may not have allowed the change of call) being called? >which went round to East who doubled. > >5CX went 4 down for -1100 NS. > >After the play South enquired from East what the 4C bid meant and was >told it was a general force, ideally asking his partner if she had a >club control so that he could bid the slam. > >South claims that he has been damaged by the misinformation as he would >not have bid over a general force (he had already passed 4C, which >although not alerted could hardly be natural and appeared to be either a >general force, cue bid or splinter to him). He argues that this is a >purely destructive auction by NS so far in which they are trying to >attack the information content - he does not want EW to be able to >exchange Blackwood type info to enable them to decide whether to bid the >slam, but was quite happy to leave them to their own devices over a 4C >general force. He knew that the 4C bid was not natural, but had not been alerted. I think he could have asked at that point, without damage to his side. OB5.5.1 "If you claim to have been damaged because your opponents failed to alert a call, and it is judged that you were aware of its likely meaning, you would fail in your claim if you had had the opportunity to ask without putting your side's interests at risk." > >South argues that if he passes then West is likely to bid 4H intending >it to show one ace, although East should interpret it as secondary heart >support as the explanation that West gave is unauthorised information to >him. Given East's situation he still does not know whether the slam is >off two top club tricks and even if West would take a 4NT bid as >Blackwood here, he cannot find out about the KC below slam level. > >South argues that he is entitled to the most favourable result. He >claims that logical alternative contracts for EW include 4H, 5D, 6D and >6H. He does not believe that EW should be allowed to bid the making D >slam when there are several other alternative contracts, some of which >fail e.g. 6H. > >NS are both county standard players. >E is a club player. >W is a weak club player. >All conventional calls are alertable in England. > >How do you rule? We are not told whether or not E/W had an agreement about this bid, and if so what it was. However I am sure that the outcome will be that N/S damaged themselves a) by not asking, and b) by making a bid which was wild and gambling.c) by making a table ruling and losing their right to penalise .L11A Result stands. Anne > > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 2 13:08:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:08:52 +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 NAA02374 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:08:42 +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 11MNEm-000Maf-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 03:08:32 +0000 Message-ID: <$RvUQIAX8dz3EwrL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 03:21:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What happened? References: <00b801bef3f4$6392fde0$c684d9ce@host> <3.0.1.32.19990901084045.0069e3b8@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990901084045.0069e3b8@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 05:04 PM 8/31/99 -0400, Craig wrote: > >>Eric, can we not admit that in this example at least, the RoC is really a >>euphemism for "we think you 2 are probably operating but we don't want a >>lawsuit" ? >> >>Applied blindly it is bad, used as evidence it can be a good technique. > >Something like the RoC could appropriately be used as Craig suggests; if >the TD/AC thinks that a pair is "probably operating", it can cite the >"coincidence" as a factor contributing to the "appearance" of irregularity >(CPU), subject to adjustment without the need to render an official finding >that the partnership acted improperly (but they would do that perforce; no >"rule" is needed). In today's litigious world, such euphemistic wording of >the rules is necesssary, and I have often argued that this view gives >insight into the ambiguous-sounding wording of some of our rules (L73F2 >comes to mind). > >But the RoC -- at least as promulgated in the ACBL -- is worded in such a >way that it *must* be applied blindly, not "we think you 2 are probably >operating but...", but rather "we don't have to think about whether you are >probably operating; we're required by the rules to assume you are even if >we're sure you're not". Hmmm. Possibly. The RoC says [I don't update my ACBL regs so this may not be the current wording]: The Rule of Coincidence allows "automatic" score adjustments when these infractions occur. The acting side must convince the director or committee that their actions were actually normal or that they lack the bridge experience to know they were making unusual bids. The first sentence makes them automatic - and the second makes them non-automatic! When I said the RoC was a useful tool I did not mean with automatic adjustment. The actual wording is clearly flawed [the quoted bit is not the only inconsistency]. Ok, forget the ACBL wording, and consider the Rule [or Principle] without the ACBL shackles. When Directors make a ruling, they get all the facts and make a judgement. To make a judgement they use all the information available, including judging probabilities. When there are two events which might be considered separate but tend to explain each other then it is reasonable to suppose that they are linked. If I open 1NT 10-12 with 16 HCP and my partner raise to 3NT with 9 HCP it is not unreasonable to judge that something untoward may have happened. This is the RoC. Good TDs will not always adjust when there appears to be a RoC case, but they will ask pertinent questions, and invite the players to explain themselves. Used sensibly, I believe the RoC is a useful tool. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 2 13:08:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:08:53 +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 NAA02375 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:08:43 +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 11MNEn-000J7u-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 03:08:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 03:54:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Development References: <006201bef3df$1d119260$a18193c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <006201bef3df$1d119260$a18193c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >Might save a keystroke or two >unless David adds CE to the abbreviations. Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn BTW By the way C WBF Laws Committee CE Compelling evidence C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from OKBridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn hcd Humble club Director IIRC If I remember correctly IMHO In my humble opinion [included under protest] IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side NP No problem OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OKBD OKBridge discussion group OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side OTOH On the other hand POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn [or] POOT Play-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] r.g.b. rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] rgbo rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from OKBridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RotG Rub-of-the-green RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for Unacceptable Behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3Ha 3H alerted Emails only: FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email The above may also be found on my Bridgepage. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 13:08:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:08:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02373 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:08:41 +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 11MNEf-000MaX-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 03:08:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 03:26:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience 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 9/1/99 12:38:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >mlfrench@writeme.com writes: > >> Now, if we have a system for handling such responses, and the system caters >> to >> the possibility of a psych, then that should be disclosed. > > >Am I the only one who reads Law 40A to state that YOU MAY NOT HAVE AN >AGREEMENT ON PSYCHIC BIDDING? Or am I getting greatly irritated for the >wrong reasons? My Delete key is getting worn out. Sorry Marv if I stopped >on you posting, but I repeatedly read about psychic agreements.....Kojak No, me too, but I am not going to fight this one now. I intend to make a major posting sometime soon, but until then I just read. I have already expressed my view that L40A is important. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 2 13:49:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:07:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02117 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:06:55 +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 11MMGu-000ChQ-0A; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:06:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 03:05:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: UI ruling, what adjustment? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Teams 10xx W N E S North/EW Vul Axx P P 1D AQ10x 1S* 3D P? P KQxxx 10xx Ax 3H P 4H End KQxxx xxxx x xx +620 Qx Jxx Axxxx J KJxxxx * Michaels (W/S) not available KJx ? "Is that pre-emptive?" "No. Limit raise" UK game OB 5.4.3 ... you must alert ... after partner's opening bid and a pass (but not an overcall or a double) a pre-emptive raise to three. ... So you do not alert either a limit raise or a pre-emptive raise. It's easy enough to rule this back to 3D *and for this thread accept that the contract _is_ 3D*. If the contract *is* 3D you have not seen the 3H bid. OK? On SK lead, overtaken, returned, continued and ruffed, trump or on HK lead, won, H eliminated, draw trump and cast adrift in S or any other normal defence: How does South play the clubs? South is average in EBU fields. What is the assigned score? 3D= or 3D-1 ? ACBLers who rule 60/40 or +3/-3 please don't bother. 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 Sep 2 14:41:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:07:11 +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 MAA02116 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:06:54 +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 11MMGr-000ChO-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:06:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:35:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > >B4/W/All 10982 W N E S > Q10 1D P 1H 2C > J54 P 3C 4C* P/5C >AQ4 9732 KJ53 P P X AP >65 AKJ8 >K109873 AQ6 >K10 Q5 > 76 > 97432 > 2 > AJ864 > >After South had passed the 4C bid, West asked whether she should have >alerted it and explained it was "Blackwood" asking for aces. Given this >information, South took back his pass and replaced it with a bid of 5C, >which went round to East who doubled. > snip the statements > >How do you rule? > > At the point where East bid 4C, East intended it as a general force and West thought it was Gerber "Blackwood!". South has received MI from West. 1) Is South's action reckless? Wild, yes; Reckless, No IMO. After all he had passed previously. OK so we remove the 5C call. 2) What happens next? West bids 4H and East sees a partial H fit. 3) What happens now? East West are not a strong pair, so it's difficult to second-guess East. ... but here goes. "uhuh, heart values, 2 club losers. I'd better sign off in 5D (620) or pass 4H (-200)." IMO These guys aren't going to bid a slam when West has a minimum, and East can see 2 club losers. The pass of 4H doesn't seem very likely either. Weak players hate Moysians and 5D is likely to be a better fit (3352 and 4342 are ruled out). Possibly 4351, more likely 2362. I'd rule 5D + 1 and advise the right of appeal. It might go back to 4H. A truly excellent problem 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 Sep 2 14:52:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:07:11 +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 MAA02115 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:06:54 +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 11MMGr-000ChP-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:06:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 01:22:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) In-Reply-To: <199909011116.MAA00681@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199909011116.MAA00681@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes snip > >Let me explain how I understand the YC treatment of psyches. > >Some of the regulars psyche (e.g. routinely bid 1S third in hand >without enough spades or enough points), this is known by their >partners (even if they haven't played before). This is not a >permitted agreement so they are playing an illegal system. > >If a player psyches and partner does not produce abnormal action, >there is deemed to be no problem. Correct > >If a player psyches and partner does something abnormal this is >probably a genuine co-incidence (given the high frequency of >abnormal actions), but if the abnormal action fields the psyche >a ruling is given on the basis of having an illegal agreement. >As John says, this is to keep the players honest not because >he believes they deliberately fielded; but to prevent players >becoming dishonest by fielding under cover of being randomly >abnormal. Precisely. The game has to be seen to be 'clean'. The actions are routine, there is probably no CPU, but *it looks like there is*. Thus it *looks like* a 40B violation. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it *is* a duck. > >[ I use field in the sence of taking abnormal action which > protects the psyche before the psyche has become obvious. ] > >The alternative approach is to cancel the board everytime a >regular produces a routines psyche. This may be the only >legal approach (though this is not clear, given the length >of our discussions), but would not endear itself to the >membership. > >Have I got this right, John? Yep. Incidentally the situation doesn't arise very often, perhaps once a quarter. The game is not as wild as I sometimes paint it. It's just that I get called over to the wild bits :)) chs john > >Robin (speaking as YC member) -- 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 Sep 2 15:31:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:07:11 +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 MAA02114 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:06:54 +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 11MMGr-000ChN-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:06:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 01:38:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) In-Reply-To: <001901bef497$35c9a8c0$99aa93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001901bef497$35c9a8c0$99aa93c3@pacific>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ snip >> >>If a player psyches and partner does not produce abnormal action, >>there is deemed to be no problem. >------------------ \x/ ---------------- > >+=+ So the players' responsibilities to their opponents, >their obligations to disclose, go by the board? There is no problem with disclosure here. Everyone at the table knows everyone elses psyching proclivities. We've been doing this to each other for the last 25 years. Almost all bids made reflect the general shape and texture of the hand. Sometimes however such bids do not. They are covered by Law 40A, and in general the development of the auction shows that there is no fielding. Occasionally both players in the partnership exercise their rights under Law 40A "to make any call or play ... such as a psychic bid ..." on the same hand. When this happens (and it is seldom) then I treat it as a CPU and rule as I've been taught to. > Well, the >game is not being played according to the Laws of >Duplicate Bridge On what basis do you allege this? >if this is the case. Does blml reckon >to deal with games other than duplicate bridge? In >the absence of respect for the Law no doubt common >courtesy ensures any stranger to the club is informed? But the usual suspects, as I said, leave the visitors and the weaker players alone. They're going to score 65% against them anyway. My most difficult situations are when intermediate players try one on against the visitors. It takes a long time to get through to a brain-washed ACBLer that psyching is part of the game of bridge. But then the ACBL >game is not being played according to the Laws of >Duplicate Bridge to quote my illustrious countryman. chs john > It is no wonder that patient man, Ton, is getting >irritated; all this futile discussion is enough to try a >saint. Hi, Saint! ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 16:20:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA02899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 16:20:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02894 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 16:19:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA21684; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 23:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01b601bef50a$fb8f4060$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: , References: Subject: Re: Email Address for Nadine Wood Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 23:16:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry, Karen Tim Goodwin has corrected a typo that I perpetrated, adding the "t" in "woodthere." He says the correct address is woodthere@erols.com Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > Did someone post an email address for Nadine? I tried it but me email was > returned "addressee unknown." > > Anyone know her correct email address? > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 17:27:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 17:27:12 +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 RAA03040 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 17:27:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA29187; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:26:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JFHNDR8N7W001BL3@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:25:49 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 02 Sep 1999 09:25:47 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 09:25:44 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Development To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C23E@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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id RAA03042 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> > > > >I have nothing whatsoever against using a single occurrence > >as "compelling evidence" (I've been told not to use the word > >proof) for something. But that something MUST be illegal to > >start with. > > > +=+ Now we are getting somewhere. All that remains > to be done is to remind you that a bid which is the subject > of an understanding that may not be apparent to opponents > is an illegal bid per Law 40B, whether it shows 27 HCP or > 0 HCP, if its meaning is not disclosed to opponents in the > manner prescribed by the sponsoring organisation. Since > the laws say it may not be made the Director has the power > to cancel it and any result that has been obtained following > its use. That would lead to a 12C1 adjustment, so I consider > it wholly apparent that anything less than 60% for the > innocent side in such circumstances is 'damage'. > I have no objection to the use of 'proof' in the sense > that, in the opinion of the Director or as it may be the AC, > it is compelling evidence. Might save a keystroke or two > unless David adds CE to the abbreviations. ~G~ +=+ > I have the feeling that we are going to fast here. I really don't agree with the suggestion that not disclosed partnership understandings when used should lead to AS. Don't tell me you didn't say that, that is why I used the word suggestion. We have to be aware of the impact of statements we make and this approach should not be used as a guide line, in my opinion. There is only reason to give an AS if the opponents are damaged by the use of an undisclosed agreement. The 'íf I had known'-type. Either during play itself or by lack of preparation or ... Furthermore it may be reason to give a procedural penalty. I remember a AC decision in Albuquerque (I think) where the Polish team was penalized severely, because of the use of an undisclosed agreement (the agreement they actually played differed from the one written on the convention card, which has the same effect). The board it happened on gave them a very good result. This result was taken away, another very good result from a previous session was taken away as well (having used this agreement also) and on top of it the pair was not allowed to play the next stage of the match. Apparently we didn't like what they did. In my opinion both adjusted scores should only have been given if using this agreement did influence the score, of which I was not so sure in these cases. The banning penalty is another story. An AC has the authority to give those examples and make these educational measures. ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 19:30:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:30:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03313 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:30:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <2773-25173>; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:30:26 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA02974 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:24:55 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: UI ruling, what adjustment? Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:25:08 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3AF@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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883758917C@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Teams 10xx W N E S >North/EW Vul Axx P P 1D > AQ10x 1S* 3D P? P >KQxxx 10xx Ax 3H P 4H End >KQxxx xxxx >x xx +620 >Qx Jxx Axxxx > J > KJxxxx * Michaels (W/S) not available > KJx ? "Is that pre-emptive?" > "No. Limit raise" >UK game >OB 5.4.3 ... you must alert ... after partner's opening bid and a pass >(but not an overcall or a double) a pre-emptive raise to three. ... > >So you do not alert either a limit raise or a pre-emptive raise. > >It's easy enough to rule this back to 3D *and for this thread accept >that the contract _is_ 3D*. > >If the contract *is* 3D you have not seen the 3H bid. OK? > >On SK lead, overtaken, returned, continued and ruffed, trump >or on HK lead, won, H eliminated, draw trump and cast adrift in S or any >other normal defence: > >How does South play the clubs? South is average in EBU fields. > What is the assigned score? 3D= or 3D-1 ? > >ACBLers who rule 60/40 or +3/-3 please don't bother. 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 First, I agree with the adjustment to 3D :-). Concerning the number of club losers, you normally lose two clubs. The actual card distribution is about the only distribution which enables declarer to lose only one club. Also, it requires that East on lead does not switch to a club, which he could easily do, putting South immediately to the test. So I think I rule 3D-1. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 19:36:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:36:32 +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 TAA03337 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:36:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from p8bs03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.140] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11MTHz-0003ZD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 10:36:15 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: UI ruling, what adjustment? Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 10:36:38 +0100 Message-ID: <01bef526$a7e7c7e0$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: Thursday, September 02, 1999 5:06 AM Subject: UI ruling, what adjustment? >Teams 10xx W N E S >North/EW Vul Axx P P 1D > AQ10x 1S* 3D P? P >KQxxx 10xx Ax 3H P 4H End >KQxxx xxxx >x xx +620 >Qx Jxx Axxxx > J > KJxxxx * Michaels (W/S) not available > KJx ? "Is that pre-emptive?" > "No. Limit raise" >UK game >OB 5.4.3 ... you must alert ... after partner's opening bid and a pass >(but not an overcall or a double) a pre-emptive raise to three. ... > >So you do not alert either a limit raise or a pre-emptive raise. > >It's easy enough to rule this back to 3D *and for this thread accept >that the contract _is_ 3D*. > >If the contract *is* 3D you have not seen the 3H bid. OK? > >On SK lead, overtaken, returned, continued and ruffed, trump >or on HK lead, won, H eliminated, draw trump and cast adrift in S or any >other normal defence: > >How does South play the clubs? South is average in EBU fields. > What is the assigned score? 3D= or 3D-1 ? 3D-1 (I cannot see how South can play the clubs for one loser providing E/W are not complete beginners who jump up with Aces. In that case I may allow him to play small (or 10)towards KJ . No, complete beginners do not part with Aces until the grim death. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 19:44:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:44:33 +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 TAA03372 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:44:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-46.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.46]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA08485 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:44:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CE42E5.2801774A@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 11:27:01 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <19990901173124.55850.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > >From: Herman De Wael > > >To reiterate, my definition of a "genuine psyche" has three > >elements: > >- a gross misstatement > >- of low frequency, compared to the "real" meaning of the > >bid > >- without any systemic catering by partner > > > >Under those conditions, it is my opinion that a "genuine > >psyche" can be included in partnership experience, and > >should therefor be disclosed to opponents (in any > >appropriate manner), but will not be part of partnership > >agreement, and can therefore not be ruled illegal by any > >regulation that limits system use. > > > To this I agree, under conditions (and most regulars on BLML know my > personal psyching tendency). > > However, IMFO(*), if a call is *always* made with a particular > hand/situation, then no matter how different it is from the "normal" meaning > of the call, it is not a misstatement, gross or otherwise; it's a two-way > call. Therefore, it cannot be a psychic call (per the Definitions); it is > systemic, whether or not the rest of the system has any way of catering for > it. > I don't agree sith that last phrase. When a system has a way of catering for it, then OK, it must be a systematic call. But when it isn't ? Some people have criticised me for puttin quantitative elements in my "definition". Yet you seem to be wishing to put another quantitative element in there. When I say that I always open that hand 1Heart, you call it systemic. if I would say that I do so only in 50% of the cases, it would not be systemic ? So I am punished for being over-honest ? While at the same time we are suggesting that even the one occurence might be enough to be considered "compelling evidence" for a partnership experience ? That way lies a ban on psyching altogether. > Most SOs that I know the regs for require both players in a pair to be > playing the same system. Judgement is allowed to differ, but the system > cannot be different. If partner is doing the same thing, then we regulate > on the status of the systemic "agreement"; if partner is not, then we rule > on "pair not playing the same system". > Now you are going even further. I psyche. Once. You get called and ask my partner, "would you do the same thing ?" If he says yes, you call us for illegal system, if he says no, you call us for different system. That way lies a complete ban on psyching. Now maybe there ought to be a law change and a complete ban on psyching, and all our troubles will be solved. But I don't believe a majority can be found for that view. Thus all regulations have to be thoroughly checked to see that they are interpreted in such a way that psyching is and will always be allowed. Thus there has to be some sort of definition of "genuine psyche", because we all know that there are some things called psyches that are not. I propose such a definition. > I am willing to be convinced otherwise (especially as I hold the opinion > that "Dear opponents: if someone is psyching in this auction, it is at least > 10-1 that it is our side, not yours" is not illegal), > but I can't see anything different between > > 1H, third in hand: 12-21, 5+hearts or 0-3, 42(34) > > concealed, unconcealed, known about by partner or not, or written down in > system notes, and > > 2D: weak 2 in either major or 28+, no 4-card major. > Well, the difference can lie in "systemic catering". > that was used as an example of trying to get around SO regs on mini-multi by > having a strong option that comes up once in 1000 times. > I am seeing double here. I am trying to get my 1He called non-systemic, and many disagree. Others are trying to get the 2Di called systemic, and many disagree. I believe the question, and the disagreement, only stems from bad regulations in the first place. A regulation that only allows a Multi-2D if there is a strong alternative is a bad regulation : Opponents are less hindered if they are more certain that the opening is weak. A regulation that disallows an opening on zero points is also a bad regulation : Opponents are not hindered, and have the opportunity of a good score. Furthermore, I doubt if the majority want a regulation that prohibits this 1He opening. If it exists, it is only because it is badly written or interpreted. We should be able to interpret the badly written regulations in such a way that they do what they are supposed to do. > It's still system, and it's still regulable, if it's always done. It's not > system without the always (where the line should be drawn I don't know). > And that's exactly the problem. The "always" is only in my statement. There will never be any proof (or even CE) that I "always" do it, except my honest statement to that fact. In reality, I don't do it "always". I clearly remember once in the last five years that I did NOT open it. That's how frequent these things are. They arrive once a year, and then I do four of them in five years. Call it 80%. Is that systemic? And how will you prove it if I say absolutely nothing on the matter? > Same goes for "always psych with 0 points" or "always psych with 0-3 points > and no 4-card major", or others brought up in this thread. > > Michael. > Change them to "frequently" and see if you can rule against them, or prove that they are lying and it should in fact say "always". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 19:44:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:44:34 +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 TAA03373 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:44:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-46.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.46]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA08489 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:44:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CE43AD.17295848@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 11:30:21 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > > Am I the only one who reads Law 40A to state that YOU MAY NOT HAVE AN > AGREEMENT ON PSYCHIC BIDDING? Or am I getting greatly irritated for the > wrong reasons? My Delete key is getting worn out. Sorry Marv if I stopped > on you posting, but I repeatedly read about psychic agreements.....Kojak Sorry Kojak, but I read it as "you may not have an _undisclosed_ agreement (on anything)". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 20:14:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 20:14:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03449 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 20:14:07 +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 LAA02065 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:13:50 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA13705 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:12:42 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 02 Sep 1999 10:12:42 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA22941 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:12:39 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA03307 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:12:23 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:12:23 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909021012.LAA03307@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Rereading Law 75B: A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). I have two questions: 1) Presumably "implicit agreements, which must be disclosed" are "an announced partnership agreement" ? In which case, violations which have become sufficiently habitual so as to create implicit agreements are not longer violations? 2) Presumably "implicit agreements, which must be disclosed" are subject to regulation as conventions under Law 40D? Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 20:16:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 20:16:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03472 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 20:16:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <2312-25173>; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:15:42 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA03059 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:47:08 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Misinformation from an English Club Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:47:22 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3B0@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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589168@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >Does the 'screen test' help? I think South and West are normally on the same >side which doesn't help but suppose we move the screen so that South and >East were on the same side? >Now South gets the correct explanation from East and passes the 4C bid while >West bids on thinking that 4C was Gerber. In this scenario there has been >damage. But are we allowed to mentally move the screen? > >Regards, >Fearghal I think not. I assume that in the average English club no screens are used, which means that West must give South information about East's calls. You get an entirely different situation when East instead of West provides the information. You are right, however, in saying that this problem wouldn't exist if South and East were sitting on one side of the screen. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 21:49:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:49:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from dynamite.com.au (m1.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03691 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:49:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from bridge.dynamite.com.au (isp128.canb.dynamite.com.au [202.139.68.128]) by dynamite.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA04820 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:49:01 +1000 Message-ID: <001001bef539$658c7f40$80448bca@dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Fw: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:48:42 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Canberra Bridge Club To: Marvin L. French Sent: 2 September 1999 13:30 Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marvin L. French > To: > Sent: 2 September 1999 11:24 > Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience > > > > Kojak wrote; > > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > > > Now, if we have a system for handling such responses, and the system > > caters > > > > to > > > > the possibility of a psych, then that should be disclosed. > > > > > > > > > Am I the only one who reads Law 40A to state that YOU MAY NOT HAVE AN > > > AGREEMENT ON PSYCHIC BIDDING? Or am I getting greatly irritated for the > > > wrong reasons? My Delete key is getting worn out. Sorry Marv if I > stopped > > > on you posting, but I repeatedly read about psychic agreements.....Kojak > > > > Your capitalized words are an inference, not a quote of L40A. I don't > believe > > that having a system that caters to the possibility of a psych means that > the > > psych is *based on a partnership understanding.* When Kaplan-Sheinwold and > > Roth-Stone used the 2NT response to an opening bid to investigate the > > possibility of a psych, that was not held to be a violation of L40A. > > > > Now, the ACBL has outlawed "psychic controls," which are typified by that > 2NT > > response, and it is therefore illegal in ACBL-land. The 2NT response was a > > convention, hence controllable. A partnership agreement that a major suit > > response to a weak two bid may be raised no higher than the three level is > a > > treatment, not a convention. > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > > The partnership agreement not to raise the major suit response to the 4 > level, however you want to dodge and weave, is an attempt to control the > auction. The reason to control the auction is the possibility that the > major suit response was psychic. Sounds like "psychic control" to me and > illegal in the ACBL. > > 40A says that a player may make any call or play ( including an > intentionally misleading call......................, provided that such call > or play is not based on a partnership understanding. > This major suit response is certainly intentionally misleading (to the > opponents) but is based on the partnership understanding that "partner may > never insist that the we play in this denomination". Doesn't this make the > "psychic" major suit response illegal? > > Sean Mullamphy > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 2 22:10:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 22:10:42 +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 WAA03792 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 22:10:35 +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 IAA24141 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 08:11:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990902081114.006e44ac@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 08:11:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:48 PM 9/1/99 +0100, Robin wrote: >To my mind there is a significant difference in how they >should be treated between a psyche which would be legal >if it were an agreement and a psyche which would be illegal. The ACBL agrees. However, the ACBL has absolutely prohibited *any* agreements about psychs (in practice, other than "never"), so the first category is empty. 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 Sep 2 22:38:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 22:38:34 +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 WAA03892 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 22:38:27 +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 IAA26079 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 08:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990902083858.006d90f4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 08:38:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:43 PM 9/1/99 EDT, Schoderb wrote: >Am I the only one who reads Law 40A to state that YOU MAY NOT HAVE AN >AGREEMENT ON PSYCHIC BIDDING? Or am I getting greatly irritated for the >wrong reasons? My Delete key is getting worn out. Sorry Marv if I stopped >on you posting, but I repeatedly read about psychic agreements.....Kojak I certainly don't -- it sounds to me like the so-called "fallacy of the converse". L40A says that psyches about which you do not have an agreement may not be prohibited. That does not mean that psychs about which you do have an agreement must be prohibited. It suggests that they *may* be, but only to the extent that the prohibition of any agreement is allowed, the conditions for which are set forth in L40D. 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 Sep 3 00:03:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 00:03:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [62.12.12.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04207 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 00:03:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from poimms-6350 (k533.zeelandnet.nl [193.172.203.25]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA20959 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 16:02:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199909021402.QAA20959@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 16:01:59 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- Eric Landau wrote > At 10:25 PM 8/31/99 +0100, David wrote: > > >B4/W/All 10982 W N E S > > Q10 1D P 1H 2C > > J54 P 3C 4C* P/5C > >AQ4 9732 KJ53 P P X AP > >65 AKJ8 > >K109873 AQ6 > >K10 Q5 > > 76 > > 97432 > > 2 > > AJ864 > > 5CX-4 > > On the evidence, I have no trouble finding that S would not have bid 5C > without the MI. Adjudicating further would require me to learn something > about E-W's methods. I would find that W would indeed bid 4H, as S > suggests, but if they bid as I do, E will not pass, as 4H won't be the > right contract given W's pass of 2C. So I'd probably adjust to 5D+1 for > both sides. > MS: I agree there was MI but I don't see why S would not bid 5C with the correct informatie.The change from Paa to 5C can only be explained when S thought 4C was real. He bids 5C to prevent EW from reaching slam and recieved a mere -1100 (should be much more). I don't mind that S takes a chance on a good or bad score against a makeble slam. I do however dislike the way he tries to get a even better score (6H -2) on a stange explanation. Whether EW get penalized seperatly is a different discussion. S keeps his score since he volunteerly bid 5C to prevent EW reaching 6 and knowing he was going to be doubled. I see no demage for him. Marcel From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 00:56:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 00:56:29 +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 AAA04581 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 00:56:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA19208 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 10:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA09665 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 10:56:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 10:56:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909021456.KAA09665@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > In truth, their agreement was that 3H was natural, but RHO was > psyching with long spades. ... > So the MI clearly did damage (and the TD and AC > agreed). I am totally confused both by your comments on this case and by what it has to do with the other. In your case, how did the MI do damage? Are you claiming that you will reach 4H if your LHO gives correct information: "3H is natural?" I find that very hard to believe. On the facts you present, it seems you were damaged by the psych, not the MI. Or are you saying the psyching habits were known to LHO and should have been revealed? If true, that is certainly MI and deserves redress. In general, if one side has a misunderstanding and gives MI as a result, isn't the adjustment based on their giving correct information to the other side but keeping their misunderstanding for their own bidding? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 01:34:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 01:34:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04731 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 01:34:31 +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 LAA20716 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA09793 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:34:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:34:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909021534.LAA09793@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > 2) Presumably "implicit agreements, which must be disclosed" > are subject to regulation as conventions under Law 40D? Well, this is the key question, and I don't see a clear answer. Let's rewrite "Herman's equation:" meaning = + + + Clearly the first three terms (agreements) can be regulated provided they are either conventional or weak initial one-level actions. The final term is disclosable but cannot be regulated according to L40E1 (if that's the right number; no FLB at hand). David (and Grattan too, it seems) believe the last term is the null set. Herman believes it isn't. David's view certainly has the merit of simplicity: anything disclosable is regulatable (as long as it is within the usual area for regulation). Herman's view needs a definition of where 'tacit agreement' ends and 's&j' begins; he suggests whether there is systemic catering, but I don't think that will do. Perhaps if he would include non-systemic catering (the dreaded Rule of Coincidence), there would be a case. I don't see why "style and judgment" are in the laws if they represent the null set, but defining just what they do represent isn't easy! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 01:36:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 01:36:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04751 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 01:36:30 +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 IAA19022; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 08:35:48 -0700 Message-Id: <199909021535.IAA19022@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Sep 1999 10:56:18 PDT." <199909021456.KAA09665@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 08:35:48 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > In truth, their agreement was that 3H was natural, but RHO was > > psyching with long spades. > ... > > So the MI clearly did damage (and the TD and AC > > agreed). > > I am totally confused both by your comments on this case and by what it > has to do with the other. > > In your case, how did the MI do damage? Are you claiming that you will > reach 4H if your LHO gives correct information: "3H is natural?" I find > that very hard to believe. Bidding a preemptive, natural 3H, and then pulling to 3S when doubled, is fishy. That's why I think I might have figured it out without the MI. Maybe I wouldn't have, but the MI deprived me of the opportunity to do so. Given the misexplanation that 3H showed both majors, the 3S bid didn't sound quite so fishy. Anyway, the TD and AC agreed with me on this point---the AC said the explanation "muddied the waters" so that we couldn't reach the correct spot. P.S. Without the MI, if I hadn't fielded the psych and gotten a bad board as a result, I would have gotten upset with myself for not figuring it out---I wouldn't have seen any reason to call the TD. > On the facts you present, it seems you were > damaged by the psych, not the MI. Or are you saying the psyching habits > were known to LHO and should have been revealed? If true, that is > certainly MI and deserves redress. Actually, I found out later that RHO does psych a lot. If LHO had understood RHO's bid correctly, and LHO knew that RHO psyched a lot, it can be argued that LHO should have let me know. Since LHO didn't understand the bid correctly, it's a moot point. > In general, if one side has a misunderstanding and gives MI as a result, > isn't the adjustment based on their giving correct information to the > other side but keeping their misunderstanding for their own bidding? I believe you're right---for the *adjustment*. However, you cannot give an adjustment by Law 40C until you determine whether there was "damage". Since the Laws don't define damage, it is not obvious that the same standard used when adjusting a score (the most favorable result that was likely/at all probable) also applies when determining whether there was damage. It's not at all clear to me that the determination of damage must be based on "giving correct information to the other side but keeping their misunderstanding for their own bidding". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 02:05:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 02:05:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05009 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 02:05:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA10300; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:01:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-84.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.84) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010051; Thu Sep 2 11:00:22 1999 Message-ID: <011501bef55d$0ca42440$5484d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:05:52 -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 MadDog wrote: It takes a long time to get through to a brain-washed >ACBLer that psyching is part of the game of bridge. But then the ACBL > >>game is not being played according to the Laws of >>Duplicate Bridge > >to quote my illustrious countryman. chs john > Now you know we unwashed colonials are not really as bad as all that John! The one psych to a partnership to a lifetime pseudo rule is not universal (or official). Actually it seems to be more the case in the hinterlands and in club games where the level of TD training approaches nil and the level of bridge sophistication is, to be charitable, minimal. Those of use who deplore a trend toward the erosion of Law 40A rights may paint a more Oakiesque picture than total verisimilitude would justify. In regionals and nationals I and others have at times received quite correct and sane rulings on psychs. There are indeed some folks over here who have RTFLB. Still one could wish for an analogue of the YC close to home. :-) Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 02:39:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 02:39:34 +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 CAA05102 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 02:39:27 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id LAA22552 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:39:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0GDMG013 Thu, 02 Sep 99 11:39:31 Message-ID: <9909021139.0GDMG01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 02 Sep 99 11:39:31 Subject: UI RULING, WHAT ADJUSTMEN To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Missing the C9, particular distributions are needed to hold the club losers to one. It so happens that this distibution permits it [short Q offside] and it is the most likely to occur of the distributions. To wit, the only legitimate way to lose only 1 club with the Q onside is for the ace to also be onside [ok, or stiff offside, geesh] . Therefore, the most reasonable play to make is for the Q or Qx offside hoping to drop the Q on the second round when the ace is onside [otherwise W is endplayed for a ruff-sluff]. Playing for the AQ onside or for the short queen offside are likely plays even though short Q offside is more likely to pay off. Which line to assign declarer? I am not comfortable assigning only one, but playing for the short Q offside is more likely to succeed. Adjust the contract to 3D making and send it to appeal suggesting that L12C3 be applied to the outcome of 3D. Roger Pewick B>Teams 10xx W N E S B>North/EW Vul Axx P P 1D B> AQ10x 1S* 3D P? P B>KQxxx 10xx Ax 3H P 4H End B>KQxxx xxxx B>x xx +620 B>Qx Jxx Axxxx B> J B> KJxxxx * Michaels (W/S) not available B> KJx ? "Is that pre-emptive?" B> "No. Limit raise" B>UK game B>OB 5.4.3 ... you must alert ... after partner's opening bid and a pass B>(but not an overcall or a double) a pre-emptive raise to three. ... B>So you do not alert either a limit raise or a pre-emptive raise. B>It's easy enough to rule this back to 3D *and for this thread accept B>that the contract _is_ 3D*. B>If the contract *is* 3D you have not seen the 3H bid. OK? B>On SK lead, overtaken, returned, continued and ruffed, trump B>or on HK lead, won, H eliminated, draw trump and cast adrift in S or any B>other normal defence: B>How does South play the clubs? South is average in EBU fields. B>What is the assigned score? 3D= or 3D-1 ? B>ACBLers who rule 60/40 or +3/-3 please don't bother. chs john B>-- B>John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 B>451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou B>London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk B>+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk B> Roger Pewick r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 03:27:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 03:27:06 +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 DAA05238 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 03:26:58 +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 11MadK-000Fzl-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 17:26:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 15:20:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) In-Reply-To: <199909021012.LAA03307@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199909021012.LAA03307@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > >Rereading Law 75B: > >A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as >his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within >a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). > >I have two questions: > >1) Presumably "implicit agreements, which must be disclosed" > are "an announced partnership agreement" ? In which case, > violations which have become sufficiently habitual so as to > create implicit agreements are not longer violations? But whilst the psyches are habitual, there is no implicit agreement. For example my tendency to overcall 1NT on a 6card H suit is alerted by some of my partners. However they bend over backwards to make the call which is consistent with me holding a 15-17 overcall. I can see no basis in Law for this to be illegal. The opponents are entitled to our partnership experience, and partner refuses to have an agreement with me about my 1NT overcall. > >2) Presumably "implicit agreements, which must be disclosed" > are subject to regulation as conventions under Law 40D? > >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 Fri Sep 3 03:40:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 03:40:24 +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 DAA05300 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 03:40:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA16802 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 10:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <028101bef56a$257c6380$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: ACBL Laws Commission Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 10:39:16 -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 Having been advised by a member of the ACBL LC that the ACBL By-Laws authorize the LC to interpret the Laws, I obtained a copy of the By-Laws from ACBL headquarters. They were nice enough to send me a WordPerfect version. The By-Laws really should be on the ACBL website, following the example of the WBF and its By-Laws. Anyone wanting a WordPerfect version can obtain it by e-mail from Kelley McGuire, Kelley.McGuire@acbl.org. Those lacking WordPerfect can obtain a hard copy from her for the asking. Anyway, here is ARTICLE XVI, ACBL LAWS COMMISSION ###### The ACBL Laws Commission shall consist of a minimum of nine (9) members and a maximum of (15) members. The members shall be appointed by the President of the ACBL with the approval of the Board of Directors and each shall serve for a five (5) year term. The Commission will prepare the Laws under which both duplicate and rubber bridge games will be governed. These Laws may be reviewed and revised periodically by the Commission. ###### So, the ACBL LC obviously can interpret the Laws as it wishes, since it is responsible for preparing the Laws! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 03:50:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 03:50:36 +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 DAA05353 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 03:50:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA19806 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 10:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <029101bef56b$91e592c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C23E@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: Development Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 10:46:46 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: >I remember a AC decision in Albuquerque (I think) where the Polish team was penalized severely, because of the use of an undisclosed agreement (the agreement they actually played differed from the one written on the convention card, which has the same effect). The board it happened on gave them a very good result. This result was taken away, another very good result from a previous session was taken away as well (having used this agreement also) and on top of it the pair was not allowed to play the next stage of the match. Apparently we didn't like what they did. In my opinion both adjusted scores should only have been given if using this agreement did influence the score, of which I was not so sure in these cases. The banning penalty is another story. An AC has the authority to give those examples and make these educational measures. A very good principle implied here, IMO. Infractions that do not affect the game should be handled outside the game, not within the game. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com AKA Cato From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 05:07:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 05:07:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f26.hotmail.com [207.82.250.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA05658 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 05:07:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 69289 invoked by uid 0); 2 Sep 1999 19:07:03 -0000 Message-ID: <19990902190703.69288.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 02 Sep 1999 12:07:02 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 19:07:02 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael [I've clipped what I can. Unfortunately, it's still long. Sorry.mdf] >Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > > >From: Herman De Wael >>Therefore, it cannot be a psychic call (per the Definitions); it is >>systemic, whether or not the rest of the system has any way of catering >>for it. > > > >I don't agree sith that last phrase. >When a system has a way of catering for it, then OK, it must >be a systematic call. But when it isn't ? > I "play" a system (OK, I've designed it, I haven't had the courage, the reason, or the obnoxiousness yet to actually play it. it's designed to be as grotesque as possible while still being GCC-legal. Barely. I call it the "Director Call Club".) where I have to open 1D on 8-12, 3316 (possibly even 3307), and where third-in-hand 1NT openers are described as "balanced, 8+, can not have game, given partner's pass". In the first case, I have no systemic way of catering for the strange distribution because I haven't worked it out yet; in the second, the GCC does not allow any conventional responses to a NT wider than 5 points or one that does not guarantee 10 HCP, which limits how I can "cater" to the bid severely. They're still systemic, however, because the bid is made with the hand (judgement is allowed to pass in third seat with a 8-count, vulnerable). There are places in any system (fewer in well-designed systems, of course) where the system does not have a bid for the particular hand held, and where the system does not cater for whatever lie is chosen. That doesn't make them any less systemic. >Some people have criticised me for puttin quantitative >elements in my "definition". Yet you seem to be wishing to >put another quantitative element in there. When I say that >I always open that hand 1Heart, you call it systemic. if I >would say that I do so only in 50% of the cases, it would >not be systemic ? So I am punished for being over-honest ? > I do not know where to draw the line (neither do I know where to draw the line on "too-frequent psyches" or "number of similar psyches required to create an implicit agreement") but I used the word always very carefully. I avoided using "always", in quotes, because I am only on solid ground when I am talking "bridge always" - i.e. always to a non-robotic epsilon. 50% is, to my opinion, on the other side of the line. I'd feel more comfortable if the supposed psych didn't have such defined requirements, as well, or if there were other 1H psychs you would make (i.e. if partner works out that you have psyched your 1H call, that e wasn't defending double-dummy on the distribution. Especially if there was no way of letting the opponents know about it before the end of the hand). >While at the same time we are suggesting that even the one >occurence might be enough to be considered "compelling >evidence" for a partnership experience ? > I certainly am not. That's where the ?&E comittees and recorded instances come in. >That way lies a ban on psyching altogether. > I agree. >>Most SOs that I know the regs for require both players in a pair to >>be >>playing the same system. Judgement is allowed to differ, but the >>system >>cannot be different. If partner is doing the same thing, >>then we >>regulate on the status of the systemic "agreement"; if >>partner is not, >>then we rule on "pair not playing the same system". > > >Now you are going even further. I psyche. Once. You get >called and ask my partner, "would you do the same thing ?" That is not what I meant, even though I can see it being read that way. I am not talking about psyching once, I am talking about your known, published, and disclosed habit of opening 1H in third with 0-3, 42(34). I am operating on a quote in my mind similar to "when I have [that hand] in [that position], I open 1H". If I am misremembering, I apologize, and will ask you to consider our good and hypothetical friend Harry diWorsley, who (hypothetically) *did* say it. >If he says yes, you call us for illegal system, if he says >no, you call us for different system. That way lies a >complete ban on psyching. > Under your situation, yes. Under mine, it leads to a complete ban on two-way calls that are illegal by SO reg., whether or not they are explicitly agreed to in the partnership, and, I guess, even known about in the partnership. Someone, I forget who, explained to me that the K-S "systemic psyche" was not, in fact, a psych at all - it was a two-way call, one of which meanings (3-6, HHxxx or better suit, no outside strength) is regulable by the SO by L40D. I walk off my solid ground when I stop discussing partnership agreements and go to individual "agreements"; which is why I brought up the reg. about "both players in the partnership must play the same system". >Thus there has to be some sort of definition of "genuine >psyche", because we all know that there are some things >called psyches that are not. > >I propose such a definition. > You did. What if I included to that definition - When it becomes obvious that the caller does not have the "normal" meaning of the call, no significant information can be inferred about the caller's hand (where significant here is my first crack at saying "information that can not be worked out by 'why would someone psych this call?'"). For example: the last time I remember psyching an opening 1S, I had KJTxx xx xxx xxx. We ended up defending 3NT. My partner had a 10-count, and had made it clear to me in the auction. I had not doubled 3NT, nor looked for a contract. It was obvious to the next table that I had psyched. It made when partner didn't lead a spade. His response? "I knew you had psyched, I just didn't know whether you had psyched with spades, or trying to hide spades." > > I can't see anything different between > > > > 1H, third in hand: 12-21, 5+hearts or 0-3, 42(34) > > > > concealed, unconcealed, known about by partner or not, or written > > >down in system notes, and > > > > 2D: weak 2 in either major or 28+, no 4-card major. > > >Well, the difference can lie in "systemic catering". > IIRC, in that case, there was no "systemic catering" for the 28+ hand either, because they knew it never came up :-). But my memory is hazy, because I heard about this third-hand, and it isn't really relevant. > >I am seeing double here. I am trying to get my 1He called >non-systemic, and many disagree. Others are trying to get >the 2Di called systemic, and many disagree. > I'm not sure I understand this. What I meant was that the 2D pair were trying to get around the fact that their mini-multi was illegal by adding a strong meaning that was ignorably infrequent. The 1H bidder is trying to get around the fact that it could contain a (admittedly ridiculously infrequent, but very specific) hand that is "less than a king below average strength", and therefore regulable, and in many parts of the world, regulated, by saying that the weak option is a "psych". I stand by my position that a "gross misstatement" of my hand that is in itself very specific is not a psych, it is an either-or call. >I believe the question, and the disagreement, only stems >from bad regulations in the first place. > Quite possibly. In fact, almost certainly, and you would be welcome to play that 2-way 1H call against me (I'd enjoy it, in fact; I like playing against stuff I don't normally come up against). So as you say, we have to convince the PTB (I almost said PHB - but the ones I know, at least on BLML, aren't) to do them right. Now, let's just define right :-) [snip opinions on the regulations. That's another thread altogether] >>It's still system, and it's still regulable, if it's always done. >>It's >>not system without the always (where the line should be drawn I >>don't >>know). > >And that's exactly the problem. The "always" is only in my >statement. There will never be any proof (or even CE) that >I "always" do it, except my honest statement to that fact. That I believe. And I agree with you that it is the problem. That's what recorder forms or their equivalent are for. >In reality, I don't do it "always". I clearly remember once >in the last five years that I did NOT open it. >That's how frequent these things are. They arrive once a >year, and then I do four of them in five years. Call it >80%. Is that systemic? I wish I knew. I really do. If I could answer that question, and the other "where do we draw the line on psyching" questions, acceptably even to myself, I'd feel a lot better. A shot in the dark would be "if, if you were playing it systemically, the times you failed to open 1H with a 1H opening of that type could be classified as a psych, then it's systemic." Yes, I know it's a circular definition, and doesn't help at all. >And how will you prove it if I say absolutely nothing on the >matter? > How will you prove it if my leads state xXx, and in fact I lead XXx (and my partner knows it) with about 50% frequency on each card, depending on whether I feel like showing a doubleton to declarer or not? How do you prove that I'm grabbing a wire, because I'm not actively avoiding listening to the loud-mouth two tables down talking about the hands I'm about to play? How do you prove that the incessant talking that a couple of people I know do isn't intended to distract their opponents, instead of that simply being the result? Bridge has many of these "how do we tell" problems. So far, we've attempted to solve them by collection-of-evidence schemes and hoping that not enough people will think about it for it to be a problem. We've also used the "Yes, I know you wouldn't do , but because cheaters would do the same thing in this case, I am forced by the [Laws/regs] to adjust. I'm sorry, you just got unlucky, and everybody gets treated the same way." method. Life's a bitch, and catching cheaters in a "gentleman's game" even more so. That's why the historical punishment for being caught in such a case is fatal, either biologically or socially. >>Same goes for "always psych with 0 points" or "always psych with >>0-3 >>points and no 4-card major", or others brought up in this >>thread. > >Change them to "frequently" and see if you can rule against >them, or prove that they are lying and it should in fact say >"always". > See the other thread for my (non-)answer to that question. And thank you for your well-thought out argument. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 05:58:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 05:58:20 +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 FAA05888 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 05:58:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA25915 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <02ae01bef57d$698518c0$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <37CE43AD.17295848@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:48:54 -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 Herman De Wael wrote > Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > Am I the only one who reads Law 40A to state that YOU MAY NOT HAVE AN > > AGREEMENT ON PSYCHIC BIDDING? Or am I getting greatly irritated for the > > wrong reasons? My Delete key is getting worn out. Sorry Marv if I stopped > > on you posting, but I repeatedly read about psychic agreements.....Kojak > > Sorry Kojak, but I read it as "you may not have an > _undisclosed_ agreement (on anything)". > L40A is not written correctly, IMO. The parenthetical part seems to be the subject of L40A, and should not be parenthesized. To see this, omit the parenthetical part and you have: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." Since nearly every call or play is based on a partnership understanding, this is nonsense. Better: L40A. Right to Choose Call or Play A player may make any misleading call or play--such as a psychic call--or a call or play that departs from the commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention, without prior disclosure, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. I think that catches everything, as "misleading" does not mean deliberately so. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 06:10:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 06:10:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f31.hotmail.com [207.82.250.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA05921 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 06:09:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 33478 invoked by uid 0); 2 Sep 1999 20:09:12 -0000 Message-ID: <19990902200912.33477.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 02 Sep 1999 13:09:11 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 20:09:11 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >But whilst the psyches are habitual, there is no implicit agreement. >For >example my tendency to overcall 1NT on a 6card H suit is alerted >by some >of my partners. However they bend over backwards to make the >call which is >consistent with me holding a 15-17 overcall. I can see >no basis in Law for >this to be illegal. > This is where I have the burr in my side in my discussion with Herman. I realize that !((A->B)->(B->A)), and I know I may be reacting with that fallacy, but it goes farther than "making the call...consistent with...15-17". I'm not sure that when they get to 3NT after your 1NT overcall, and partner with 10 points leads a heart from Kx that that isn't "fielding the psych" or "evidence of an illegal systemic call" or whatever it should be called. Not that any of your partners would do this, of course. In fact, why don't I set that up as a question? N-S Vul. W deals. W N E S P 1D 1NT! 3D 1NT is alerted and explained "partner has a tendency P 3NT AP to psych 1NT with a 6-card H suit" >From KTxx Kx xx QJxxx West leads the HK. East actually does have AQxxxx and out, and this is the only lead to set the contract. Ruling? >The opponents are entitled to our partnership experience, and partner >refuses to have an agreement with me about my 1NT overcall. I'm uncomfortable about any situation where "If partner doesn't have what e says e has, e has this hand". Whether or not they are controlled, or agreed upon, or just part of partnership experience, it smacks too much of "systemic psychs" - and emphasizing the "system" part of that term. Now, please convince me that I'm wrong before I go bug-eyed. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 06:30:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 06:30:44 +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 GAA06002 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 06:30:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA26893 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <02b601bef57d$ddf83160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Fw: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:00:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Since Sean inadvertently sent me a comment privately, and has now submitted it via BLML, I'll forward my reply to him. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > Hi Sean, thanks for writing. > > > The partnership agreement not to raise the major suit response to the 4 > > level, however you want to dodge and weave, is an attempt to control the > > auction. The reason to control the auction is the possibility that the > > major suit response was psychic. Sounds like "psychic control" to me and > > illegal in the ACBL. > An SO can control only conventions (and ultra-light openings). Ergo, the only psychic controls that they can outlaw are those that constitute a convention. You will have to criticize the "psych accommodation" through some otherpath, I believe. Perhaps L40A: > > > 40A says that a player may make any call or play ( including an > > intentionally misleading call......................, provided that such > > call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. > > This major suit response is certainly intentionally misleading (to the > > opponents) but is based on the partnership understanding that "partner may > > never insist that the we play in this denomination". Doesn't this make > > the "psychic" major suit response illegal? > > I don't think that is the intended meaning of L40A, but there is certainly room for disagreement. To me "based on" refers to an agreement to psych in certain situations (e.g., always bid a short major over a takeout double). I think "based on" would be ""the subject of" if your wider interpretation were the correct one. Remember Kaplan-Sheinwold and Roth-Stone's use of 2NT to ask about the possibility of a psychic opening. If you are right about the intent of L40A, then that was an illegal practice, since the psychic opening was "based on" the knowledge that partner can inquire about a psych. If Kaplan did it, it was legal. In sum, I don't think L40A outlaws measures that are aimed at accommodating a possible psych, convention or not. The ACBL outlaws any convention that is designed to uncover a psych, but cannot outlaw bidding treatments. Your next point of argument could be that such a "treatment" might constitute a convention, but I don't think that works. Best wishes, Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 07:22:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 07:22:53 +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 HAA06237 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 07:22:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11MeJX-000L11-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:22:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 17:17:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) References: <199909021534.LAA09793@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909021534.LAA09793@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Robin Barker >> 2) Presumably "implicit agreements, which must be disclosed" >> are subject to regulation as conventions under Law 40D? > >Well, this is the key question, and I don't see a clear answer. > >Let's rewrite "Herman's equation:" > >meaning = + + > + > >Clearly the first three terms (agreements) can be regulated provided >they are either conventional or weak initial one-level actions. > >The final term is disclosable but cannot be regulated according to L40E1 >(if that's the right number; no FLB at hand). > >David (and Grattan too, it seems) believe the last term is the null set. Which David? I think I am the only David that has posted to this thread, and I certainly did not say this nor do I believe it. >Herman believes it isn't. David's view certainly has the merit of >simplicity: anything disclosable is regulatable (as long as it is within >the usual area for regulation). Herman's view needs a definition of >where 'tacit agreement' ends and 's&j' begins; he suggests whether there >is systemic catering, but I don't think that will do. Perhaps if he >would include non-systemic catering (the dreaded Rule of Coincidence), >there would be a case. > >I don't see why "style and judgment" are in the laws if they represent >the null set, but defining just what they do represent isn't easy! I know it when I see it? If you and your partner agree that a 1NT opening _may_ contain a 1NT opening dependent on suit quality then you may find that this is borderline: Q32 QJ732 A2 AQ2 My style might be to open 1NT but my partner's isn't. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 09:11:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:11:54 +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 JAA06740 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:11:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-017.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.209]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA04897 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 00:11:02 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <00d101bef59a$3a200be0$d1307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club> Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 00:23:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: In general, if one side has a misunderstanding and gives MI as a result, isn't the adjustment based on their giving correct information to the other side but keeping their misunderstanding for their own bidding? Exactly! Regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 10:35:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:35:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from legend.idworld.net (root@legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07010 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:35:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (iits-01-176.sat.idworld.net [209.142.71.176]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA29990 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:35:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <37CF178E.B56E04FE@txdirect.net> Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 19:34:22 -0500 From: "\"Albert \\\"BiigAl\\\" Lochli\"" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Clubs posting on the Internet Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Great Bridge Links has had me edit and prepare some pages linking Bridge Clubs that have their own individual websites. It will be at: http://www.cbf.ca/GBL/gblCLUBS/ and replace the prior clubs pages. (Hopefully by tonight). If your club has an Internet page and is not listed drop me a note about it - off this mailing list - and I will post it. I only do club, not personal or federsation pages. I was quite amazed how much and what the various clubs were placing on the Internet. It is quite interesting. Most post schedules and how to get to their clubs, many have results - some archived for years. Articles, humor, contests, regulations, lessons, ... an amazing lot. Some feature players, some their directors. Holland, Scandanavia and Wales appear to have the greatest coverage. South America the least. -- Albert "BiigAl" Lochli biigal@txdirect.net - Phone: (210) 829-4274 PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 District 16 ACBL Internet Coordinator - Texas Editor, Clubs pages Great Bridge Links - Canada From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 11:50:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:50:46 +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 LAA07247 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:50:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.16] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11MiUY-000IDp-00; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 02:50:14 +0100 Message-ID: <008401bef5ae$a888ba00$105208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Herman De Wael" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Development Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 01:18:12 +0100 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: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws Date: 02 September 1999 08:53 Subject: RE: Development > > >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> > > > >I have nothing whatsoever against using a single occurrence > >as "compelling evidence" (I've been told not to use the word > >proof) for something. But that something MUST be illegal to > >start with. > > > +=+ Now we are getting somewhere. -------\x/--------. Since > the laws say it may not be made the Director has the power > to cancel it and any result that has been obtained following > its use. That would lead to a 12C1 adjustment, > ------- \x/ ---------- I have the feeling that we are going to fast here. I really don't agree with the suggestion that not disclosed partnership understandings when used should lead to AS. Don't tell me you didn't say that, that is why I used the word suggestion. ---------- \x/ ------------ +=+ whilst, ton, I respect your opinion, I am in no doubt that the said power is available to the Director. As for the AS, I hold the opinion that when the board has been played out, using an illegal call, and there is damage, Law 12A2 normally applies. Amend 'would' to 'can'. We can debate what constitutes 'damage'. ~Grattan~. +=+ We have to be aware of the impact of statements we make and this approach should not be used as a guide line, in my opinion. There is only reason to give an AS if the opponents are damaged by the use of an undisclosed agreement. The 'íf I had known'-type. Either during play itself or by lack of preparation or ... Furthermore it may be reason to give a procedural penalty. I remember a AC decision in Albuquerque (I think) where the Polish team was penalized severely, because of the use of an undisclosed agreement (the agreement they actually played differed from the one written on the convention card, which has the same effect). The board it happened on gave them a very good result. This result was taken away, another very good result from a previous session was taken away as well (having used this agreement also) and on top of it the pair was not allowed to play the next stage of the match. Apparently we didn't like what they did. In my opinion both adjusted scores should only have been given if using this agreement did influence the score, of which I was not so sure in these cases. The banning penalty is another story. An AC has the authority to give those examples and make these educational measures. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 11:50:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:50:35 +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 LAA07235 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:50:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.16] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11MiUW-000IDp-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 02:50:12 +0100 Message-ID: <008301bef5ae$a78553c0$105208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: YC psyches, s&j, method, and regulation. Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 01:10:46 +0100 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: 02 September 1999 22:42 Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: Robin Barker >>> 2) Presumably "implicit agreements, which must be disclosed" >>> are subject to regulation as conventions under Law 40D? >> >>Well, this is the key question, and I don't see a clear answer. >> >>Let's rewrite "Herman's equation:" >> >>meaning = + + >> + >> >>Clearly the first three terms (agreements) can be regulated provided >>they are either conventional or weak initial one-level actions. >> >>The final term is disclosable but cannot be regulated according to L40E1 >>(if that's the right number; no FLB at hand). >> >>David (and Grattan too, it seems) believe the last term is the null set. > > Which David? I think I am the only David that has posted to this >thread, and I certainly did not say this nor do I believe it. > >>I don't see why "style and judgment" are in the laws if they represent >>the null set, but defining just what they do represent isn't easy! +=+ I cannot say that I have noticed either 'David' or 'Grattan' adopting this stance. I consider that style and judgement are not subject to regulation, but that 'method' is. The words need definition and it may be in this area that Steve Willner has a problem with the concepts. In my view, and I sat with Kaplan whilst the words in 40E1 were devised, 'method' intends the matters of systemic meaning of calls understood by the partnership, whilst 'style and judgement' refers to each player's right to select amongst these accordingly as he considers best. The point at issue then is when the Director should decide that a partnership method exists so that there is disclosable 'method'. It is meaning that must be fully exposed to opponents, although this includes practice that is habitual. If a player regularly and habitually fails to open 1NT with a bad balanced 15HCP the laws say that it is an understanding when partner knows it to be so; when the player exercises judgement once and subsequently applies it to all hands of like characteristics, it is his method. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 11:50:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:50:35 +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 LAA07236 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:50:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.16] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11MiUa-000IDp-00; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 02:50:16 +0100 Message-ID: <008601bef5ae$a9f876a0$105208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: Development Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 02:45:44 +0100 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: 02 September 1999 19:15 Subject: Re: Development >Ton wrote: > >>I remember a AC decision in Albuquerque (I think) where the Polish team was >penalized severely, because of the use of an undisclosed agreement (the >agreement they actually played differed from the one written on the >convention card, which has the same effect). The board it happened on gave >them a very good result. This result was taken away, another very good >result from a previous session was taken away as well (having used this >agreement also) and on top of it the pair was not allowed to play the next >stage of the match. Apparently we didn't like what they did. In my opinion >both adjusted scores should only have been given if using this agreement did >influence the score, of which I was not so sure in these cases. The banning >penalty is another story. An AC has the authority to give those examples and >make these educational measures. > >A very good principle implied here, IMO. Infractions that do not affect the >game should be handled outside the game, not within the game. > +=+ In altering the two scores the AC exercised a power that it possesses. The power was reaffirmed by an all-embracing statement in the regulations, so that the WBF Executive, at least, did not disagree with my opinion. To report the instance as vaguely as you do, ton, is unfair to the committee since, understandably, you fail to quote the findings and the reasons on which the AC committee decisions were founded. What is said should have some qualification that begins "if the AC .....", or perhaps "if the WBF Executive......" depending on whether it is the judgement of the AC or the regulation (or both?) that is the subject of criticism. I am unclear as to your meaning regarding the banning penalty. Are you saying that banning - a disciplinary measure (Law 91A) - is valid for repeated violation of (on this occasion) 90B8 but score adjustment is not? I think you would have no chance of getting the WBF to agree to that. What is more, I would think it highly dangerous to argue that pursuit of an illegal auction can be suggested not to affect the game; the argument leaves open all the unforeseeable possibilities of action by either side in a legal auction and opponents are entitled to the margin of doubt for this reason.~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 12:09:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:09:19 +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 MAA07351 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:09:09 +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 11Mimf-0003PZ-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 02:08:57 +0000 Message-ID: <0IsEgMAB2yz3Ewbj@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 03:08:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) In-Reply-To: <19990902200912.33477.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <19990902200912.33477.qmail@hotmail.com>, Michael Farebrother writes >>From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >>But whilst the psyches are habitual, there is no implicit agreement. >For >>example my tendency to overcall 1NT on a 6card H suit is alerted >by some >>of my partners. However they bend over backwards to make the >call which is >>consistent with me holding a 15-17 overcall. I can see >no basis in Law for >>this to be illegal. >> >This is where I have the burr in my side in my discussion with Herman. I >realize that !((A->B)->(B->A)), and I know I may be reacting with that >fallacy, but it goes farther than "making the call...consistent >with...15-17". I'm not sure that when they get to 3NT after your 1NT >overcall, and partner with 10 points leads a heart from Kx that that isn't >"fielding the psych" or "evidence of an illegal systemic call" or whatever >it should be called. Not that any of your partners would do this, of >course. > >In fact, why don't I set that up as a question? > >N-S Vul. W deals. > >W N E S >P 1D 1NT! 3D 1NT is alerted and explained "partner has a tendency >P 3NT AP to psych 1NT with a 6-card H suit" > >From KTxx Kx xx QJxxx West leads the HK. East actually does have AQxxxx and >out, and this is the only lead to set the contract. Ruling? I'd be inclined to rule against the defenders, as L40A says "A player may make any call or play ... provided that such ... play is not based on a partnership understanding." I think I'd rule illegal convention per L40B, L40D and award 60/30 under OB 6.2.2 "Red psyche" snip Try this auction 2N(20-22) - 3D - 3H - 7N. Responder has KQx xx AQJxx AQx. Think about it :)) Suppose opener passed 3D? Is this a safety play or a cpu? 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 Sep 3 12:09:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:09:20 +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 MAA07352 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:09:09 +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 11Mimf-0007fa-0K; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 02:08:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 02:44:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UI ruling, what adjustment? In-Reply-To: <199909021159.AA7993@gateway.tandem.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199909021159.AA7993@gateway.tandem.com>, FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM writes >John, > While I will not comment -- on the basis that you have ruled it back >to 3D, which (I'm sure) is *reasonable* but not necessarily correct) -- >I do have a question (or three): was the opponents' CC(s) marked clearly >to make this information available without a question? It wouldn't have mattered. Looking at the CC would have been quite enough to impart UI in this auction. ... and it doesn't matter the form of the question, still the same UI. > If not, would you have >ruled it back if the question had been "What is that?" rather than the >(only somewhat, IMVHO) leading "Is that pre-emptive?"? What would a Dbl >(by East) have been directly over 3D? it would have been t/o I'm sure, and would have been the choice had the response been "pre-emptive" > > This hand is one of the examples of why I intensely dislike the >EBU injunction (DWS will now tell me that I don't understand) against >asking in the middle of a live auction *unless it might influence your >bidding*. Under a more permissive questioning style, I would find it hard >to rule that a question about the nature of the 3D call *demonstrably* >suggested a 3H bid to partner, *particularly if this was not obvious from >the opposing CC(s)*. nope, whether or not you always ask, or only ask when you need to know it is still UI. There is a problem in that the pre-emptive raise should be made alertable IMO, and this is a failing of the EBU regs here. >(I'm weak enough that I defend too much and try to >get some of my thinking done during the auction.) > I presume that your note >about Michaels meant they were playing it weak/strong and this hand isn't. yep. > >Published or private response OK. FFTQFTE. >Regards, > WWFiv > Wally Farley > Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} > >------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- >SENT 09-01-99 FROM SMTPGATE (john@probst.demon.co.uk) > >Teams 10xx W N E S >North/EW Vul Axx P P 1D > AQ10x 1S* 3D P? P >KQxxx 10xx Ax 3H P 4H End >KQxxx xxxx >x xx +620 >Qx Jxx Axxxx > J > KJxxxx * Michaels (W/S) not available > KJx ? "Is that pre-emptive?" > "No. Limit raise" smipped my original commentary. 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 Sep 3 14:59:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA07859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:59:05 +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 OAA07854 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:58:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559-a.flrtn1.occa.home.com (pm30-1-07.ac.net [205.138.47.36]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id AAA26242 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 00:58:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 18:47:42 -0700 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: POC - San Antonio Case 46 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is a case we had in San Antonio: CASE FORTY-SIX Subject (Unusual Coincidence): Rule Of Coincidence: R.I.P. Event: 2nd Saturday Fast Open Pairs, 31 July 99, Morning Session Bd: 3 *S* 6 Dlr: South *H* QJ75 Vul: E/W *D* 109874 *C* AK5 *S* AJ985 *S* 42 *H* 92 *H* AK10 *D* KQ5 *D* AJ3 *C* J82 *C* Q7643 *S* KQ1073 *H* 8643 *D* 62 *C* 109 West North East South Pass Pass Pass 1*C* 2*S*(1) Dbl(2)Pass Pass(3)Pass (1) Preemptive (2) Negative (3) Break in tempo The Facts: 2*S* doubled went down four, plus 800 for E/W. The opening lead was the *D*K. The Director was called near the end of the hand and told that E/W played negative doubles but that East had a problem as to what to do over this one. He disliked any of his choices and chose to pass. E/W indicated that the double was sort of point-showing. The Director allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling. N/S thought it was very unusual for West to double with this hand and even more unusual for East to sit for it. West said he was rushing because he was late moving into this round and that he wanted to keep the auction open. He said he would have bid 3NT if his partner had bid 3*H*. East said he did not want to rebid his poor club suit, he did not have a heart or diamond fit and he had no spade stopper for notrump. He thought setting 2*S* was his side’s best chance for a plus score. E/W each had between 250 and 300 masterpoints. The Panel Decision: The Panel found that there was no infraction. The table result was allowed to stand. E/W were cautioned that lucky outcomes resulting from mis-bidding raised suspicions. The Panel decided this appeal had merit because of the circumstance of both opponents acting differently from their announced understanding. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 17:26:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 17:26:34 +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 RAA08212 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 17:26:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA20178; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:25:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JFJ1M5HLFY0002PW@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:24:14 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:24:12 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:24:11 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Development To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C247@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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id RAA08213 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > > > +=+ Now we are getting somewhere. -------\x/--------. Since > > the laws say it may not be made the Director has the power > > to cancel it and any result that has been obtained following > > its use. That would lead to a 12C1 adjustment, > > > ------- \x/ ---------- > > I have the feeling that we are going to fast here. I really > don't agree with > the suggestion that not disclosed partnership understandings when used > should lead to AS. Don't tell me you didn't say that, that is > why I used the > word suggestion. > > ---------- \x/ ------------ > +=+ whilst, ton, I respect your opinion, I am in no doubt > that the said power is available to the Director. As for > the AS, I hold the opinion that when the board has been > played out, using an illegal call, and there is damage, > Law 12A2 normally applies. Amend 'would' to 'can'. > We can debate what constitutes 'damage'. > > ~Grattan~. +=+ So we agree on at least one point here: if there is damage we adjust the score. You say: Since the laws say it may not be made the TD has the power to cancel it and any result obtained. Where do you find that in the laws? You need L12 for that and then the TD needs a relation between the illegal use and the result on the board. You say: 'we can debate what constitutes 'damage'. This is 1999 and we still don't have an idea what damage is? Are you suggesting that we might define it in such a way that using an illegal call (we are talking about L 40B here) automatically gives damage to the opponents? You are aware of the fact that most of these illegal calls fall in the same category as non alerted calls in any partnership with at least one convention in its system? Well, I stay stubborn for a while. ton > > We have to be aware of the impact of statements we make and > this approach should not be used as a guide line, in my opinion. > There is only reason to give an AS if the opponents are > damaged by the use > of an undisclosed agreement. The 'íf I had known'-type. > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 17:29:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 17:29:38 +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 RAA08228 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 17:29:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA03075; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:29:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JFJ1S6NQ7S0002PW@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:29:05 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:29:05 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:29:04 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: ACBL Laws Commission To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C248@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 > > Anyway, here is ARTICLE XVI, ACBL LAWS COMMISSION > > ###### > The ACBL Laws Commission shall consist of a minimum of nine > (9) members and a > maximum of (15) members. The members shall be appointed by > the President of > the ACBL with the approval of the Board of Directors and each > shall serve for > a five (5) year term. The Commission will prepare the Laws > under which both > duplicate and rubber bridge games will be governed. These Laws may be > reviewed and revised periodically by the Commission. > ###### > > So, the ACBL LC obviously can interpret the Laws as it > wishes, since it is > responsible for preparing the Laws! > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com This is easy to fix, 'Word' can do it. Change AB in W and L in F. In Dutch we say: 'A child can do the washing'. ton > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 18:36:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 18:36:41 +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 SAA08386 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 18:36:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA03373; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:36:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JFJ44JVGTA0003LE@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:35:32 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:35:32 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:35:29 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Development To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Marvin L. French" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C24A@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 remember a AC decision in Albuquerque (I think) where the > Polish team > was > >penalized severely, because of the use of an undisclosed > agreement (the > >agreement they actually played differed from the one written on the > >convention card, which has the same effect). The board it > happened on gave > >them a very good result. This result was taken away, another > very good > >result from a previous session was taken away as well > (having used this > >agreement also) and on top of it the pair was not allowed to > play the next > >stage of the match. Apparently we didn't like what they did. > In my opinion > >both adjusted scores should only have been given if using > this agreement > did > >influence the score, of which I was not so sure in these > cases. The banning > >penalty is another story. An AC has the authority to give > those examples > and > >make these educational measures. > > > >A very good principle implied here, IMO. Infractions that do > not affect the > >game should be handled outside the game, not within the game. > > > +=+ In altering the two scores the AC exercised a power that > it possesses. The power was reaffirmed by an all-embracing > statement in the regulations, so that the WBF Executive, at > least, did not disagree with my opinion. To report the > instance as vaguely as you do, ton, is unfair to the committee > since, understandably, you fail to quote the findings and the > reasons on which the AC committee decisions were founded. Giving this example was an illustration of my statement that an AS should only be given, had the result at the table been something else if opponents had known this agreement. I wasn't that vague, saying: 'In my opinion both adjusted scores should only have been given if using these agreements did influence the score, of which I was not sure in these cases'. It was not a consideration in the reports of this decision either, as far as I do remember. We are talking about AC-procedures and its authority all the time. You should be happy with my contribution to this discussion. > What is said should have some qualification that begins "if > the AC .....", or perhaps "if the WBF Executive......" depending > on whether it is the judgement of the AC or the regulation (or > both?) that is the subject of criticism. > I am unclear as to your meaning regarding the banning > penalty. Are you saying that banning - a disciplinary measure > (Law 91A) - is valid for repeated violation of (on this occasion) > 90B8 but score adjustment is not? Once more then: Score adjustments effecting a result on a board should only be given when damage has occurred playing that board. If you want to subtract x VP's from a result for disciplinary reasons, go ahead. I think you would have no > chance of getting the WBF to agree to that. May be that conviction helps. What is more, > I would think it highly dangerous to argue that pursuit of an > illegal auction can be suggested not to affect the game You are using the word 'illegal' here. We better start to define that one. I would like to reserve the word 'illegal' for a call that is not allowed given restrictions in the use of calls. No 'brown stickers' allowed in a pairs event, regulations in the ACBL depending on the level of play etc. Using a convention which is not adequately disclosed (for example by lack of alerting it) doesn't make the call illegal (using this definition). Having made this distinction it is not obvious at all how to deal with both. In European Chamionships pairs we have discussions all the time. What to do with a brown sticker being used? As long as it doesn't harm the opponents normally don't ask for a ruling. And if it harms, for sure there will be a ruling. What if opponents call the TD and he decides 'no damage'? We don't know. What policy does the ACBL have? I am not talking about procedural or disciplinary penalties, give those, I am talking about the result on the board. > the argument leaves open all the unforeseeable possibilities > of action by either side in a legal auction and opponents are > entitled to the margin of doubt for this reason.~ Grattan ~ += > The same for 'legal' here. A call is not illegal when it is not alerted. Using 'my' definition, the Polish, as far as I remember, did not use an illegal call. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 19:22:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 19:22:39 +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 TAA08510 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 19:22:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-59.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.59]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26520 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:22:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37CF7D41.C7514D1C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:48:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) References: <19990902200912.33477.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > In fact, why don't I set that up as a question? > > N-S Vul. W deals. > > W N E S > P 1D 1NT! 3D 1NT is alerted and explained "partner has a tendency > P 3NT AP to psych 1NT with a 6-card H suit" > > >From KTxx Kx xx QJxxx West leads the HK. East actually does have AQxxxx and > out, and this is the only lead to set the contract. Ruling? > No misinformation. WTP? > >The opponents are entitled to our partnership experience, and partner > >refuses to have an agreement with me about my 1NT overcall. > > I'm uncomfortable about any situation where "If partner doesn't have what e > says e has, e has this hand". Whether or not they are controlled, or agreed > upon, or just part of partnership experience, it smacks too much of > "systemic psychs" - and emphasizing the "system" part of that term. > > Now, please convince me that I'm wrong before I go bug-eyed. > There is no problem here, except the one about system regulation. If this sort of thing is prohibited by system regulation, then it becomes a problem. Is it agreement, or just experience ? Which is why I say that system regulations should provide for allowances about psyches (as on frequency, catering and such). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 19:58:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 19:58:50 +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 TAA08581 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 19:58:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA14606 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:58:04 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:57 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience 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: <9BCUEjAm0dy3EwjS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > >I think the dispute over Herman's "psychic 1M in third seat" is because > >the laws really aren't clear. If it is an agreement, it is regulatable > >(and illegal in most jurisdictions). If it is merely experience, it > >isn't regulatable, even though it is disclosable. Until, that is, the > >'experience' becomes a 'tacit agreement'. When is that? > > > >Of course if Herman and his partner have a discussion and agree to play > >"psychic 1M," then there's no dispute, but what if there is no explicit > >discussion? > > > >I think both the terminology and the substance of the rules could do > >with a bit of clarification here. > > I really do not understand the difficulty with Herman's Spanish major. > > If you play with Herman tomorrow, Steve, you will _know_ that if he > holds 2-3 HCP in third position he will open 1H or 1S [1]. You thus > have an implicit agreement. This is fundamentally wrong. If Steve or I play with Herman we will certainly have a disclosable partnership understanding. However, I for one do not regard this particular psyche as winning bridge and it forms no part of any "agreement" between Herman and myself. If you consider this 1% chance of a psychic bid to be something that "an opposing pair may be reasonably expected to understand (L40B)" as I do, then 1H is not even alertable. Of course if you think a 1% chance of a psychic is abnormally high then you should alert (and get out more). It would be ridiculous to alert if playing against a subscriber to this list. Try the following flow chart. 1. Does the pair admit to/reveal an explicit/implicit level of understanding? Yes: Go to 3, No: Go to 2 2. Was any unusual action taken by psycher's partner (eg did the player take an action that would not be considered an LA)? Yes: Go to 3, No: End 3. Was the psyche an action that a reasonable player would be expected to allow for/suspect? Yes: End, No: Go to 4 4. Make a record of the hand. Did the pair (under SO regulations) have an opportunity to disclose the understanding? No: End, Yes: Go to 5 5. Does the pair have previous form in this or a closely related situation? Yes: Award a PP, No: Consider a PP - in either case go to 6. 6. Did the opponents suffer consequent damage Yes: Adjust, No:Result stands Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 23:04:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:04:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA09220 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:04:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from p69s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.106] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Mt11-0000V9-00; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:04:28 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bef60c$d8037be0$6aa893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Development Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 13:59:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Kooijman, A. ; 'Grattan Endicott' ; Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws Date: 03 September 1999 08:48 Subject: RE: Development > > > > > +=+ Now we are getting somewhere. -------\x/--------. > > ---------- \x/ ------------ > +=+ whilst, ton, I respect your opinion, I am in no doubt > that the said power is available to the Director. As for > the AS, I hold the opinion that when the board has been > played out, using an illegal call, and there is damage, > Law 12A2 normally applies. Amend 'would' to 'can'. > We can debate what constitutes 'damage'. > > ~Grattan~. +=+ So we agree on at least one point here: if there is damage we adjust the score. You say: Since the laws say it may not be made the TD has the power to cancel it and any result obtained. Where do you find that in the laws? You need L12 for that and then the TD needs a relation between the illegal use and the result on the board. +=+ A Law 12A2 adjustment does *not* require damage. What it requires is a board that it is not possible to rectify in a way that will permit normal play of the board. We are discussing a board on which there is not a legal auction; the partner of the offending player has based his call(s) on information from an illegal call by the offending player. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 23:04:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:04:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA09221 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:04:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from p69s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.106] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Mt14-0000V9-00; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:04:30 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bef60c$d97c6040$6aa893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Development Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:03:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Marvin L. French ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 03 September 1999 09:59 Subject: RE: Development >You are using the word 'illegal' here. We better start to define that one. >I would like to reserve the word 'illegal' for a call that is not allowed >given restrictions in the use of calls. No 'brown stickers' allowed in a >pairs event, regulations in the ACBL depending on the level of play etc. >Using a convention which is not adequately disclosed (for example by lack of >alerting it) doesn't make the call illegal (using this definition). >> entitled to the margin of doubt for this reason.~ Grattan ~ += >> ++ I used 'illegal' to mean one that is in violation of the laws, such as one that that contravenes Law 40A, or again one that contravenes Law 40B. These are matters of law, as distinct from regulation like Brown Stickers (contraventions of which are also illegal) . The Director's decision in Law 40C is not restricted; the Director has the power to award an artificial adjusted score, and SOs are not wrong in requiring cancellation of a result obtained through such action on the basis that at this stage the course of a legal auction is unpredictable and no-one is in a position to determine what any player might have done freely in a legal auction now that an illegal auction has taken place. ~ Grattan ++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 23:27:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:27:20 +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 XAA09323 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:27:09 +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 JAA14417 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:26:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA10613 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:27:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909031327.JAA10613@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael Farebrother" > N-S Vul. W deals. > W N E S > P 1D 1NT! 3D 1NT is alerted and explained "partner has a tendency > P 3NT AP to psych 1NT with a 6-card H suit" > > From KTxx Kx xx QJxxx West leads the HK. East actually does have AQxxxx and > out, and this is the only lead to set the contract. Ruling? Yes, the above should help sort things out. Please answer also for the explanation "Shows either 15-17 balanced or at most 8 HCP with a six-card or longer heart suit," and this is a legal convention for the game. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 3 23:35:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:35:55 +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 XAA09371 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:35:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA19099; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:35:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JFJEKK7R1O00079F@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:34:46 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 03 Sep 1999 15:34:45 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 15:34:44 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Development To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C24C@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" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id XAA09372 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Grattan Endicott [mailto:gester@globalnet.co.uk] > Verzonden: vrijdag 3 september 1999 15:03 > Aan: Kooijman, A. > CC: 'Grattan Endicott'; bridge-laws > Onderwerp: Re: Development > > > >You are using the word 'illegal' here. We better start to > define that one. > >I would like to reserve the word 'illegal' for a call that > is not allowed > >given restrictions in the use of calls. No 'brown stickers' > allowed in a > >pairs event, regulations in the ACBL depending on the level > of play etc. > >Using a convention which is not adequately disclosed (for > example by lack of > >alerting it) doesn't make the call illegal (using this definition). > >> entitled to the margin of doubt for this reason.~ Grattan ~ += > >> > ++ I used 'illegal' to mean one that is in violation of > the laws, such as one that that contravenes Law 40A, > or again one that contravenes Law 40B. These are > matters of law, as distinct from regulation like Brown > Stickers (contraventions of which are also illegal) . > The Director's decision in Law 40C is not restricted; I don't have the idea that we make any progress. Let us start to read the laws carefully. In L40C the power of the TD most certainly sounds restricted, anyway that is how I read it: if the TD decides that a side has been damaged'. Or are you trying to tell us now that since it doesn't read: 'íf a side has been damaged' it is enough to let the TD put the word 'damaged' on the case? > the Director has the power to award an artificial > adjusted score, and SOs are not wrong in requiring > cancellation of a result obtained through such action > on the basis that at this stage the course of a legal > auction is unpredictable and no-one is in a position > to determine what any player might have done > freely in a legal auction now that an illegal auction > has taken place. ~ Grattan You can't be serious here. These kind of considerations are daily made by TD's and AC's in almost all cases they have to make a judgement decision in. ton From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 00:29:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 00:29:45 +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 AAA09514 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 00:29:32 +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 PAA21979 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:29:20 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA25890 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:28:22 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 03 Sep 1999 14:28:22 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA02838 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:28:19 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA08077 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:28:02 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:28:02 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909031428.PAA08077@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Development X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > the Director has the power to award an artificial > > adjusted score, and SOs are not wrong in requiring > > cancellation of a result obtained through such action > > on the basis that at this stage the course of a legal > > auction is unpredictable and no-one is in a position > > to determine what any player might have done > > freely in a legal auction now that an illegal auction > > has taken place. ~ Grattan > > > > You can't be serious here. These kind of considerations are daily made by > TD's and AC's in almost all cases they have to make a judgement decision in. > > > ton > But there is a real difference between deciding the likely outcome in these two cases: - NOS have reached their final contract and OS have used UI to bid on, - dealer uses an illegal conventional opening bid before NOS have bid. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 01:49:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 01:49:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA09811 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 01:49:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from p44s09a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.169.69] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11MvaB-00040r-00; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 16:48:55 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01bef623$d1bf0e40$45a993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 16:46:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: 03 September 1999 11:15 Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience >In-Reply-To: <9BCUEjAm0dy3EwjS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >David Stevenson wrote: >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >> >I think the dispute over Herman's "psychic 1M in third seat" is because >> >the laws really aren't clear> > > >> >I think both the terminology and the substance of the rules could do >> >with a bit of clarification here. >> +=+ Words from a number of colleagues suggest this could well be forthcoming shortly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 03:31:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 03:24:26 +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 DAA10262 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 03:24:13 +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 11Mx4B-000JLp-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 17:24:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 18:22:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: POC - San Antonio Case 46 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Linda Trent writes >Here is a case we had in San Antonio: > >CASE FORTY-SIX > >Subject (Unusual Coincidence): Rule Of Coincidence: R.I.P. >Event: 2nd Saturday Fast Open Pairs, 31 July 99, Morning Session > Excellent TD, Excellent AC, particularly with regard to the caution. 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 Sep 4 03:49:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 03:49:28 +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 DAA10365 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 03:49:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.31] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11MxSa-000FNp-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 18:49:13 +0100 Message-ID: <001601bef634$a05c7a20$1f5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 18:47:59 +0100 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: 02 September 1999 22:01 Subject: Fw: understanding, agreement, experience ---------------------- \x/ ---------------------- > >In sum, I don't think L40A outlaws measures that are aimed at accommodating >a possible psych, convention or not. The ACBL outlaws any convention that is >designed to uncover a psyche, but cannot outlaw bidding treatments. > >Your next point of argument could be that such a "treatment" might >constitute a convention, but I don't think that works. > > Best wishes, > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > +=+ If the treatment includes a bid that as a matter of partnership understanding may not show a holding in the named suit it is conventional. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 04:00:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 04:00:35 +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 EAA10395 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 04:00:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA24213 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <038501bef636$18bda060$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199909031428.PAA08077@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: Development Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:55:59 -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 Robin Walker wrote: > > > > But there is a real difference between deciding the likely outcome in these > two cases: > - NOS have reached their final contract and OS have used UI to bid on, > - dealer uses an illegal conventional opening bid before NOS have bid. > L12C2 does NOT require that a likely outcome be decided upon. When can we finally establish that "the most favorable result that was likely" may not be a likely result???? A TD/AC looks at the four hands and should be able to find some favorable result for the NOS that has (in ACBL-land) at least a 1/6 chance. Usually not difficult. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 04:38:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 04:38:28 +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 EAA10596 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 04:38:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA04592 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <039e01bef63b$62a90520$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199909031327.JAA10613@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:37:23 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Michael Farebrother" > > N-S Vul. W deals. > > W N E S > > P 1D 1NT! 3D 1NT is alerted and explained "partner has a tendency > > P 3NT AP to psych 1NT with a 6-card H suit" > > > > From KTxx Kx xx QJxxx West leads the HK. East actually does have AQxxxx and > > out, and this is the only lead to set the contract. Ruling? > > Yes, the above should help sort things out. > > Please answer also for the explanation "Shows either 15-17 balanced or > at most 8 HCP with a six-card or longer heart suit," and this is a legal > convention for the game. Not legal in ACBL-land, where a partnership's agreement about a one-level opening cannot include a bid that shows less than 8 HCP. In fact, I don't see that this is a legal convention even at Super-Chart level. The SC allows weak opening bids with a strong adjunct only at the two-level or higher. Of course 1H is not a psych if the 1NT bid is explained as a two-way bid by partnership agreement. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 04:59:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 04:59:34 +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 EAA10658 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 04:59:26 +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 LAA11418; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:58:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199909031858.LAA11418@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Sep 1999 11:37:23 PDT." <039e01bef63b$62a90520$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 11:58:46 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > > Please answer also for the explanation "Shows either 15-17 > balanced or > > at most 8 HCP with a six-card or longer heart suit," and this is a > legal > > convention for the game. > > In fact, I don't see that this is a legal convention even at > Super-Chart level. The SC allows weak opening bids with a strong > adjunct only at the two-level or higher. I'm not sure you're reading the Super-Chart correctly. The GCC and Mid-Chart are basically written so that any convention not explicitly listed is disallowed. However, the Super-Chart starts out like this: ALLOWED * * Unless specifically allowed methods are disallowed * * All of the ACBL Mid-Chart plus any other non-destructive convention, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ treatment or method except that: [three exceptions listed] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So it's reversed. Anything is allowed unless it violates one of the three exceptions, or unless it's "destructive", or unless it violates one of the six things listed under DISALLOWED. The convention being discussed doesn't violate any of those exceptions (exception #1 refers only to weak bids at the 2 or 3 level and thus is not applicable), and it doesn't violate the six disallowed things. I don't know exactly what is meant by "destructive", but I believe it refers to "Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods", and I don't believe this description applies here either. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 05:19:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 05:19:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10752 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 05:19:06 +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 PAA13850 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:18:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA11151 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:19:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:19:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909031919.PAA11151@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > W N E S > > > P 1D 1NT! 3D > > > P 3NT AP > > Please answer also for the explanation "Shows either 15-17 > balanced or > > at most 8 HCP with a six-card or longer heart suit," and this is a > legal > > convention for the game. > > Not legal in ACBL-land, where a partnership's agreement about a > one-level opening cannot include a bid that shows less than 8 HCP. It's an overcall, not an opening bid. Also, I am asking a theoretical question; _assume_ that the convention is legal in the SO in question. > Of course 1H is not a psych if the 1NT bid is explained as a two-way > bid by partnership agreement. Yes, exactly. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 05:21:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 05:21:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [12.15.134.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA10770 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 05:21:40 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail.azure-tech.com; (5.65v4.0/1.3/10May95) id AA27703; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:21:24 -0400 Received: from somewhere by smtpxd Message-Id: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530C6B2A@MAIL> From: Richard Willey To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:20:35 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan [mailto:adam@irvine.com] Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 2:59 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) >I'm not sure you're reading the Super-Chart correctly. The GCC and >Mid-Chart are basically written so that any convention not >explicitly listed is disallowed. However, the Super-Chart starts >out like this: > ALLOWED * * Unless specifically allowed methods are > disallowed * * > All of the ACBL Mid-Chart plus any other non-destructive > convention, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > treatment or method except that: [three exceptions listed] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Line 6 under disallowed Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.) would prohibit the opening in question -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBN9Aee7+ru3nouAulEQLKXwCg50JwPHhOTTOsVqkUVA3Gts6DEnUAn2K+ jW6Lk0jsR/bO0MwgvGD2u6QD =ovHu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 07:20:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 07:20:35 +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 HAA11417 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 07:20:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA17822; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 16:19:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-168.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.168) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma016777; Fri Sep 3 16:07:54 1999 Message-ID: <002501bef651$2d13aa80$a884d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" , "Linda Trent" Subject: Re: POC - San Antonio Case 46 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 17:13:29 -0400 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 Does no one else find misinformation in the announcement that the double was negative? By his testimony west indicates that that was not what he was really playing even though it was their agreement. Shall we then call his bid a psych since is is indeed a gross distortion of his holding in the heart suit at least? This looks and smells like he forgot his agreement, and misbid a penalty double...not a crime, but then why the dissimulation? If East considered that the double was "sort of point showing" but announced negative that would appear to be a wilful attempt to conceal the true partnership agreement. I know, these are B flighters or even high C and were rushing at that...but still! The only reason I would not adjust is that N/S were not injured by the misinformation as they had no place to run. I was not there and the folks on the scene could gather a much more accurate impression of whether EW were operating or just careless/clueless...but surely this must be at least amber by UK standards? We really need to record situations such as this so that if a pattern develops appropriate action can be taken. We have a hand here where west psychs, east caters and nothing happens...gosh I thought that was naughty! Or if west was not psyching but their agreement allowed long spades and middling points on such a double we have clearcut misinformation. -- Craig Senior From: Linda Trent >Here is a case we had in San Antonio: >CASE FORTY-SIX >Subject (Unusual Coincidence): Rule Of Coincidence: R.I.P. >Event: 2nd Saturday Fast Open Pairs, 31 July 99, Morning Session >Bd: 3 *S* 6 >Dlr: South *H* QJ75 >Vul: E/W *D* 109874 > *C* AK5 >*S* AJ985 *S* 42 >*H* 92 *H* AK10 >*D* KQ5 *D* AJ3 >*C* J82 *C* Q7643 > *S* KQ1073 > *H* 8643 > *D* 62 > *C* 109 > >West North East South > Pass >Pass Pass 1*C* 2*S*(1) >Dbl(2)Pass Pass(3)Pass >(1) Preemptive >(2) Negative >(3) Break in tempo > >The Facts: 2*S* doubled went down four, plus 800 for E/W. The opening lead >was the *D*K. The Director was called near the end of the hand and told >that E/W played negative doubles but that East had a problem as to what to >do over this one. He disliked any of his choices and chose to pass. E/W >indicated that the double was sort of point-showing. The Director allowed >the table result to stand. > >The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling. N/S thought it was very >unusual for West to double with this hand and even more unusual for East to >sit for it. West said he was rushing because he was late moving into this >round and that he wanted to keep the auction open. He said he would have >bid 3NT if his partner had bid 3*H*. East said he did not want to rebid his >poor club suit, he did not have a heart or diamond fit and he had no spade >stopper for notrump. He thought setting 2*S* was his side’s best chance for >a plus score. E/W each had between 250 and 300 masterpoints. > >The Panel Decision: The Panel found that there was no infraction. The table >result was allowed to stand. E/W were cautioned that lucky outcomes >resulting from mis-bidding raised suspicions. The Panel decided this appeal >had merit because of the circumstance of both opponents acting differently >from their announced understanding. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 07:31:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 07:31:13 +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 HAA11464 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 07:31:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA22089 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <03b401bef653$82d70280$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199909031858.LAA11418@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:29:31 -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 From: Adam > > Marvin French wrote: > > > > Please answer also for the explanation "Shows either 15-17 > > balanced or > > > at most 8 HCP with a six-card or longer heart suit," and this is a > > legal > > > convention for the game. > > > > In fact, I don't see that this is a legal convention even at > > Super-Chart level. The SC allows weak opening bids with a strong > > adjunct only at the two-level or higher. > > I'm not sure you're reading the Super-Chart correctly. The GCC and > Mid-Chart are basically written so that any convention not explicitly > listed is disallowed. However, the Super-Chart starts out like this: > > ALLOWED * * Unless specifically allowed methods are disallowed * * > > All of the ACBL Mid-Chart plus any other non-destructive convention, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > treatment or method except that: [three exceptions listed] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > So it's reversed. Anything is allowed unless it violates one of the > three exceptions, or unless it's "destructive", or unless it violates > one of the six things listed under DISALLOWED. The convention being > discussed doesn't violate any of those exceptions (exception #1 refers > only to weak bids at the 2 or 3 level and thus is not applicable), and > it doesn't violate the six disallowed things. Just to be exact, #1 refers to "artificial weak bids at the two or three level" > what is meant by "destructive", but I believe it refers to > "Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the > opponents' methods", and I don't believe this description applies here > either. > Okay, you're right. I never could understand the SuperChart. I do know that a comma is needed after "Unless specifically allowed" So this convention is SuperChart only. Surprise on the SC: 2. Defenses over opponents' natural suit bids must promise: b. A cuebid which could show 4+ cards in the suit bid must promise four+ cards in another known suit. So, 1C-2C, showing a weak hand with long clubs, is illegal? No, because it is ALLOWED on the GCC: 5. CUEBID of an opponent's suit and responses thereto, except that a cuebid that could be weak, directly over an opening bid, must show at least one known suit. Perhaps 2.b. was meant for multi-suited cue bids. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 07:40:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 07:40:35 +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 HAA11491 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 07:40:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA24636 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <03c101bef654$d2794040$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199909031919.PAA11151@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:31:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Steve Willner > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > > W N E S > > > > P 1D 1NT! 3D > > > > P 3NT AP > > > > Please answer also for the explanation "Shows either 15-17 > > balanced or > > > at most 8 HCP with a six-card or longer heart suit," and this is a > > legal > > > convention for the game. > > > > Not legal in ACBL-land, where a partnership's agreement about a > > one-level opening cannot include a bid that shows less than 8 HCP. > > It's an overcall, not an opening bid. Sorry, not one of my good days. > Also, I am asking a theoretical > question; _assume_ that the convention is legal in the SO in question. > > > Of course 1H is not a psych if the 1NT bid is explained as a two-way > > bid by partnership agreement. > > Yes, exactly. Got something right! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 07:53:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 07:53:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA11537 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 07:53:32 +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 OAA14599; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:52:52 -0700 Message-Id: <199909032152.OAA14599@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 14:52:53 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > Surprise on the SC: > > 2. Defenses over opponents' natural suit bids must promise: > > b. A cuebid which could show 4+ cards in the suit bid must promise > four+ cards in another known suit. > > So, 1C-2C, showing a weak hand with long clubs, is illegal? No, because it > is ALLOWED on the GCC: > > 5. CUEBID of an opponent's suit and responses thereto, except that a > cuebid that could be weak, directly over an opening bid, must show at > least one known suit. Also because it's not a convention. 1C-2C, showing a weak hand with long clubs, cannot be disallowed by any organization, anywhere, in any event, that follows the Laws of the game, since it's a natural bid. > Perhaps 2.b. was meant for multi-suited cue bids. That's how I interpret it. You can't use 1C-2C promising 5-5 in clubs and an unspecified other suit, and you can't use it to show 5-5 in two unspecified suits where one of them could be clubs. But you *could* use it to show 5-5 in two unspecified non-club suits. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 08:56:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 08:56:33 +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 IAA11757 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 08:56:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.244] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11N2Fe-000MbZ-00; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:56:11 +0100 Message-ID: <004801bef65f$81e2c100$f45108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: "Ton Kooijman" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 19:37:55 +0100 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: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Marvin L. French ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au> Date: 03 September 1999 10:05 Subject: RE: Development >I think you would have no >> chance of getting the WBF to agree to that. > >May be that conviction helps. +=+ That reads as though you were writing off the right of the majority to override your argument; The fact is that the committee seems indisposed to agree with unconventional views of the laws - this at any rate is the message I am hearing. +=+ > > What is more, >> I would think it highly dangerous to argue that pursuit of an >> illegal auction can be suggested not to affect the game > >You are using the word 'illegal' here. We better start to define that one. >I would like to reserve the word 'illegal' for a call that is not allowed >given restrictions in the use of calls. No 'brown stickers' allowed in a >pairs event, regulations in the ACBL depending on the level of play etc. >Using a convention which is not adequately disclosed (for example by lack of >alerting it) doesn't make the call illegal (using this definition). > >Having made this distinction it is not obvious at all how to deal with both. >In European Chamionships pairs we have discussions all the time. > >The same for 'legal' here. A call is not illegal when it is not alerted. +=+ As far as I am aware we have not been discussing misinformation regarding a legal agreement. We have been looking at use of a call which the laws do not permit. I am afraid we cannot redefine 'illegal' - it is not present in the definitions in the law book, so its meaning is as the dictionary gives it and it is not within our power to say otherwise without a decision of the committee (and then probably also of other entities since it would need to be placed in the definitions in the law book). 'Illegal' means: 'not legal, contrary to or forbidden by law'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 08:56:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 08:56:32 +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 IAA11756 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 08:56:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.244] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11N2Fg-000MbZ-00; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:56:12 +0100 Message-ID: <004901bef65f$82cdbd40$f45108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Development Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:53:57 +0100 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: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Kooijman, A. Cc: 'Grattan Endicott' ; bridge-laws Date: 03 September 1999 14:35 Subject: RE: Development > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Grattan Endicott [mailto:gester@globalnet.co.uk] > Verzonden: vrijdag 3 september 1999 15:03 > Aan: Kooijman, A. > CC: 'Grattan Endicott'; bridge-laws > Onderwerp: Re: Development > > > >You are using the word 'illegal' here. We better start to > define that one. > >I would like to reserve the word 'illegal' for a call that > is not allowed > >given restrictions in the use of calls. No 'brown stickers' > allowed in a > >pairs event, regulations in the ACBL depending on the level > of play etc. > >Using a convention which is not adequately disclosed (for > example by lack of > >alerting it) doesn't make the call illegal (using this definition). > >> entitled to the margin of doubt for this reason.~ Grattan ~ += > >> > ++ I used 'illegal' to mean one that is in violation of > the laws, such as one that that contravenes Law 40A, > or again one that contravenes Law 40B. These are > matters of law, as distinct from regulation like Brown > Stickers (contraventions of which are also illegal) . > The Director's decision in Law 40C is not restricted; I don't have the idea that we make any progress. Let us start to read the laws carefully. In L40C the power of the TD most certainly sounds restricted, anyway that is how I read it: if the TD decides that a side has been damaged'. Or are you trying to tell us now that since it doesn't read: 'íf a side has been damaged' it is enough to let the TD put the word 'damaged' on the case? +=+ Damage is for the Director to decide. He has full discretion to assess the evidence as he sees it. That is what I mean by 'not restricted'. +=+ > the Director has the power to award an artificial > adjusted score, and SOs are not wrong in requiring > cancellation of a result obtained through such action > on the basis that at this stage the course of a legal > auction is unpredictable and no-one is in a position > to determine what any player might have done > freely in a legal auction now that an illegal auction > has taken place. ~ Grattan You can't be serious here. These kind of considerations are daily made by TD's and AC's in almost all cases they have to make a judgement decision in. ton +=+ What I suggest is that a result obtained through an illegal auction does not stand if the non-offending side are getting less than they are entitled to from a 12A2 adjustment. The players are in breach of the laws if one of them makes a prohibited call and the other uses information obtained from that illegal call in deciding his action. There is a violation of (as it may be) 40A/40B followed by a violation of Law 16. If the result is cancelled the Director is in the position for which Law 12A2 provides and the non-offending side is damaged because there is a 'result' on the board that must be taken away and they are entitled to a result. It is unthinkable to suggest that it is now possible to make a rectification that " will permit normal play of the board ". The fact of a result looking 'normal' after an illegal auction does not make it normal: it has been illegally obtained and it is pretty unbelievable that a Director will now attempt to construct a whole legal auction for this particular table in search of an assigned score. So it seems to me the NO's entitlement must be at least 60%. Laws 40A/40B are laws that prescribe certain calls to be illegal, but they are not the only sections of law/regulation that may establish the illegality of a call. And just to be sure you do not misunderstand me, I am NOT here talking about misinformation in respect of a call that was made legally but wrongly explained by the partner. I am talking about a call that was *made* contrary to law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 11:47:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:47:16 +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 LAA12244 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:47:08 +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 11N4uw-0003T6-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 01:47:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 02:16:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: POC - San Antonio Case 46 In-Reply-To: <002501bef651$2d13aa80$a884d9ce@host> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <002501bef651$2d13aa80$a884d9ce@host>, Craig Senior writes snip good stuff > >We have a hand here where west psychs, east caters and nothing >happens...gosh I thought that was naughty! Or if west was not psyching but >their agreement allowed long spades and middling points on such a double we >have clearcut misinformation. > this pair is *clueless*. there is no MI as their agreement is that the double is negative. they just can't play 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 Sep 4 11:52:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:52:24 +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 LAA12271 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:52:17 +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 11N4zv-000GV0-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 01:52:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 02:46:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) In-Reply-To: <039e01bef63b$62a90520$3b085e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <039e01bef63b$62a90520$3b085e18@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >Steve Willner wrote: > >> > From: "Michael Farebrother" >> > N-S Vul. W deals. >> > W N E S >> > P 1D 1NT! 3D 1NT is alerted and explained "partner has a >tendency >> > P 3NT AP to psych 1NT with a 6-card H suit" >> > >> > From KTxx Kx xx QJxxx West leads the HK. East actually does >have AQxxxx and >> > out, and this is the only lead to set the contract. Ruling? >> >> Yes, the above should help sort things out. >> >> Please answer also for the explanation "Shows either 15-17 >balanced or >> at most 8 HCP with a six-card or longer heart suit," and this is a >legal >> convention for the game. > >Not legal in ACBL-land, where a partnership's agreement about a >one-level opening cannot include a bid that shows less than 8 HCP. 1NT is an overcall. The comic NT has been around for 40 years to my knowledge. Marv, I claim a gotcha!! 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 Sep 4 17:40:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 17:40:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12990 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 17:40:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn16p59.ozemail.com.au [210.84.12.251]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA19597 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 17:40:39 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 17:40:39 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199909040740.RAA19597@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: POC - San Antonio Case 46 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:16 AM 4/09/99 +0100, you wrote: >In article <002501bef651$2d13aa80$a884d9ce@host>, Craig Senior > writes > >snip good stuff >> >>We have a hand here where west psychs, east caters and nothing >>happens...gosh I thought that was naughty! Or if west was not psyching but >>their agreement allowed long spades and middling points on such a double we >>have clearcut misinformation. >> >this pair is *clueless*. there is no MI as their agreement is that the >double is negative. they just can't play bridge. chs john Exactly what the NOs are complaining about, a couple who can't play bridge have just scored an outright top against them. Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 18:12:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA13054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 18:12:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13049 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 18:12:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA28791 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <03fa01bef6a2$cc2a1f40$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Development Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:57:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote on this bad day: Robin Walker wrote: > > > > But there is a real difference between deciding the likely outcome in these > two cases: > - NOS have reached their final contract and OS have used UI to bid on, > - dealer uses an illegal conventional opening bid before NOS have bid. > L12C2 does NOT require that a likely outcome be decided upon. When can we finally establish that "the most favorable result that was likely" may not be a likely result???? A TD/AC looks at the four hands and should be able to find some favorable result for the NOS that has (in ACBL-land) at least a 1/6 chance. Usually not difficult. Make that 1/3, the 1/6 chance is for the most unfavorable result at all probable for the OS. Which may not be a probable result!! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 18:57:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA13121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 18:57:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from luna.worldonline.nl (luna.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13116 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 18:57:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp230-238.worldonline.nl [195.241.230.238]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA10933; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:57:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006d01bef6b4$0606aec0$eee6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:00:57 +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 > >>I think you would have no >>> chance of getting the WBF to agree to that. >> >>May be that conviction helps. > >+=+ That reads as though you were writing off >the right of the majority to override your argument; how can you say that? my dictionary tells me that conviction (the result of convincing) doesn't fit with overriding. >The fact is that the committee seems indisposed >to agree with unconventional views of the laws - I am not trying to convince you to adopt an unconventional view, on the contrary: my complaint is that your view is not in line with the laws. (but read further) > >+=+ As far as I am aware we have not been discussing >misinformation regarding a legal agreement. ?????? We have >been looking at use of a call which the laws do not >permit. yes, among which not disclosed (legal) agreements form the huge majority. It seems that the leak is above the waterline now. I was discussing law 40B and 40C. There is no mentioning of a legal or illegal agreement there. L40B seems to say that players are not allowed to use undisclosed calls, and misinformation regarding partnership agreements are part of that. If I open 1S with at least 5 spades and my convention card tells my opponents that I need only 4 (I forgot to change that) L40B tells the TD that I am infringing the laws. If I open 2C random with 0-10 when brown sticker conventions are not permitted I am not necessarily infringing L 40B, as long as I disclose this call, but L40D. I don't like to use 'illegal' in both situations. Apparently you do not like that either. But L40B doesn't make a distinction. L40C says that an AS can only be given when damage occurs. In both situations, with 'legal' not permitted calls (1S) and 'illegal' calls (2C). Above that a player can be penalized for making such calls. I wanted to say that such an AS should only be given if damage is apparent and not as part of a penalty. ton From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 4 19:12:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 19:12:00 +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 TAA13152 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 19:11:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-130.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.130]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA05178 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:11:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37D0CF36.68128341@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 09:50:14 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Development References: <004901bef65f$82cdbd40$f45108c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ What I suggest is that a result obtained through > an illegal auction does not stand if the non-offending > side are getting less than they are entitled to from a > 12A2 adjustment. The players are in breach of the > laws if one of them makes a prohibited call and the > other uses information obtained from that illegal call > in deciding his action. There is a violation of (as it > may be) 40A/40B followed by a violation of Law 16. > If the result is cancelled the Director is in the position > for which Law 12A2 provides and the non-offending > side is damaged because there is a 'result' on the > board that must be taken away and they are entitled > to a result. It is unthinkable to suggest that it is now > possible to make a rectification that " will permit > normal play of the board ". The fact of a result > looking 'normal' after an illegal auction does not > make it normal: it has been illegally obtained and > it is pretty unbelievable that a Director will now > attempt to construct a whole legal auction for this > particular table in search of an assigned score. So > it seems to me the NO's entitlement must be at > least 60%. > > Laws 40A/40B are laws that prescribe > certain calls to be illegal, but they are not the only > sections of law/regulation that may establish the > illegality of a call. > > And just to be sure you do not misunderstand me, > I am NOT here talking about misinformation in > respect of a call that was made legally but wrongly > explained by the partner. I am talking about a call > that was *made* contrary to law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ OK Grattan, I understand why you would award an artificial adjustment. Since there has been no real auction, there is no way to determine what "would have happened" (unless of course the call you name illegal came late in the auction, but I believe you would apply 12C2 then ?). What I (and Ton) fail to see is how you can designate a call as "illegal" just on the scant (but compelling) evidence. >From the evidence, you (and the EBU directors) conclude that the call was a psyche, but that partnership experience about it did in fact exist. Now what have the pair done wrong ? The player who made his psyche may well realise that partnership experience exists. He may well expect his partner to reveal this to opponents. And he doesn't. That fact alone does not make the call "illegal". It is of the same order of a misexplained call. And the partner, who may not have realised that there is a level of experience that he should have disclosed, is also guilty of something, correct, but it is no worse than the fellow who fails to alert any alertable conventional call. Less of an infraction, even. Because you are willing to believe the players when they say there was no agreement, and you are ruling on the basis of a presumed agreement anyway. Now don't get me wrong, I will also rule "incomplete disclosure" over a fielded psyche. But unless there is far more compelling evidence to some conscious effort from a pair to actively omit telling about agreements, I shall not rule that a pair is doing something which can only be called "cheating". I agree that there can be circumstances where even without damage, a pair can be found guilty of concealing agreements. Such is a very severe infraction, and if the AC in Albuquerque was really sure about the Polish pair, the penalty seems even too light. But to apply that same sort of penalty on a pair of which you say, "no we are quite certain you are not cheats, but we rule against you nevertheless" seems far too severe. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 5 02:34:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 02:34:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA14293 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 02:33:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA01388 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <040d01bef6f3$02370a80$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001601bef634$a05c7a20$1f5208c3@swhki5i6> Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 09:24:19 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >In sum, I don't think L40A outlaws measures that are > > aimed at accommodating a possible psych, convention > > or not. The ACBL outlaws any convention that is > >designed to uncover a psyche, but cannot outlaw bidding > > treatments. > > > >Your next point of argument could be that such a "treatment" might > >constitute a convention, but I don't think that works. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > > +=+ If the treatment includes a bid that as a matter > of partnership understanding may not show a > holding in the named suit it is conventional. So 1C-Dbl-1S is a convention if responder occasionally doesn't have spades? I don't think so. The definition of convention says "willingness to play," not "showing a holding." I think you mean "denies a willingness to play in a denomination previously named by the bidder." 2D-P-2H-P; 3H-P-3NT shows a willingness to play in 3NT, so is not a convention on that score. That it denies a willingness to play in hearts is no more a convention than the 3D bid in this auction: 1D-P-1S-P; 1NT-P-2D-P; 2S-P-3D, which says "Shut up, forget about spades, I want to play 3D." Whether responder has psyched 1S, or has four spades and 5-6 diamonds, the 3D bid is not a convention. It's just common sense. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 5 04:01:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 04:01:43 +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 EAA14457 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 04:01:35 +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 11NK7x-000531-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 18:01:25 +0000 Message-ID: <$vZ25pAJ0V03EwR$@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 18:55:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: POC - San Antonio Case 46 In-Reply-To: <199909040740.RAA19597@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199909040740.RAA19597@fep2.mail.ozemail.net>, Tony Musgrove writes >At 02:16 AM 4/09/99 +0100, you wrote: >>In article <002501bef651$2d13aa80$a884d9ce@host>, Craig Senior >> writes >> >>snip good stuff >>> >>>We have a hand here where west psychs, east caters and nothing >>>happens...gosh I thought that was naughty! Or if west was not psyching but >>>their agreement allowed long spades and middling points on such a double we >>>have clearcut misinformation. >>> >>this pair is *clueless*. there is no MI as their agreement is that the >>double is negative. they just can't play bridge. chs john > >Exactly what the NOs are complaining about, a couple who can't play bridge >have just scored an outright top against them. It happens. They get more bottoms though. today just wasn't your day :(( > >Cheers, > >Tony > -- 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 Sep 5 20:00:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA16369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 20:00:03 +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 TAA16359 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:59:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.221] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11NZ5O-0002A2-00; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:59:46 +0100 Message-ID: <000301bef785$60bc0b40$dd5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:01:27 +0100 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 Date: 01 September 1999 18:19 Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience >> +=+ Do you recognize that partner may not >> have a suit he has named? If yes, do you >> disclose this to opponents? ~G~ +=+ >> > >I don't think this is necessary, since I will presume she has hearts when >making my next call. Most players know that major suit responses to weak two >bids (as with major suit responses over a double) are not always cricket. >Alerting every bid by partner that could be deceptive, when I am going to >take the bids at face value, doesn't seem appropriate.> +=+ I quote my view expressed in an alternative forum: "A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by seeking to establish that the action of the partner subsequent to the psychic is wholly normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action, and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed in advance." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 5 20:00:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA16368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 20:00:02 +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 TAA16358 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:59:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.221] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11NZ5N-0002A2-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:59:45 +0100 Message-ID: <000201bef785$5ffbc880$dd5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 09:37:31 +0100 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: 03 September 1999 20:38 Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> > > W N E S >> > > P 1D 1NT! 3D >> > > P 3NT AP > >> > Please answer also for the explanation "Shows either 15-17 >> balanced or >> > at most 8 HCP with a six-card or longer heart suit," and this is a >> legal >> > convention for the game. >> >> Not legal in ACBL-land, where a partnership's agreement about a >> one-level opening cannot include a bid that shows less than 8 HCP. +=+ In the UK a lot of years ago I applied for a licence for such an opening bid and supplied details of continuations (which, the committee alleged, were not fully explored). Ah, well, those were the days! ~G~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 5 21:14:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA16723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:14:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA16717 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:14:18 +1000 (EST) Received: by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.59) id PAA28218; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 15:14:01 +0400 (MSD) Received: from h113.50.elnet.msk.ru(195.58.50.113) by gateway via smap (V2.0) id xma028196; Sun, 5 Sep 99 15:13:44 +0400 Message-ID: <37D25078.747966F0@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 15:14:02 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Development References: <03fa01bef6a2$cc2a1f40$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------AA0B20ACE2B77B1378DB2E13" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ýòî ñîîáùåíèå çàêîäèðîâàíî â ôîðìàòå MIME è ñîñòîèò èç íåñêîëüêèõ ÷àñòåé. --------------AA0B20ACE2B77B1378DB2E13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------AA0B20ACE2B77B1378DB2E13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_1.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_1.txt" Hi all:) Thanks all the participants, especially - Ton and Grattan for extremely interesting, useful and teaching discussion. In spite of their positions I dare to add my two penny. There were discussed several points - the definition of the "illegality" among of them. Ton used as example the case with high-class Polish pair: they fulfilled their convention card with certain agreement and were using another agreement - "brown" class, forbidden in that kind of contest. It might happen that Ton used rather wrong example for determine his position - but it happened. So let's continue. There are at least two different points in the example. 1. The most deep and important point is whether the action of Polish pair admissible at all. It is point where positions of our disputants are differ. I guess that one may easily tell this example from cases of ME, undisclosing or UI (especially - from "soft" UI, which is connected with an ordinary human conduct or reflexes) - as it was made by Grattan and Robin. You remember: I love history and the Legend, - don't you?:). That's why I remind that in any case - when there are doubts about basic principles of the Bridge and great authorities has different opinions on the question - we have a nice instrument: to check the problem by means of our common origin such as rubber bridge. Let's consider: is it possible in rubber bridge to announce one agreement and to use another without warning opponents in advance? The answer is obvious: it is absolutely impossible! Probable reaction at almost any club: "Sir, it is you last deal for today. And you are not invited on future". So - I am not layer and it does not matter for me what word should be used (illegal, offence or any - let our Lawmakers make their definition) but for my opinion such doing is absolutely forbidden and illegal in sportish contract bridge too. Here "illegal" is used in common sense meaning. And illegal action automatically carries the current accident out of bridge. This way I was taught by my teachers. And that's why I agree with Grattan's position on this point. Let's remember that so fulfilling the convention card as changing the agreement after that were quite realized actions... One may find some (sorry - not too strong, Ton is right in this point) arguments in the Laws. There used words "may not" in L40B. According with Scope and Interpretation these words are almost the same as "must not". And violations of the procedure in such case are serious. So - I think AC has enough power to cancel previous results that were reached (during bridge contest) with non-bridge methods. And I rather agree with Herman that the decision might be more severe cause: - it was high class bridge players that should be (for numerous followers of the game) example of fair conduct; and weak players might learn and try to follow such wrong conduct... it was high class players that can use even the smallest irregularity for their profit (weak players cannot do it cause their weakness). 2. Second problem of discussed example is usage by Polish pair "brown" convention. This problem belongs to sportish bridge only - and should be considered by means of the Laws and Regulations. Usage of "brown" convention (during the contest where it is prohibited) provides not only to possible unusual result at the table where offending pair is playing. But it additionally creates great handicap for this pair with respect to another pair that are playing at another tables with the same cards. It provides to disturbing main right of sportish contest: right to equal conditions for participants. That's why for my opinion one should consider "two sides of medal": - result at the table where offending pair played, - results at other tables. And at this point I partly disagree with Grattan cause (IMO) in sportish bridge usage this convention creates damage for field and should be indemnified per se. For this purpose results of the offending pair should be changed for at most 40% (might be less) at every boards where they used (or could use - cause usage of certain convention influences to all other calls) their convention. As "field protection". It is similar to Grattan's position but he based his opinion on the damage for non-offending pair at the table where the offence happened - and that's why one may ask for proving the damage at the table. I think that at this table results of non-offending pair should be changed for reasons, described at point No. 1 of my post. Best wishes Vitold --------------AA0B20ACE2B77B1378DB2E13-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 5 22:25:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:25:20 +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 WAA16879 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:25:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.96] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11NbLr-0005B9-00; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:24:56 +0100 Message-ID: <003101bef799$a7b27520$dd5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:26:50 +0100 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: Grattan Endicott ; Kooijman, A. Cc: bridge-laws Date: 04 September 1999 09:57 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) >Apparently you do not like that either. > But L40B doesn't make a distinction. >L40C says that an AS can only be given when damage occurs. In both >situations, with 'legal' not permitted calls (1S) and 'illegal' calls (2C). >Above that a player can be penalized for making such calls. I wanted to say >that such an AS should only be given if damage is apparent and not as part >of a penalty. > >ton +=+ I find that a bit of fierce debate brings people closer together! I wholly agree that the AS is a separate issue from 'penalty'. My objective is to say two things: !. that 40C empowers the Director to determine on such evidence *as persuades him* (a) whether a call is illegal, and by extension whether a result has ensued from an illegal auction; and (b) if there is damage by reason of which he will adjust the score. He has full discretion in this. 2. that an NBO etc. is not wrong if it sets guidelines such as the PoC or the EBU traffic light system as to the standards it recommends to the Directors for their 40C decisions. We may all have opinions as to what *we* would prescribe! In addition I note that this 40C does not define adjusted score as artificial or assigned, so the question is technically open, but I hold a strong opinion that where a full auction illegally based has led to a 'result' the 12A2 procedure is called for, but even if this were only an option I would still consider that less than the *potential* 60% is 'damage'. Probably this last view is not shared? But perhaps at least you do not deny the legality of an NBO adopting the standard, nor - as I hope - adoption of it in WBF CoCs ? [In the 'Polish' case I believe that the findings of the AC included damage, though how explicitly this was stated is something of which I have no record. It may just have been an exercise of the 'examine any matter and make findings and decisions thereon' kind. Score adjustments under 40C/12A2 do not appear precluded if, as I believe, the AC took the view that the result on the board was illegally obtained and this constituted 'damage'. It is strange that the laws do not define 'damage' and it is open to SOs to consider anything as 'damage' which constitutes "loss or detriment", "harm done", or "disadvantage". My opinion on this is that the assessment should be made against the criterion of the side's expectations at the last point in a legal auction before the infraction occurs that calls for the score adjustment. There is no such point in an auction that commences with an illegal call, and it seems entirely reasonable to me that it should be adjudged the use of illegal methods then does harm or creates disadvantage, even if the absence of a norm makes "loss" unquantifiable. I vaguely wonder whether there is an argument that the NO's session score might provide such an "expectation", but I have never heard this debated.] Cheers, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 5 22:25:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:25:20 +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 WAA16881 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:25:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.96] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11NbLu-0005B9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:24:59 +0100 Message-ID: <003301bef799$a977a4c0$dd5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:24:19 +0100 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: 04 September 1999 17:58 Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience > >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> > >> +=+ If the treatment includes a bid that as a matter >> of partnership understanding may not show a >> holding in the named suit it is conventional. > Marvin: >So 1C-Dbl-1S is a convention if responder occasionally doesn't have >spades? I don't think so. > >The definition of convention says "willingness to play," not >"showing a holding." > >I think you mean "denies a willingness to play in a denomination >previously named by the bidder." > +=+ "named or previously named". The shortcoming is in my shorthand; I was trying to incorporate all the conditions of the definition in a single phrase. Some years ago the English Bridge Union, responding to a lawyer, drew attention to a statement in correspondence concerning action taken against a player (still prominent) who wrote "In this position I will always bid One Spade". This is certainly illegal; your 'occasionally', if it means so occasional as to be unanticipated, is (IMNSHO) legal; somewhere between the two there is a line to be drawn in the sand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 5 22:25:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:25:19 +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 WAA16880 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:25:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.96] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11NbLt-0005B9-00; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:24:57 +0100 Message-ID: <003201bef799$a8c6a440$dd5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Development Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:56:24 +0100 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 Date: 04 September 1999 10:31 Subject: Re: Development >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> >> +=+ What I suggest is >> Herman:- >OK Grattan, I understand why you would award an artificial >adjustment. >Since there has been no real auction, there is no way to >determine what "would have happened" (unless of course the >call you name illegal came late in the auction, but I >believe you would apply 12C2 then ?). +=+ Yes+=+ > >What I (and Ton) fail to see is how you can designate a call >as "illegal" just on the scant (but compelling) evidence. > >>From the evidence, you (and the EBU directors) conclude that >the call was a psyche, but that partnership experience about >it did in fact exist. > >Now what have the pair done wrong ? +=+ If it is decided such has been the case then, before the partner gave any explanation or failed to do so, the bidder has made a call or play that was based on a partnership understanding AND there has been no "PRIOR announcement". At the moment the call was made the call was a violation of Law 40A. 2. As I have tirelessly reminded bored readers, Law 40C puts the decisions in the hands of the Director and establishes no criteria by which he must make his judgment. He must study the language of the law and make his decision. If *he* finds the scant evidence compelling, that is it. There is nothing to say an NBO etc. may not offer to him its views on the standards of evidence, incorporating them in CoCs or whatever, but on site the Director rules, and after the Director the AC. (In practice the CTD will follow the CoCs unless he considers the features of the evidence make the guidance inappropriate in a case in point and accordingly will stand his ground, with the backing of the law.) ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 5 22:32:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:29:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.pa.home.com [24.2.5.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16925 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:28:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com ([24.1.53.108]) by mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19990905122847.TNOY24110.mail.rdc1.pa.home.com@cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com> for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 05:28:47 -0700 From: Brian@meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 12:28:38 GMT Message-ID: <37d359ce.7772417@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> References: <000301bef785$60bc0b40$dd5208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <000301bef785$60bc0b40$dd5208c3@swhki5i6> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:01:27 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >+=+ I quote my view expressed in an alternative forum: > "A partnership may not defend itself against an >allegation that its psychic action is based upon an >understanding by seeking to establish that the action >of the partner subsequent to the psychic is wholly >normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and >timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or >implicit, since it may affect their choice of action, and >for this reason the understanding must be disclosed >in advance." Maybe I've missed something in this thread which explains this message - but if an opp ALLEGES (my emphasis) that my pard's psyche is based on an understanding, how DO I defend myself against that allegation, other than by trying to show that my subsequent actions are "wholly normal", at least until the psych is exposed through AI? Assume for the purposes of this question that opp is mistaken, and we do NOT have a CPU about the psych. Am I just to sit there saying 'Oh no it isn't!"? ;-) It seems to me that wholly normal bidding after the psych is my best defence against the claim that I knew about the psych in advance. Brian. (N.B. No recent directing experience, just a puzzled player). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 5 22:38:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:38:21 +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 WAA16958 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:38:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.121] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11NbYb-0005Qe-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:38:05 +0100 Message-ID: <004c01bef79b$7e5f02e0$dd5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: understanding, etc. amendment Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:37:36 +0100 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: Marvin L. French ; Bridge Laws Date: 05 September 1999 10:01 Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience > > >Date: 01 September 1999 18:19 >Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience > > >>> +=+ Do you recognize that partner may not >>> have a suit he has named? If yes, do you >>> disclose this to opponents? ~G~ +=+ >>> >> >>I don't think this is necessary, since I will presume she has hearts when >>making my next call. Most players know that major suit responses to weak >two >>bids (as with major suit responses over a double) are not always cricket. >>Alerting every bid by partner that could be deceptive, when I am going to >>take the bids at face value, doesn't seem appropriate.> > >+=+ I quote my view expressed in an alternative forum: > "A partnership may not defend itself against an >allegation that its psychic action is based upon an >understanding by seeking to establish that the action >of the partner subsequent to the psychic is wholly >normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and >timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or >implicit, since it may affect their choice of action, and >for this reason the understanding must be disclosed >in advance." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > #### I see that I have quoted a first shot, subsequently amended to read " .... by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic, the partner's actions....... etc" #### From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 5 23:12:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA17057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 23:12:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from luna.worldonline.nl (luna.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA17051 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 23:12:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp233-243.worldonline.nl [195.241.233.243]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA09456; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 15:12:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001501bef71d$8026eee0$45caf1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Vitold" , Subject: Re: Development Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 23:36:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks for your reply. Just one remark. In my recollection the convention as used by the Polish pair was allowed at that stage of the event (the KO-phase of the Rosenblum). I used this example because it is a very good one, not to embarrass Grattan. I didn't recall he was involved in the decision as a scribe. For those interested in the case, it is number 57 in the booklet with AC-decisions from Albuquerque. You will see that my opinion is quite consistent (which not necessarily means that I am right). ton -----Original Message----- From: Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 02:30:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 02:30:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA17584 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 02:30:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.78.220.111]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19990905162931.PAVQ11568@default> for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 16:29:31 +0000 Message-ID: <003401bef7cd$dd9776c0$6fdc4e0c@default> From: "JOAN GERARD" To: Subject: Fw: unfortunate news Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 11:38:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01BEF793.2E579EE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BEF793.2E579EE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: JOAN GERARD To: bridge-laws@octaviaanu.edu.au Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 11:35 AM Subject: unfortunate news I am sad to report that Richard Leighton passed away early this = morning. - some- time between 4:00am and 7:00am. As I understand it, he was in a bike = marathon and colapsed.=20 Richard was a very enthusiastic bridge player and very dedicated to his = family. Hhe is survived by his two children who were living with him here in the = States and his wife who has been living in England. It is sad for me to have = lost a friend. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BEF793.2E579EE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 JOAN GERARD <joanandron@worldnet.att.net>
To:=20 bridge-laws@octaviaanu.edu.= au=20 <bridge-laws@octaviaanu.edu.= au>
Date:=20 Sunday, September 05, 1999 11:35 AM
Subject: unfortunate=20 news

I am sad to report that Richard = Leighton passed=20 away early this  morning. - some-
time between 4:00am and 7:00am. As I = understand=20 it, he was in a bike marathon
and colapsed.
Richard was a very enthusiastic = bridge player=20 and very dedicated to his family.
Hhe is survived by his two children = who were=20 living with him here in the States
and his wife who has been living in = England. It=20 is sad for me to have lost a friend.
 
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BEF793.2E579EE0-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 02:31:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 02:31:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.49]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA17592 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 02:31:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP142.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.206]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA01611 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 09:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990905111225.0098e1c0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 11:28:38 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? In-Reply-To: <003101bef799$a7b27520$dd5208c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >[In the 'Polish' case I believe that the findings >of the AC included damage, though how >explicitly this was stated is something of which >I have no record. It may just have been an >exercise of the 'examine any matter and make >findings and decisions thereon' kind. Just so everyone has the "Polish" case at hand (abbreviations and typos mine): Albuquerque Case 57 Rosenblum Cup Teams Dealer: N Vul: None 4 AQT9632 T5 A53 QJ962 K853 J7 54 6 AQJ987 KT876 2 AT7 K8 K432 QJ94 1H 1NT 3NT 4S 5H all pass 5H-1, -50 N/S Facts: EW were playing a convention (the 1NT overcall) not shown on the convention card. NS had no opportunity to prepare a defense. The players assured the Director that careful explanations were given and referred to a different convention card for that purpose. Their approved CC did not show their methods correctly. The card had been made out in a hurry by a third party. They found when they arrived at the tournament that the card sent by their NBO had not arrived. Director's ruling: When the director (Schoder) was called, he cancelled the result and awarded 3 IMPs to NS. An earlier board against a different pair in the same match was identified during which the same unregistered convention was used. That board was also cancelled and 3 IMPs awarded. The director asked the AC to review the facts. Committee decision: The committee noted that the pair were extremely experienced and should have been expected to know their responsibilities. They should not have been excused for the grave breach of the conditions of contest. This pair had to play the methods on the CC officially registered. They were barred from playing in the final segment of the semifinal of the Rosenblum Cup Teams. The score of 3 IMPs to NS on each of the two boards was confirmed. Chairman: Jaime Ortiz-Patino Members present: Mazhar Jafri, Edgar Kaplan, Tommy Sandmark Scribe: Grattan Endicott Ton Koojiman's comment in the casebook: "I do not agree with this decision at all. The question to be answered was whether NS were damaged by the use of this unknown convention (it was not illegal in itself, but they did not announce it properly). Could and would NS have done better knowing the convention? I do not believe it and I would not have changed the score. A procedural penalty was obvious and a severe one was understandable. The Polish have caused too much trouble WRT their CCs and systems." ---- Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 05:53:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 05:53:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from agomboc (dpg.drotposta.hu [195.228.183.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA17988 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 05:53:39 +1000 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by agomboc with smtp (Exim 1.92 #2) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id 11NiLv-0000BE-00; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:53:28 +0200 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:56:42 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Revoke Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would really appreciate your opinion about the following - today hopefully theoretical - problem. The contract is a grand slam. Declarer's only problem is the trump suit as the missing cards are the Jack and 3 small ones (assuming there are 4 trumps on dummy and the AKQ and 2 small ones in hand). He takes the opening lead on dummy and leads a trump. Next defender does not follow the suit. Declarer realising he is one down, is losing his attention to the rest of the play and makes a revoke at a later trick. However at the end of the play it becomes clear that the defender made a revoke at trick 2 - the trumps were divided 1-3. Declarer explains if defender follows the trump suit at trick 2 he probably claims as all the problems of the hands are solved. Thanks. Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 06:36:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 06:36:03 +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 GAA18095 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 06:35:56 +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 WAA00113; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:35:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA24856; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:35:18 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:35:18 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Martaandras@uze.net cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 Martaandras@uze.net wrote: > I would really appreciate your opinion about the following - today > hopefully theoretical - problem. > > The contract is a grand slam. Declarer's only problem is the trump suit > as the missing cards are the Jack and 3 small ones (assuming there are 4 > trumps on dummy and the AKQ and 2 small ones in hand). He takes the > opening lead on dummy and leads a trump. Next defender does not follow > the suit. Declarer realising he is one down, is losing his attention to > the rest of the play and makes a revoke at a later trick. However at the > end of the play it becomes clear that the defender made a revoke at > trick 2 - the trumps were divided 1-3. > Declarer explains if defender follows the trump suit at trick 2 he > probably claims as all the problems of the hands are solved. At a first glance, I find declarer's statement hard to believe. When RHO showed out at trick 2, the hand is also over, so declarer could have claimed at that point for down 1. Now that he didn't, I think that there are 2 separate infractions on the hand that should be treated independently. 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 Sep 6 07:28:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 07:28:55 +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 HAA18242 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 07:28:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-239-35.s289.tnt2.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.239.35]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA15564 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 17:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001201bef7e5$9c89ca80$23ef7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 17:28:34 -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: To: Sent: Sunday, September 05, 1999 4:56 PM Subject: Revoke > I would really appreciate your opinion about the following - today hopefully theoretical - problem. > > The contract is a grand slam. Declarer's only problem is the trump suit as the missing cards are the Jack and 3 small ones > (assuming there are 4 trumps on dummy and the AKQ and 2 small ones in hand). > He takes the opening lead on dummy and leads a trump. Next defender does not follow the suit. Declarer realising he is one > down, is losing his attention to the rest of the play and makes a revoke at a later trick. However at the end of the play it > becomes clear that the defender made a revoke at trick 2 - the trumps were divided 1-3. > Declarer explains if defender follows the trump suit at trick 2 he probably claims as all the problems of the hands are solved. > > Thanks. > > Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary > martaandras@uze.net The question you are asking is whether or not the earlier revoke by the defender can cancel the revoke by declarer. IMO the answer is no. Declarer must pay proper attention to the game (Law 74.B.1). Whether or not he is going down is not an excuse to stop playing the hand. Both revokes are subject to penalty separately. If the revoke caused Declarer to take a losing line of play, he would be entitled to an adjustment. That's not the case here. Declarer simply stopped paying attention and made a silly mistake, unrelated to the earlier revoke. He has to live with the score. Next time he will stay awake. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 07:47:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 07:47:56 +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 HAA18297 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 07:47:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.84] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Nk8P-000JLS-00; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:47:38 +0100 Message-ID: <003f01bef7e8$4381b580$545108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Vitold" , Subject: Re: Development Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:36:31 +0100 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: 05 September 1999 12:45 Subject: Re: Development +=+ > Thank you Vitold for the timely reminder that Ton and I are but officers of the Committee and that our individual opinions are not necessarily the definitive judgement of the current committee. We should have said so and I apologize if it has not been apparent. At least we have demonstrated that the committee is an association of independent minds. We were discussing the language of the laws and how we see its interpretation; there is always something to learn, and I have met the unexpected. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 07:47:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 07:47:59 +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 HAA18298 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 07:47:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.84] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Nk8R-000JLS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:47:40 +0100 Message-ID: <004101bef7e8$44b77660$545108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:46:36 +0100 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: 05 September 1999 17:57 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? > >Just so everyone has the "Polish" case at hand (abbreviations and typos mine): > -------------------- \x/ --------------------- >Committee decision: The committee noted that the pair were extremely >experienced and should have been expected to know their responsibilities. >They should not have been excused for the grave breach of the conditions of >contest. This pair had to play the methods on the CC officially registered. >They were barred from playing in the final segment of the semifinal of the >Rosenblum Cup Teams. The score of 3 IMPs to NS on each of the two boards >was confirmed. > >Chairman: Jaime Ortiz-Patino >Members present: Mazhar Jafri, Edgar Kaplan, Tommy Sandmark >Scribe: Grattan Endicott > >Ton Koojiman's comment in the casebook: "I do not agree with this decision >at all. The question to be answered was whether NS were damaged by the use >of this unknown convention (it was not illegal in itself, but they did not >announce it properly). Could and would NS have done better knowing the >convention? I do not believe it and I would not have changed the score. A >procedural penalty was obvious and a severe one was understandable. The >Polish have caused too much trouble WRT their CCs and systems." > +=+ Thank you Brian. Helpful. The systems regulations in the relevant place say: "Partnerships failing to comply with this section 5.1.3 will be subject to penalty, which may include a prohibition on the use of some parts of their System or even of the System itself. Each case will be heard on its merits." (5.1 covers filing of systems and cards and possible scrutiny of them on behalf of the Systems Committee.) The case relates to a breach of a regulation legitimately made under Law 40E1. The regulation does not require damage to be shown. If it were to be argued that in some way Law 80F applied I would remind readers of the Geneva decision made with Executive authority, thus binding on the WBF Laws Committee and recently reaffirmed, that it does not apply to regulations made as authorized in sections of the laws other than 80F itself. So Ton's issue is not with the Director or the AC but with the philosophy of the regulation which lays upon the partnership the onus for ensuring that their correct convention card is filed, and for stated sanctions if they do not. At this level I find that not overly burdensome and the AC decision commensurate with the status of the tournament. The Director, I think, did what he had to do. The missing information is whether the opponents had spent time working on their counters to the System as registered. (For Ton's info. I was aware I was involved but, temporarily I hope, have mislaid copy of Albuquerque appeals, though not of the regs. No embarrassment unless the misspelling of Sandsmark is mine.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 07:58:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 07:58:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA18342 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 07:58:42 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id QAA23778 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 16:58:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0NRQM014 Sun, 05 Sep 99 16:55:14 Message-ID: <9909051655.0NRQM01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 05 Sep 99 16:55:14 Subject: REVOKE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The procedure is to adjudicate the two revokes in accordance with L64A. the likely outcome being that one trick to declarer and 2 tricks to the defense. Then consider L64C. I do have empathy for a declarer in the situation but the only valid appraisal for declarer's revoke was that it was caused by himself, not by the defender's revoke. From the situation described, becoming mentally discombobulated, [remember, everyone would have the 4-0 break if that was the way the cards were] because one is in a hopeless situation is not a reason that the NOS for seeking redress under L64C. In the situation described I strongly doubt that there is redress under L64C. [If learning the trumps are 4-0 means that there is a danger of going down more than 1 trick because of handling problems and undertaking a line of play that lessens that risk results in losing tricks that would not have been lost then L64C provides redress.] Roger Pewick B>I would really appreciate your opinion about the following - today B>hopefully theoretical - problem. B>The contract is a grand slam. Declarer's only problem is the trump suit B>as the missing cards are the Jack and 3 small ones B>(assuming there are 4 trumps on dummy and the AKQ and 2 small ones in B>hand). B>He takes the opening lead on dummy and leads a trump. Next defender B>does not follow the suit. Declarer realising he is one B>down, is losing his attention to the rest of the play and makes a B>revoke at a later trick. However at the end of the play it B>becomes clear that the defender made a revoke at trick 2 - the trumps B>were divided 1-3. B>Declarer explains if defender follows the trump suit at trick 2 he B>probably claims as all the problems of the hands are solved. B>Thanks. B>Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary B>martaandras@uze.net B> Roger Pewick r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 08:18:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:18:41 +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 IAA18391 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:18:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.84] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11NkcA-000KGG-00; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 23:18:22 +0100 Message-ID: <005a01bef7ec$8edad080$545108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brian Meadows" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 23:17:45 +0100 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 Date: 05 September 1999 13:51 Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience >On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:01:27 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > > >> >>+=+ I quote my view expressed in an alternative forum: ------------- \x/ ---------------- > >Maybe I've missed something in this thread which explains >this +=+ did you pick up the subsequent amendment ? ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 09:34:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:34:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from tst.dk (mail.tst.dk [147.29.107.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18480 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:34:31 +1000 (EST) Received: by tst.tst.dk id <29570>; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 01:33:43 +0100 Message-Id: <99Sep6.013343gmt+0100.29570@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 00:33:16 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" To: Subject: Re: REVOKE Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA18481 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think you also have to consider L72B1. On the premise, that 13 tricks are obvious (no finesses, no squeezes, no endplays :-)) as long as the trumps are not 4-0, I would probably adjust to 13 tricks for both sides, declarers revoke notwithstanding. It seems, that Grattans official (as speeking on behalf of WBFLC) e-mail dated 98-09-23 in the Subsequent v consequent-thread makes this clear (repeated below for your convenience). /Flemming Boegh-Soerensen >>>Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee. ---------- > From: Reg Busch > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Subsequent v consequent > Date: 21 September 1998 08:33 > > WBFLC decision at Lille: 'The Committee remarked that the right to redress > for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgment > 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')'. > > Am I right in assuming that this means what it seems to say: that the > *only* action by NOs which will jeopardise their right to redress is an > irrational, wild or gambling one? That, however egregiously badly they play > or bid, they retain the right to redress provided this is not seen as, for > example, a wild gamble for the overtrick in pairs? That, if the NOs were > heading for a normal or good score but get their bad score only because of > a revoke, they will still get redress? Does this mean that the Kaplan > doctrine of 'egregious error' is now history? > ++++ The words were chosen with some care. Firstly we should highlight that in considering score adjustment for the offending side both consequent and subsequent advantage are taken into account in situations where Law 72B1 applies. In other situations, and for the non-offending side, only consequent damage to the non-offending side leads to score adjustment. However, any action by the non-offending side has to be adjudged "irrational, wild or gambling" if it is to annul their right to adjustment for consequent damage. An error in the auction or play, however bad, does not take away that right if it is not adjudged to be "irrational, wild or gambling". A "double shot" is defined to be "gambling". A result obtained solely by the offending side's good play subsequent to an irregularity (and not related to the irregularity) is not adjusted. As for 'egregious' it depends what meaning it is considered to have; if it can include actions that are not deemed irrational, wild or gambling, then 'egregious' is not the test. A result which comes only from a subsequent and unrelated breach of the laws is not adjustable by reason of the prior infraction and is subject to the relevant law. A revoke, for example, is not a considered action and does not therefore qualify to be irrational. ~ Grattan ~ ++++<<< >>> 05-09-99 18:55 >>> The procedure is to adjudicate the two revokes in accordance with L64A. the likely outcome being that one trick to declarer and 2 tricks to the defense. Then consider L64C. I do have empathy for a declarer in the situation but the only valid appraisal for declarer's revoke was that it was caused by himself, not by the defender's revoke. From the situation described, becoming mentally discombobulated, [remember, everyone would have the 4-0 break if that was the way the cards were] because one is in a hopeless situation is not a reason that the NOS for seeking redress under L64C. In the situation described I strongly doubt that there is redress under L64C. [If learning the trumps are 4-0 means that there is a danger of going down more than 1 trick because of handling problems and undertaking a line of play that lessens that risk results in losing tricks that would not have been lost then L64C provides redress.] Roger Pewick B>I would really appreciate your opinion about the following - today B>hopefully theoretical - problem. B>The contract is a grand slam. Declarer's only problem is the trump suit B>as the missing cards are the Jack and 3 small ones B>(assuming there are 4 trumps on dummy and the AKQ and 2 small ones in B>hand). B>He takes the opening lead on dummy and leads a trump. Next defender B>does not follow the suit. Declarer realising he is one B>down, is losing his attention to the rest of the play and makes a B>revoke at a later trick. However at the end of the play it B>becomes clear that the defender made a revoke at trick 2 - the trumps B>were divided 1-3. B>Declarer explains if defender follows the trump suit at trick 2 he B>probably claims as all the problems of the hands are solved. B>Thanks. B>Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary B>martaandras@uze.net B> Roger Pewick r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 10:42:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:42:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.49]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18658 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:42:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP150.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.86]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA20884 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 17:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990905193928.0098e840@mail.earthlink.net> Message-Id: <4.1.19990905193928.0098e840@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 19:40:36 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? In-Reply-To: <004101bef7e8$44b77660$545108c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >No >embarrassment unless the misspelling of >Sandsmark is mine.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It's not. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 12:36:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 12:36:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com [139.134.5.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA18871 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 12:35:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca103066 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 12:34:00 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-222-153.tmns.net.au ([139.134.222.153]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Germane-MailRouter V2.4d 3/2859454); 06 Sep 1999 12:34:00 Message-ID: <009001bef89e$7d106420$99de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 12:31:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net wrote in response to Martaandras@uze.net : >>When RHO >>showed out at trick 2, the hand is also over, so declarer could have >>claimed at that point for down 1. This comment does not make sense. The type of hand consistent with the revoke is: xxx Ax xx AKQJ xxxx AKQxx AKQJ xx In 7D on a spade lead, declarer claims if both opponents follow to the first round of trumps. When North revokes on the first round of trumps, declarer must play on in order to decide how to avoid a spade loser. I would rule under L64C and L72B1 that 13 tricks are made, declarer's subsequent revoke not mattering because it would not happen without the first revoke. This restores equity because declarer would have made the slam without the first revoke. Peter Gill. Sydney, Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 12:46:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 12:46:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18894 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 12:46:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA01052 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <052a01bef811$add80320$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000301bef785$60bc0b40$dd5208c3@swhki5i6> Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:43:02 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: >> Marvin L. French wrote: >Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ Do you recognize that partner may not > >> have a suit he has named? If yes, do you > >> disclose this to opponents? ~G~ +=+ > >> > > > > I don't think this is necessary, since I will presume > > she has hearts when making my next call. Most > > players know that major suit responses to weak > > two bids (as with major suit responses over a double) > > are not always cricket, Alerting every bid by partner > > that could be deceptive, when I am going to > > take the bids at face value, doesn't seem appropriate. > > +=+ I quote my view expressed in an alternative forum: > "A partnership may not defend itself against an > allegation that its psychic action is based upon an > understanding by seeking to establish that the action > of the partner subsequent to the psychic is wholly > normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and > timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or > implicit, since it may affect their choice of action, and > for this reason the understanding must be disclosed > in advance." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I like to make analogies with card play situations, since the Laws treat disclosure about calls and plays in the same fashion. My partner likes to play jack from QJ in the opposing trump suit, because most good players will play according to "restricted choice" (in which case the card played doesn't matter), but weak players will figure the jack must be singleton (or the inevitable falsecard of the queen would be played). I know from experience that partner does this. Now, according to Herman and you, I must Alert the opponent when partners plays the jack, explaining that experience has taught me that he seldom plays the queen from QJ. It has become an implicit partnership agreement that must be shared with the opponents. I don't think so. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 15:34:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA19107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:34:47 +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 PAA19102 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:34:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-205-143.s143.tnt4.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.205.143]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA29528 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 01:34:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000f01bef829$7d6d1140$8fcd7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <009001bef89e$7d106420$99de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 01:34:20 -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: Peter Gill To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 3:31 PM Subject: Re: Revoke > >On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net wrote in response to > Martaandras@uze.net : > > >>When RHO > >>showed out at trick 2, the hand is also over, so declarer could have > >>claimed at that point for down 1. > > This comment does not make sense. The type of hand consistent with the > revoke is: > > xxx Ax > xx AKQJ > xxxx AKQxx > AKQJ xx > > In 7D on a spade lead, declarer claims if both opponents follow to the first > round of trumps. When North revokes on the first round of trumps, declarer > must play on in order to decide how to avoid a spade loser. Yes, and if the subsequent line he took to avoid a spade loser were inferior, he would be entitled to an equity adjustment under L64C. But that's not what we're discussing here. Declarer did not take an inferior line of play suggested by the revoke; he committed an infraction. > I would rule under L64C and L72B1 that 13 tricks are made, declarer's > subsequent revoke not mattering because it would not happen without the > first revoke. This restores equity because declarer would have made the slam > without the first revoke. > In order to restore equity, the damage must have been caused by the first revoke. In this case, the damage was caused by declarer's inattention to the game. Although declarer could have made his slam by claiming if there had been no revoke, the causal link between the first revoke and declarer's infraction is missing. > Peter Gill. > Sydney, Australia. > > This is the second post I've seen citing L72B1. Would somebody care to explain to me how a defender could be expected to know at the time of a revoke that it would cause declarer to commit a subsequent revoke? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 16:56:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:56:36 +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 QAA19309 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:56:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA28499; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:55:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA24579; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:55:49 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:55:48 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Peter Gill cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: <009001bef89e$7d106420$99de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Peter Gill wrote: > >On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net wrote in response to > Martaandras@uze.net : > > >>When RHO > >>showed out at trick 2, the hand is also over, so declarer could have > >>claimed at that point for down 1. > > This comment does not make sense. The type of hand consistent with the > revoke is: > > xxx Ax > xx AKQJ > xxxx AKQxx > AKQJ xx > > In 7D on a spade lead, declarer claims if both opponents follow to the > first round of trumps. When North revokes on the first round of trumps, > declarer must play on in order to decide how to avoid a spade loser. I > would rule under L64C and L72B1 that 13 tricks are made, declarer's > subsequent revoke not mattering because it would not happen without the > first revoke. > This restores equity because declarer would have made the slam without > the first revoke. 64C should, IMHO, apply to the case where declarer could make the contract by playing 3 rounds of trumps, finds a 4-0 split, then plays on hearts in order to get rid of his spade loser and finds that the second heart is ruffed (and is not fully compensated by the revoke penalties). This case is different. Declarer is still supposed to follow the laws of the game, a revoke from the defence does not entitle him to revoke as well. I don't think 72B1 applies here, as there is no way the offender, at the time of the revoke, could have known that this could damage the non-offending side. 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 Sep 6 21:39:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:39:46 +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 VAA19893 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:39:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-90.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.90]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29289 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 13:39:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37D38BCA.35CF1152@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 11:39:22 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Fw: unfortunate news References: <003401bef7cd$dd9776c0$6fdc4e0c@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > JOAN GERARD wrote: > I am sad to report that Richard Leighton passed away early > this morning. - some- > time between 4:00am and 7:00am. As I understand it, he was > in a bike marathon > and colapsed. > Richard was a very enthusiastic bridge player and very > dedicated to his family. > Hhe is survived by his two children who were living with > him here in the States > and his wife who has been living in England. It is sad for > me to have lost a friend. > I am very saddened to hear this. Richard and I were among a small band of posters to bridge and cricket news groups. Both being from non-traditional cricket countries, we felt united in some way. My sincerest condolences to his closer friends and relatives. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 6 21:39:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:39:48 +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 VAA19895 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:39:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-90.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.90]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29295; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 13:39:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37D39D2F.110353FB@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 12:53:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , Hilde Smet Subject: Spanish Major Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last saturday, pub drive in Lier, my worst tournament this year, last round, against two friends, who offer to stake a round of drinks on the round. First board, I pick up : 10 - 9xxx - Jxxx - 8xxx I'm in third hand, love all. Pass - Pass. What did you expect : 1Spade. The bidding continues : double - 4 spades - double - pass and my RHO goes into a trance. and passes. -1100. OK, so now I'm 5-1 ahead in the last 5 years. The rest of the table was also a treat : board two- opponents bid 1NT-3NT and partner doubles. I lead spades, declarer takes nine tricks and his second top. I pay for the drinks. board three- we bid 1Sp-2Cl and opponent enters with 2He. We give that a penalty double, and I let it make - too difficult for me. Top number three for them. I offer a second round of drinks, mainly to appease my partner, who still thinks I should have worked out she held three spades. board four- opponents bid to 3NT on 22 points after a bidding mistake. I cannot imagine 1NT opener has six diamonds and singleton heart, and again a contract is made. We scramble home with 3 points off four boards ! We did not win the tournament. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 00:40:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:40:18 +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 AAA20410 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:39:45 +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 KAA24566 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA12854 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:38:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909061438.KAA12854@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Development Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ If it is decided such has been the case > then, before the partner gave any explanation > or failed to do so, the bidder has made a call > or play that was based on a partnership > understanding AND there has been no > "PRIOR announcement". At the moment the > call was made the call was a violation of Law > 40A. How is that? The call is disqualified from L40A protection, but I fail to see how L40A has been violated. Virtually all calls are based on partnership understanding, and the exact procedure for disclosure varies depending on the nature of the call. Prior announcement is required in some cases but not others. Did you mean L40B? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 01:31:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 01:31:33 +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 BAA20535 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 01:31:20 +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 LAA25097 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA13089 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:31:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909061531.LAA13089@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Brian Baresch > Facts: EW were playing a convention (the 1NT overcall) not shown on the > convention card. [An incorrect CC had been filed in advance.] > From: "Grattan Endicott" > The case relates to a breach of a regulation legitimately > made under Law 40E1. Isn't it a classic L40B violation? The CoC required advance disclosure, which was not made. Hence the convention may not be used. [Ton, in the casebook:] > at all. The question to be answered was whether NS were damaged by the use > of this unknown convention (it was not illegal in itself, but they did not > announce it properly). Could and would NS have done better knowing the > convention? Is this right approach? It seems to me that L40B prescribes a specific penalty for non-disclosure. On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable applying L40B to an ordinary MI case. What is the distinction? In any event, I fail to see why the TD (and AC) gave avg+/avg-. Why not use L12C2 on the basis that the illegal 1NT overcall isn't made, and the methods shown on the "as filed" CC are in effect? Perhaps this would lead to a natural 2D overcall, or perhaps 2D was shown as conventional, but anyway work out the rest of the auction in the usual way, resolving doubtful points in favor of the NOS. What is wrong with that? (As a practical matter, as David has said, you don't need to work out every call but just pick a plausible result favorable to the NOS.) As for the earlier board, is it the appeals period or the correction period that governs whether or not a change can be made? Was the discovery of the illegal convention still within the relevant period? Lots of questions, I'm afraid. Perhaps the confusion is a result of the Kaplan legacy of leaving certain matters deliberately vague. I don't think there is any question that the final decision was legal (except possibly as to changing the previous board if the correction period was over) and justifiable, but I'm not sure it was the only possible decision or even the best possible decision. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 02:17:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 02:17:34 +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 CAA20783 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 02:17:26 +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 RAA07709; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 17:16:57 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA25306; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 17:15:58 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 06 Sep 1999 16:15:57 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA06075; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 17:15:54 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA02578; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 17:15:34 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 17:15:34 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909061615.RAA02578@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve writes: > > [Ton, in the casebook:] > > at all. The question to be answered was whether NS were damaged by the use > > of this unknown convention (it was not illegal in itself, but they did not > > announce it properly). Could and would NS have done better knowing the > > convention? > > Is this right approach? It seems to me that L40B prescribes a specific > penalty for non-disclosure. On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable > applying L40B to an ordinary MI case. What is the distinction? > Just to be different, to me it appears to be a L40D problem. The sponsoring organisation require that for a bidding convention to be played it must be on the pre-submitted convention card. So the pair in question were playing a (40D)illegal convention, rather than concealing a legal convention. As previously discussed: some authorities award av+/- for playing illegal conventions. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 07:18:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 07:18:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA21299 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 07:17:58 +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 RAA01618 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 17:17:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA13443 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 17:17:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 17:17:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909062117.RAA13443@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: YC psyches, s&j, method, and regulation. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Steve Willner wrote: > >>Let's rewrite "Herman's equation:" > >>meaning = + + > >> + > From: "Grattan Endicott" > I consider that style and judgement are > not subject to regulation, but that 'method' is. The words need > definition and it may be in this area that Steve Willner has a > problem with the concepts. In my view, and I sat with Kaplan > whilst the words in 40E1 were devised, 'method' intends the > matters of systemic meaning of calls understood by the > partnership, whilst 'style and judgement' refers to each > player's right to select amongst these accordingly as he > considers best. That is, on the surface at least, a clear definition. > The point at issue then is when the Director > should decide that a partnership method exists so that there > is disclosable 'method'. It is meaning that must be fully > exposed to opponents, although this includes practice that > is habitual. If a player regularly and habitually fails to open > 1NT with a bad balanced 15HCP the laws say that it is an > understanding when partner knows it to be so; when the > player exercises judgement once and subsequently applies > it to all hands of like characteristics, it is his method. OK, so everything disclosable, if conventional or light initial..., becomes method and thus is regulatable. I thought that's what you were saying all along. How do we approach the case where partners agree 1NT=15-17, but in practice, one partner bids it with every 15-count and maybe the occasional "good 14," while the other wants 15 by the ACBL's count and usually a couple of ten-spots besides? These differences in hand evaluation, or method if you prefer, will soon become obvious. Of course the SO requires both partners to play the same system. Is this style and judgment? I confess, as an opponent, I would want these known tendencies to be disclosed. Do they become illegal? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 08:53:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 08:53:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from tst.dk (tst.tst.dk [147.29.107.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21433 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 08:53:40 +1000 (EST) Received: by tst.tst.dk id <29569>; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:52:50 +0100 Message-Id: <99Sep7.005250gmt+0100.29569@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 23:52:52 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" To: Subject: Re: Revoke Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id IAA21434 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote > "Hirsch Davis" 06-09-99 07:34 > snip > >This is the second post I've seen citing L72B1. Would >somebody care to >explain to me how a defender could be expected to >know at the time >of a revoke that it would cause declarer to commit a >subsequent revoke? He can't, but is this necessary to invoke L72B1? If he "could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side", then the TD shall award an adjusted score "if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity." I take it, that damage refers to the trickcount before the TD after the play ceases assesses the L64 penalty. If this is not so, then a revoke can never be expected to damage the NOS because of L64C. But otherwise the defending revoker generally can expect a revoke in the trumpsuit to be likely to damage declarer in some unspecified way through subsequent (or should that read consequent?) inferior play, IMHO. Just one way this can happen is through declarers inability to get the correct count on the opposing hands. Now, if the TD accept declarers allegation, that he would have claimed if the first revoke had not occurred, then in the absence of this revoke he would have scored his 13 tricks for certain. Then, in order for the defence to have any chance to score one or more tricks, they have to revoke. Is this not gaining an advantage through the irregularity? Resuming lurking status Flemming Boegh-Soerensen From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 09:59:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:59:04 +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 JAA21582 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:58:56 +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 11O8eo-0007o9-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 23:58:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:57:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: the beer card and a 4-drink revoke MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Also posted to rgb. First the hand, and a comment that if you score the D7 (the beer card) at trick 13, not being a trump then partner buys you a drink in many games (and certainly at the Young Chelsea). Imm xxx xx Ax Q AQJxxx Kx AKJxxx QTxxx T9xx KJ87xx KT AJT9xxx - - Q 9xxxx EW get to 6Hx and the play doesn't take long. AD lead, West pitching the SQ, spade switch ruffed, trumps drawn and the diamonds cashed for 1430. Yeah yeah says dummy (the opponents haven't noticed!!) "you revoked at trick 1" (honest guy) so they settle for down 1. So I get called to rule during the next hand. Well this depends on whether West won a diamond trick or not. (If he did it's a 2-trick transfer, otherwise it's one trick) Now Law 65D kicks in: "A player should not disturb the order of his played cards ... jeapardise right to claim ownership ... revoke" You get the drift anyway. So I try to establish whether declarer unblocked the ten, nine of diamonds (which a beer drinker [this is the drinks bit] would do, as he wants to score the D7 at trick 13 for a drink). Dummy says "No he didn't claim a beer". So, had declarer not won a trick in hand with a diamond, his partner would have had to buy him a drink for the D7, together with another for the artistic way in which it would have been achieved. Net + 2 drinks to West. But, he lost a second trick by not unblocking the diamonds and failed to score his D7, so his partner claims a drink for the extra undertrick and a second one for missing the D7 at trick 13.. Net - 2 drinks to West So there you have it: a 4-drink revoke. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 09:59:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:59:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21581 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:58:53 +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 11O8en-0003Nv-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 23:58:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:32:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience In-Reply-To: <052a01bef811$add80320$3b085e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <052a01bef811$add80320$3b085e18@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> >I like to make analogies with card play situations, since the Laws treat >disclosure about calls and plays in the same fashion. > >My partner likes to play jack from QJ in the opposing trump suit, because >most good players will play according to "restricted choice" (in which >case the card played doesn't matter), but weak players will figure the >jack must be singleton (or the inevitable falsecard of the queen would be >played). > >I know from experience that partner does this. Now, according to Herman >and you, I must Alert the opponent when partners plays the jack, >explaining that experience has taught me that he seldom plays the queen >from QJ. It has become an implicit partnership agreement that must be >shared with the opponents. EBU OB 5.1.6 Do not alert any play of the cards. chs John > >I don't think so. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > > > > > > > > > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 11:49:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:49:35 +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 LAA21767 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:49:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt095n3b.san.rr.com [24.94.8.59]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA26997 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 18:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <066001bef8d0$5feb6160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 18:26:55 -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 From: John (MadDog) Probst "Marvin L. > French" writes > >Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > >> > >I like to make analogies with card play situations, since the Laws treat > >disclosure about calls and plays in the same fashion. > > > >My partner likes to play jack from QJ in the opposing trump suit, because > >most good players will play according to "restricted choice" (in which > >case the card played doesn't matter), but weak players will figure the > >jack must be singleton (or the inevitable falsecard of the queen would be > >played). > > > >I know from experience that partner does this. Now, according to Herman > >and you, I must Alert the opponent when partners plays the jack, > >explaining that experience has taught me that he seldom plays the queen > >from QJ. It has become an implicit partnership agreement that must be > >shared with the opponents. > > EBU OB 5.1.6 Do not alert any play of the cards. > For "Alert," read "disclose to." Surely carding agreements and bidding agreements are equally disclosable according to the Laws. The method of disclosure is in accordance with SO regulations, but the requirement for disclosure comes from the Laws. And when he plays the queen, I must disclose (okay, if asked) that he hardly ever plays the queen from QJ. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 16:20:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 16:20:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail2.svr.pol.co.uk (mail2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.210]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22242 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 16:20:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.197.25] (helo=mail17.svr.pol.co.uk) by mail2.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11OEcT-0000l0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 07:20:41 +0100 Received: from modem-122.name2.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.160.250] helo=laphroaig) by mail17.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11OEba-0002jw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 07:19:47 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphroaig (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA08081; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:14:34 +0100 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) References: From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 06 Sep 1999 23:53:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: "John's message of "Thu, 2 Sep 1999 01:38:10 +0100" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/Emacs 20.3 Lines: 12 X-BadReturnPath: jeremy@laphroaig rewritten as j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using "From" header Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" writes: > But the usual suspects, as I said, leave the visitors and the weaker > players alone. They're going to score 65% against them anyway. Oi! I'm an occasional visitor to the YC. You just wait until next time I visit! -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 17:01:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:01:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from nowhere.fragment.com (IDENT:root@nowhere.fragment.com [207.239.226.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22334 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:01:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from nowhere.fragment.com (IDENT:jl8e@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nowhere.fragment.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA31966 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 03:01:12 -0400 Message-Id: <199909070701.DAA31966@nowhere.fragment.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: unfortunate news Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 03:01:11 -0400 From: Julian Lighton Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you, Joan and Herman, for your kind words. I feel a need to correct some of the information from Joan's original announcement, (Probably because I should have done this myself, and earlier.) but I thank her for making it. My father died late Saturday afternoon due to injuries he recieved when he fell from his bicycle during a bicycle tour. He is survived by his three children and his wife. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 18:32:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 18:07:30 +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 SAA22475 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 18:07:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.160] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11OGHZ-000I0c-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:07:13 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01bef907$fc47be00$a05108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Spanish Major Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 22:12:43 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws ; Hilde Smet Date: 06 September 1999 15:30 Subject: Spanish Major >We did not win the tournament. +=+ No, but you made a great impression ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 19:49:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 18:07:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22481 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 18:07:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.160] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11OGHd-000I0c-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:07:17 +0100 Message-ID: <001001bef907$feaa1800$a05108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 23:37:19 +0100 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: 06 September 1999 17:05 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? >> From: Brian Baresch >> Facts: EW were playing a convention (the 1NT overcall) not shown on the >> convention card. [An incorrect CC had been filed in advance.] > >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> The case relates to a breach of a regulation legitimately >> made under Law 40E1. > +=+ They were playing a different CC from the one lodged at the convention desk. That was a breach of regulation and the sanctions applied were those which were cited in the regulation. It was perhaps also a breach of 40B but this was not the basis of the referral to the AC; if that matter had been the basis of the TD's ruling he would simply have made a ruling under the law and it would been left to the players to appeal if they wished. In this instance the Director referred it because of the breach of the regulation on filing systems and his action on that count. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 20:14:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:14:33 +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 UAA22744 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:14:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from pf2s13a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.173.243] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11OIF8-0002xB-00; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:12:51 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bef919$85db6840$f3ad93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:11:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 07 September 1999 05:21 Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience >From: John (MadDog) Probst "Marvin L. >> French" writes -------------- \x/ ---------- >> >My partner likes to play jack from QJ in the opposing trump suit, >because >> >most good players will play according to "restricted choice" (in >which >> >case the card played doesn't matter), but weak players will >figure the >> >jack must be singleton (or the inevitable falsecard of the queen >would be >> >played). >> > >> >I know from experience that partner does this. Now, according to >Herman >> >and you, I must Alert the opponent when partners plays the jack, >> >explaining that experience has taught me that he seldom plays the >queen >> >from QJ. It has become an implicit partnership agreement that >must be >> >shared with the opponents. >> > >And when he plays the queen, I must disclose (okay, if asked) that >he hardly ever plays the queen from QJ. +=+ Fair disclosure calls for opponents to be truthfully told of our understanding and expectations in respect of partner's card play in defence. False carding is lawful if it is an intermittent thing; but if he habitually plays J from Q J this is something that *must* be made known to opponents - if leads are listed on the convention card it should be there. If he always (almost) does it the lead is his method and not a matter of style. Style/judgement are essentially the subject of appraisal and decision hand by hand. It is up to regulations to define the requirements, and to set limits on any requirement that habitual method must be the same both sides of the table. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 20:32:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 18:07:41 +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 SAA22487 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 18:07:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.160] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11OGHb-000I0c-00; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:07:15 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01bef907$fd852000$a05108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Development Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 23:20:58 +0100 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: 06 September 1999 16:10 Subject: Re: Development >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> +=+ If it is decided such has been the case >> then, before the partner gave any explanation >> or failed to do so, the bidder has made a call >> or play that was based on a partnership >> understanding AND there has been no >> "PRIOR announcement". At the moment the >> call was made the call was a violation of Law >> 40A. > >How is that? The call is disqualified from L40A protection, but I fail >to see how L40A has been violated. Virtually all calls are based on >partnership understanding, and the exact procedure for disclosure varies >depending on the nature of the call. Prior announcement is required in >some cases but not others. > >Did you mean L40B? > +=+ My point is that not being a call made in accordance with 40A and not having been disclosed in accordance with 40B, the psychic made on the basis of a partnership understanding was a call that was illegal at the moment it was made. Both of these laws refer to the legality or otherwise of making a call. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 7 21:32:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:43:19 +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 UAA22817 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:43:07 +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 11OIiF-0008yZ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:42:56 +0000 Message-ID: <8CZk0BCXdO13EwLf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:22:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530C6B2A@MAIL> In-Reply-To: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530C6B2A@MAIL> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: >Line 6 under disallowed > >Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than >8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.) > >would prohibit the opening in question It was an overcall. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 7 22:32:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:43:31 +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 UAA22828 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:43:16 +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 11OIiJ-0008yZ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:43:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:36:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <066001bef8d0$5feb6160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <066001bef8d0$5feb6160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >For "Alert," read "disclose to." Surely carding agreements and >bidding agreements are equally disclosable according to the Laws. >The method of disclosure is in accordance with SO regulations, but >the requirement for disclosure comes from the Laws. > >And when he plays the queen, I must disclose (okay, if asked) that >he hardly ever plays the queen from QJ. Of course you should. It may not be asked often, but that does not give you any right to deny opponents that 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 Tue Sep 7 23:24:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:43:35 +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 UAA22838 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:43:22 +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 11OIiL-0008yY-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:43:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:16:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: YC psyches (was: What happened?) References: <199909031327.JAA10613@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909031327.JAA10613@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Michael Farebrother" >> N-S Vul. W deals. >> W N E S >> P 1D 1NT! 3D 1NT is alerted and explained "partner has a tendency >> P 3NT AP to psych 1NT with a 6-card H suit" >> >> From KTxx Kx xx QJxxx West leads the HK. East actually does have AQxxxx and >> out, and this is the only lead to set the contract. Ruling? > >Yes, the above should help sort things out. > >Please answer also for the explanation "Shows either 15-17 balanced or >at most 8 HCP with a six-card or longer heart suit," and this is a legal >convention for the game. That's perfectly legal. Players that have this agreement / understanding / tendency / experience / style / anything you like and use it, and do not tell their opponents in the prescribed way, and try to hide behind some strange interpretation or other are not being ethical. Players that disclose it in the required way are being ethical, but it is a convention and may be regulated. Anyone who thinks that you can claim it is not regulatable because it is style when they know partner does it and uses and hides the information should re-evaluate their ethical approach 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 Tue Sep 7 23:32:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:43:23 +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 UAA22819 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:43:09 +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 11OIiG-000HZJ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:42:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:35:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <000301bef785$60bc0b40$dd5208c3@swhki5i6> <37d359ce.7772417@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> In-Reply-To: <37d359ce.7772417@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: >On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:01:27 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > > >> >>+=+ I quote my view expressed in an alternative forum: >> "A partnership may not defend itself against an >>allegation that its psychic action is based upon an >>understanding by seeking to establish that the action >>of the partner subsequent to the psychic is wholly >>normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and >>timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or >>implicit, since it may affect their choice of action, and >>for this reason the understanding must be disclosed >>in advance." > >Maybe I've missed something in this thread which explains >this message - but if an opp ALLEGES (my emphasis) that my >pard's psyche is based on an understanding, how DO I defend >myself against that allegation, other than by trying to show >that my subsequent actions are "wholly normal", at least >until the psych is exposed through AI? >Assume for the purposes of this question that opp is >mistaken, and we do NOT have a CPU about the psych. Am I >just to sit there saying 'Oh no it isn't!"? ;-) It seems to >me that wholly normal bidding after the psych is my best >defence against the claim that I knew about the psych in >advance. Very true. Normal by other people's standards, though. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 8 00:32:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:43:32 +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 UAA22827 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:43:16 +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 11OIiF-000HZI-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:42:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:32:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <9BCUEjAm0dy3EwjS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >David Stevenson wrote: >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >> >I think the dispute over Herman's "psychic 1M in third seat" is because >> >the laws really aren't clear. If it is an agreement, it is regulatable >> >(and illegal in most jurisdictions). If it is merely experience, it >> >isn't regulatable, even though it is disclosable. Until, that is, the >> >'experience' becomes a 'tacit agreement'. When is that? >> > >> >Of course if Herman and his partner have a discussion and agree to play >> >"psychic 1M," then there's no dispute, but what if there is no explicit >> >discussion? >> > >> >I think both the terminology and the substance of the rules could do >> >with a bit of clarification here. >> >> I really do not understand the difficulty with Herman's Spanish major. >> >> If you play with Herman tomorrow, Steve, you will _know_ that if he >> holds 2-3 HCP in third position he will open 1H or 1S [1]. You thus >> have an implicit agreement. > >This is fundamentally wrong. If Steve or I play with Herman we will >certainly have a disclosable partnership understanding. However, I for >one do not regard this particular psyche as winning bridge and it forms no >part of any "agreement" between Herman and myself. If you consider this >1% chance of a psychic bid to be something that "an opposing pair may >be reasonably expected to understand (L40B)" as I do, then 1H is not even >alertable. Of course if you think a 1% chance of a psychic is abnormally >high then you should alert (and get out more). It would be ridiculous to >alert if playing against a subscriber to this list. I think that if you know what partner is going to do that is an agreement, The fact that you disapprove is not relevant. The alerting rules tell you when to alert, not your intuition. If a call is alertable then it is alertable against BLML opposition. The %age thing is interesting. Suppose you play a 2C opening as specifically 8 playing tricks, or 21-22 balanced, or 28-29 balanced, do you consider that you have informed opponents correctly if you describe it as "8 playing tricks, or 21-22 balanced" because the 28-29 balanced is a less than 1% occurrence? I don't. >Try the following flow chart. > >1. Does the pair admit to/reveal an explicit/implicit level of >understanding? Yes: Go to 3, No: Go to 2 Not good enough. Do you judge there to be an explicit/implicit level of understanding. >2. Was any unusual action taken by psycher's partner (eg did the player >take an action that would not be considered an LA)? Yes: Go to 3, No: End No: end? What about misinformation? >3. Was the psyche an action that a reasonable player would be expected to >allow for/suspect? Yes: End, No: Go to 4 Not good enough. Was the psyche an action that a reasonable player would be expected to allow/for suspect with any partner? >4. Make a record of the hand. >Did the pair (under SO regulations) have an opportunity to disclose the >understanding? No: End, Yes: Go to 5 > >5. Does the pair have previous form in this or a closely related >situation? Yes: Award a PP, No: Consider a PP - in either case go to 6. > >6. Did the opponents suffer consequent damage >Yes: Adjust, No:Result stands I do not agree with this either. If players do things that are not permitted then damage is not necessary for them to lose their result. It depends on the situation and Law references. There is no reference to damage in L40A. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 8 01:48:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:48:30 +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 BAA23829 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:48:22 +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 11ONTf-000Ofi-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:48:13 +0000 Message-ID: <+j908gCFXP13EwYM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 12:23:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: unfortunate news References: <199909070701.DAA31966@nowhere.fragment.com> In-Reply-To: <199909070701.DAA31966@nowhere.fragment.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Julian Lighton wrote: >Thank you, Joan and Herman, for your kind words. > >I feel a need to correct some of the information from Joan's original >announcement, (Probably because I should have done this myself, and >earlier.) but I thank her for making it. > >My father died late Saturday afternoon due to injuries he recieved >when he fell from his bicycle during a bicycle tour. He is survived >by his three children and his wife. I enjoyed meeting him [at a service area on an English motorway] and had many discussions with him by email. I shall miss him. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 8 01:48:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:48:39 +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 BAA23835 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:48:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ONTf-0008oJ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:48:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 12:35:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: POC - San Antonio Case 46 References: <002501bef651$2d13aa80$a884d9ce@host> 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 <002501bef651$2d13aa80$a884d9ce@host>, Craig Senior > writes > >snip good stuff >> >>We have a hand here where west psychs, east caters and nothing >>happens...gosh I thought that was naughty! Or if west was not psyching but >>their agreement allowed long spades and middling points on such a double we >>have clearcut misinformation. >> >this pair is *clueless*. there is no MI as their agreement is that the >double is negative. they just can't play bridge. chs john It does not read that way. It reads to me like something that has happened before. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 8 01:48:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:48:41 +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 BAA23834 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:48:27 +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 11ONTf-0008oK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:48:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 12:36:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: POC - San Antonio Case 46 References: <199909040740.RAA19597@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> In-Reply-To: <199909040740.RAA19597@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >At 02:16 AM 4/09/99 +0100, you wrote: >>In article <002501bef651$2d13aa80$a884d9ce@host>, Craig Senior >> writes >> >>snip good stuff >>> >>>We have a hand here where west psychs, east caters and nothing >>>happens...gosh I thought that was naughty! Or if west was not psyching but >>>their agreement allowed long spades and middling points on such a double we >>>have clearcut misinformation. >>> >>this pair is *clueless*. there is no MI as their agreement is that the >>double is negative. they just can't play bridge. chs john > >Exactly what the NOs are complaining about, a couple who can't play bridge >have just scored an outright top against them. .... through a fielded psyche. Hmmm. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 01:48:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:48:40 +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 BAA23837 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:48:30 +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 11ONTf-0008oI-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:48:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 12:28:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Development References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C24A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C24A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >Having made this distinction it is not obvious at all how to deal with both. >In European Chamionships pairs we have discussions all the time. What to do >with a brown sticker being used? As long as it doesn't harm the opponents >normally don't ask for a ruling. And if it harms, for sure there will be a >ruling. What if opponents call the TD and he decides 'no damage'? We don't >know. What policy does the ACBL have? I am not talking about procedural or >disciplinary penalties, give those, I am talking about the result on the >board. The EBU cancels the board and gives A-/A+. The use of an illegal call is an offence under L40D and it does not require damage to penalise for it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 05:07:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 05:07:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from agomboc (dpg.drotposta.hu [195.228.183.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA24550 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 05:07:01 +1000 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by agomboc with smtp (Exim 1.92 #2) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id 11OQ6k-0004fm-00; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:36:42 +0200 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:35:30 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Dummy's inquiry about a revoke Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How would you decide in the following situations? A. During the play declarer leads a suit from hand. LHO does not follow it. Declarer asks a card from dummy when dummy raises the question to the LHO: No card from the suit led (i.e.: the trick has not been quitted)? Oh, yes, sorry I do have. B. One of the defenders does not follow a suit led by declarer. 3 tricks later dummy raises the question about this trick and defender realises he made a revoke. Thanks. Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 05:27:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 05:27:15 +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 FAA24616 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 05:27:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.21]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA24596 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:26:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:26:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199909071926.PAA04552@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (Martaandras@uze.net) Subject: Re: Dummy's inquiry about a revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martaandras writes: > How would you decide in the following situations? > A. During the play declarer leads a suit from hand. LHO does not > follow it. Declarer asks a card from dummy when dummy raises the > question to the LHO: No card from the suit led (i.e.: the trick has > not been quitted)? Oh, yes, sorry I do have. Allow the revoke to be corrected; this is the case we have discussed before. Dummy's improper question was not intended to establish the revoke. > B. One of the defenders does not follow a suit led by declarer. 3 > tricks later dummy raises the question about this trick and defender > realises he made a revoke. Dummy's statement is an infraction, but unless dummy has forfeited his rights, the revoke was already established and the penalty stands. This is also treated just as any other improper suggestion by dummy. -- David Grabiner, grabine@bgnet.bgsu.edu (note new Email; math has problems) http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine 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 Sep 8 05:28:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 05:28:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from agomboc (dpg.drotposta.hu [195.228.183.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA24633 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 05:28:04 +1000 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by agomboc with smtp (Exim 1.92 #2) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id 11OQ6o-0004fm-00; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:36:46 +0200 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:42:30 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: hesitation and double Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please comment the following situation North Q6 J JT43 AKQ532 West East AJ432 K987 A98 7653 9 KQ75 9874 T South T5 KQT42 A862 J6 Dealer W, both sides vuln. Bidding West North East South P 1 Cl P 1 H 1 Sp 2 Cl 3 Sp* Dbl** P*** 4 Cl P P P * Alerted as weak ** South hesitated more than 10 sec, no Alert ***due to the hesitation West calls TD. Now North explains he has forgotten to Alert, the Dbl was not for penalty Result: - 1 Thanks. Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 05:33:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 05:33:41 +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 FAA24657 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 05:33:33 +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 MAA11213; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 12:32:53 -0700 Message-Id: <199909071932.MAA11213@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Dummy's inquiry about a revoke Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 12:32:53 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Andras Booc wrote: > > How would you decide in the following situations? > > A. During the play declarer leads a suit from hand. LHO does not > follow it. Declarer asks a card from dummy when dummy raises the > question to the LHO: No card from the suit led (i.e.: the trick has > not been quitted)? Oh, yes, sorry I do have. > > B. One of the defenders does not follow a suit led by declarer. 3 > tricks later dummy raises the question about this trick and defender > realises he made a revoke. Dummy violated Laws 42B1 and 61B, but there is no specified penalty for this. Dummy did not violate any of the Laws in L43A2; therefore, L43B3 does not apply, and there is nothing in the Laws to say that the normal revoke penalties don't apply. The defenders weren't damaged by dummy's infraction. The reason dummy isn't allowed to ask is that otherwise, dummy could ask a question to ensure that declarer is awake and noticed the failure to follow. This could damage the defenders in a case where they were out of a suit but an inattentive declarer otherwise wouldn't have noticed. But this doesn't apply here, because the defense had actually revoked. Therefore, the normal revoke rules apply. In (A), LHO must correct the revoke, and the card he played becomes a penalty card. In (B), the revoke is established and there may be a one- or two-trick penalty. Dummy's infraction doesn't affect the score at all. Dummy gets a warning, and may get a PP if he's a repeat offender, but that's all. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 06:04:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 06:04:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24777 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 06:04:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11787; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 13:04:05 -0700 Message-Id: <199909072004.NAA11787@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: hesitation and double Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 13:04:06 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Andras Booc wrote: > Please comment the following situation > > North > Q6 > J > JT43 > AKQ532 > > West East > AJ432 K987 > A98 7653 > 9 KQ75 > 9874 T > South > T5 > KQT42 > A862 > J6 > Dealer W, both sides vuln. > > Bidding > West North East South > P 1 Cl P 1 H > 1 Sp 2 Cl 3 Sp* Dbl** > P*** 4 Cl P P > P > * Alerted as weak > ** South hesitated more than 10 sec, no Alert > ***due to the hesitation West calls TD. Now North explains he has > forgotten to Alert, the Dbl was not for penalty > Result: - 1 > > Thanks. North's delayed explanation smells awfully fishy. I'd have to be at the table, and I'd have to grill both N-S regarding what their actual agreement is, and try to determine the likelihood that they both remembered this with no problem. If the double really isn't for penalty, and if I'm convinced that North knew this right away, only then would I rule that passing is not an LA. (If passing is not an LA, I'd have to judge whether 4D was an LA and 4C was suggested over 4D by the hesitation. If so, I change the contract to 4D -2, possibly doubled.) This scenario doesn't seem likely, though, because of North's failure to alert the double. More likely is either that North's comment was a lame attempt to explain the 4C action, or that the hesitation somehow alerted North to the fact that the double wasn't for penalty. In those cases, passing is an LA, and I rule 4C is illegal. So now we have to adjust the score. I think it's clear to give N-S -930 for 3SX making 4. It's not as clear whether to give E-W +930, or +730, or let them keep the +100, or maybe give them +300 in 4Dx. Suppose North was lying and the double was really penalty. It's likely that the defense will cash one high club and shift to a heart, in which event West must get the spades right to make the contract; and given South's penalty double, I believe West would be more likely to take the spade finesse for -200. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 06:34:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 05:52:25 +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 FAA24737 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 05:52:11 +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 PAA26805 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA14247 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:52:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909071952.PAA14247@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > There is no reference to damage in L40A. Perhaps that's because L40A cannot be broken? An action that is not within the parameters of L40A may be illegal under one or more other laws or regulations, or it may be extraneous if not covered by any rule, but I don't see how it can be a violation of L40A itself. Regulations adopted under L40D are another story. It's up to the SO what they want to do under their own regulations. If they want to apply a penalty regardless of damage, it seems to me they are free to do that. L40B is more interesting. It doesn't prescribe a penalty for violation, so redress for violations can be given under L40C, which does require damage, or L12A1, which speaks of "indemnity," or L12A2 if normal play is impossible. Personally, I'd be reluctant to adjust a score unless there is damage (else what is the "indemnity" against?), but this is one of the areas I've already mentioned as needing clarification. In the usual sorts of cases, damage will readily be apparent. (The Polish 1NT overcall is a good example. The illegal convention allowed the OS to find their spade fit, which they probably would have missed with legal methods. This clearly damaged the NOS. In fact, the TD and AC took a different approach, which was fine if consistent with tournament regulations, but the L40B approach would seem to work about as well if there are no explicit regulations to apply.) Of course there's always L90 for punishing the OS, but that doesn't allow adjustment of the NOS score. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 06:35:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 06:35:27 +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 GAA24895 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 06:35:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11ORxP-0003rT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:35:11 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990907223127.00b084a0@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 22:31:27 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: hesitation and double In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 20:42 07-09-99 +0100, you wrote: > >Please comment the following situation > > North > Q6 > J > JT43 > AKQ532 > >West East >AJ432 K987 >A98 7653 >9 KQ75 >9874 T > South > T5 > KQT42 > A862 > J6 >Dealer W, both sides vuln. > >Bidding >West North East South >P 1 Cl P 1 H >1 Sp 2 Cl 3 Sp* Dbl** >P*** 4 Cl P P >P >* Alerted as weak >** South hesitated more than 10 sec, no Alert Usually this D isnt for penalties (after both opps have shown 8-card support in a suit) i think >***due to the hesitation West calls TD. Now North explains he has forgotten to Alert, the Dbl was not for penalty so the TD says that W may retract his Pass i hope >Result: - 1 > i still dont see the problem. it isnt 4s for ew i think they lose 2 h, 2 d >Thanks. > >Andras Booc >martaandras@uze.net > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 06:51:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 06:51:53 +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 GAA24952 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 06:51:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA18924; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:50:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-222.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.222) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma018897; Tue Sep 7 15:49:38 1999 Message-ID: <00e701bef973$50ce3880$de84d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 16:55:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Am I the only who sees the case as adjust to grand slam making? If there is no revoke by defender, it makes. The revoke by declarer does not occur (probably because the hand is claimed.) The defender's revoke IS established; the penalty for it is insufficient to restore equity for declarer; director can do so (64C) and in my view should. We can ignore the "second" revoke because play would almost surely have ceased before it occured; if it did not, the discomfiture of declarer over failing in the grand (which we are told precipitated his revoke) would not have occured, making it overwhelmingly unlikely that he would have revoked. Any scenario lacking the first revoke precludes the declarer from revoking; his is a "shadow" revoke. It is consequent rather than sussequent. I would adjust...it sounds like if the list were the A/C I would be overruled. On committee I would vote as I would rule. This seems a simple matter of equity in a setting where the laws permit it, so restore equity. QED -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Martaandras@uze.net To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 3:53 PM Subject: Revoke >I would really appreciate your opinion about the following - today hopefully theoretical - problem. > >The contract is a grand slam. Declarer's only problem is the trump suit as the missing cards are the Jack and 3 small ones >(assuming there are 4 trumps on dummy and the AKQ and 2 small ones in hand). >He takes the opening lead on dummy and leads a trump. Next defender does not follow the suit. Declarer realising he is one >down, is losing his attention to the rest of the play and makes a revoke at a later trick. However at the end of the play it >becomes clear that the defender made a revoke at trick 2 - the trumps were divided 1-3. >Declarer explains if defender follows the trump suit at trick 2 he probably claims as all the problems of the hands are solved. > >Thanks. > >Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary >martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 07:17:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 07:17:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25022 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 07:17:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehrd.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.109]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAB13286 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:17:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990907171524.01282c08@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 17:15:24 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: hesitation and double In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990907223127.00b084a0@mail.a2000.nl> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:31 PM 9/7/99 +0200, Anton wrote: >Usually this D isnt for penalties (after both opps have shown 8-card >support in a suit) i think > >>***due to the hesitation West calls TD. Now North explains he has >forgotten to Alert, the Dbl was not for penalty > >so the TD says that W may retract his Pass i hope > Wait a minute, if this double is _not_ usually for penalties, then North has not, in principle at least, failed to alert the opponents, because no alert required. So if no failure to alert, then no need to give W a chance to change his call. This type of mid-level double in competitive auctions is tricky. No doubt that its "standard" meaning, referring to the type of bridge that most of us grew up playing, is penalty. In fact, I still play it that way myself. But I realize that the treatment of doubles has changed much over the last 25 or 30 years (at least), tending more and more toward take-out treatments, and would expect that the majority of strong players would treat this as card-showing/competitive. Whether this treatment has become predominant enough that it no longer requires an alert is of course a matter for SO regulation. But at least in the ACBL, it is difficult for the average player to keep up with the shifting sands in this respect. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 07:19:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 07:19:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25039 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 07:19:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehrd.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.109]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA07710 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:19:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990907171712.01274c20@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 17:17:12 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: <00e701bef973$50ce3880$de84d9ce@host> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:55 PM 9/7/99 -0400, Craig wrote: >Am I the only who sees the case as adjust to grand slam making? If there is >no revoke by defender, it makes. The revoke by declarer does not occur >(probably because the hand is claimed.) The defender's revoke IS >established; the penalty for it is insufficient to restore equity for >declarer; director can do so (64C) and in my view should. We can ignore the >"second" revoke because play would almost surely have ceased before it >occured; if it did not, the discomfiture of declarer over failing in the >grand (which we are told precipitated his revoke) would not have occured, >making it overwhelmingly unlikely that he would have revoked. Any scenario >lacking the first revoke precludes the declarer from revoking; his is a >"shadow" revoke. It is consequent rather than sussequent. > > I would adjust...it sounds like if the list were the A/C I would be >overruled. On committee I would vote as I would rule. This seems a simple >matter of equity in a setting where the laws permit it, so restore equity. >QED FWIW, no you are not alone in this opinion. I agree with your view. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 07:32:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 07:01:12 +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 HAA24973 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 07:01:03 +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 QAA17991; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 16:57:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990907165400.0085ca40@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 16:54:00 -0400 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience In-Reply-To: References: <066001bef8d0$5feb6160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <066001bef8d0$5feb6160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:36 AM 9/7/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>And when he plays the queen, I must disclose (okay, if asked) that >>he hardly ever plays the queen from QJ. > > Of course you should. It may not be asked often, but that does not >give you any right to deny opponents that knowledge. Does this mean that when I ask about the opponents' carding methods they must include this with their agreements? Should they also tell me what falsecards they are capable of? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 08:18:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 06:41:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24924 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 06:41:04 +1000 (EST) From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (af06@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.114.243]) by mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11OS2U-0007nF-00; Tue, 07 Sep 1999 22:40:26 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA117186825; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:40:25 +0200 Subject: Re: hesitation and double To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:40:25 +0200 (CES) In-Reply-To: <199909072004.NAA11787@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Sep 07, 1999 01:04:06 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to Adam Beneschan: >Andras Booc wrote: > >> Please comment the following situation >> >> North >> Q6 >> J >> JT43 >> AKQ532 >> >> West East >> AJ432 K987 >> A98 7653 >> 9 KQ75 >> 9874 T >> South >> T5 >> KQT42 >> A862 >> J6 >> Dealer W, both sides vuln. >> >> Bidding >> West North East South >> P 1 Cl P 1 H >> 1 Sp 2 Cl 3 Sp* Dbl** >> P*** 4 Cl P P >> P >> * Alerted as weak >> ** South hesitated more than 10 sec, no Alert >> ***due to the hesitation West calls TD. Now North explains he has >> forgotten to Alert, the Dbl was not for penalty >> Result: - 1 >> >> Thanks. > >North's delayed explanation smells awfully fishy. I'd have to be at >the table, and I'd have to grill both N-S regarding what their actual >agreement is, and try to determine the likelihood that they both >remembered this with no problem. If the double really isn't for >penalty, and if I'm convinced that North knew this right away, only >then would I rule that passing is not an LA. (If passing is not an >LA, I'd have to judge whether 4D was an LA and 4C was suggested over >4D by the hesitation. If so, I change the contract to 4D -2, possibly >doubled.) [...] >I think it's clear to give N-S -930 for 3SX making 4. It's not as >clear whether to give E-W +930, or +730, or let them keep the +100, or >maybe give them +300 in 4Dx. Suppose North was lying and the double >was really penalty. It's likely that the defense will cash one high >club and shift to a heart, in which event West must get the spades >right to make the contract; and given South's penalty double, I >believe West would be more likely to take the spade finesse for -200. Did you have your law book at hand when you wrote this??? Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 08:47:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 08:47:36 +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 IAA25190 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 08:47:28 +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 PAA15030; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:46:48 -0700 Message-Id: <199909072246.PAA15030@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: hesitation and double Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 15:46:49 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: > > According to Adam Beneschan: . . . . > > Did you have your law book at hand when you > wrote this??? Yes. Obviously you didn't post just to ask a yes/no question. I'm sure you included an explanation of just what Law my post got wrong, but then your cat stepped on the DELETE key and that part of your message disappeared. Could you please restore the missing part? Thanks. -- thanks, Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 08:59:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 08:59:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (root@omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25223 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 08:59:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pb96.krakow.ppp.tpnet.pl [212.160.3.96]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA02188 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:59:36 +0200 Message-ID: <37D598AC.820E96E7@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 00:58:52 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Removing cards from the tray during bidding Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is a scene I saw during the last Warsaw Grand Prix Congress. The Team's Tournament, one of the final rounds. The World Pairs Champions Michal Kwiecien - Jacek Pszczola play against Jerzy Russyan (a top Polish player) with his partner. Russyan and Kwiecien sit at the same side of the screen. On the first board of the match during the bidding Russyan makes a 3NT bid. When the tray comes back with 4NT (Blackwood) Russyan fails to see it. Kwiecien puts the green card on the tray. Russyan interprets this a final pass and starts to put his cards back to the bidding box although not putting his bid on the tray. At this very moment Kwiecien moves the tray to the other side of the screen - there Pszczola, convinced that the lack of Russyan's cards on the tray is equivalent to pass, makes an opening lead. - Why did you pass my Blackwood? - asked Russyan's partner when he was putting down dummy - What Blackwood? A short inspection cleared things up. Finally, all four players agreed to reshuffle the board and play it again so the Director was not called. My question is: was Kwiecien entitled to push the tray to the other side of the screen? Remember, Russyan did not put his card on the tray yet. How would you rule in this case and what Law would you apply? Is removing your cards from the tray equivalent to passing? ******************************************************* - One school believes that high taxes are the most profitable for the poor as there is more money in the budget for social purposes. The other one claims that low taxes are better for the poor as the rich ones can keep more money for investments that give work to the unemployed ones etc. Which side does your party support? - Both of these schools our right but we reject both viewpoints. ( from a TV debate before the elections in a certain European country ) Konrad Ciborowski From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 09:03:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:03:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA25245 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:03:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11OUH5-0003qw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:03:39 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990908005946.00b0a9d0@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 00:59:46 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: hesitation and double In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990907171524.01282c08@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.2.32.19990907223127.00b084a0@mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:15 07-09-99 -0400, you wrote: >At 10:31 PM 9/7/99 +0200, Anton wrote: >>Usually this D isnt for penalties (after both opps have shown 8-card >>support in a suit) i think >> >>>***due to the hesitation West calls TD. Now North explains he has >>forgotten to Alert, the Dbl was not for penalty >> >>so the TD says that W may retract his Pass i hope >> > >Wait a minute, if this double is _not_ usually for penalties, then North >has not, in principle at least, failed to alert the opponents, because no >alert required. So if no failure to alert, then no need to give W a chance >to change his call. > Well that is a bit tricky all over the world. Here in Holland Neg. D should be alerted in this situation. Usually, depending of the system of course, this type of D usually shows 2-3 card support for first suit of declarer. But i agree thats not standard. Perhaps clarification od system in use should help. And the alert regulations in use of course. But the question thats not answered is: Was there misinformation about the explanation of the 3S bid??? Perhaps that was the reason S was thinking that long?? regards. anton >This type of mid-level double in competitive auctions is tricky. No doubt >that its "standard" meaning, referring to the type of bridge that most of >us grew up playing, is penalty. In fact, I still play it that way myself. >But I realize that the treatment of doubles has changed much over the last >25 or 30 years (at least), tending more and more toward take-out >treatments, and would expect that the majority of strong players would >treat this as card-showing/competitive. > >Whether this treatment has become predominant enough that it no longer >requires an alert is of course a matter for SO regulation. But at least in >the ACBL, it is difficult for the average player to keep up with the >shifting sands in this respect. > >Mike Dennis > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 11:02:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:02:52 +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 LAA25548 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:02:43 +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 11OW80-000OxI-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:02:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:37:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: hesitation and double References: <199909072004.NAA11787@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199909072004.NAA11787@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Andras Booc wrote: > >> Please comment the following situation >> >> North >> Q6 >> J >> JT43 >> AKQ532 >> >> West East >> AJ432 K987 >> A98 7653 >> 9 KQ75 >> 9874 T >> South >> T5 >> KQT42 >> A862 >> J6 >> Dealer W, both sides vuln. >> >> Bidding >> West North East South >> P 1 Cl P 1 H >> 1 Sp 2 Cl 3 Sp* Dbl** >> P*** 4 Cl P P >> P >> * Alerted as weak >> ** South hesitated more than 10 sec, no Alert >> ***due to the hesitation West calls TD. Now North explains he has >> forgotten to Alert, the Dbl was not for penalty >> Result: - 1 >> >> Thanks. > >North's delayed explanation smells awfully fishy. I'd have to be at >the table, and I'd have to grill both N-S regarding what their actual >agreement is, and try to determine the likelihood that they both >remembered this with no problem. If the double really isn't for >penalty, and if I'm convinced that North knew this right away, only >then would I rule that passing is not an LA. (If passing is not an >LA, I'd have to judge whether 4D was an LA and 4C was suggested over >4D by the hesitation. If so, I change the contract to 4D -2, possibly >doubled.) Why? what infraction? What is fishy? Why is a totally normal situation so unlikely? We have a position where people nowadays rarely play penalty doubles. Someone makes a non-penalty double with a non- penalty hand, and his partner is a little slow to remember, but does eventually, and takes a non-penalty double out. What is the big deal? Of course, West gets his pass back, but there is nothing else in the hand. >This scenario doesn't seem likely, though, because of North's failure >to alert the double. More likely is either that North's comment was a >lame attempt to explain the 4C action, or that the hesitation somehow >alerted North to the fact that the double wasn't for penalty. In >those cases, passing is an LA, and I rule 4C is illegal. So now we >have to adjust the score. This sounds incredible. More likely is that there was a slow alert - nothing else. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 11:03:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:03:00 +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 LAA25557 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:02:47 +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 11OW80-000OxJ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:02:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:09:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > >B4/W/All 10982 W N E S > Q10 1D P 1H 2C > J54 P 3C 4C* P/5C >AQ4 9732 KJ53 P P X AP >65 AKJ8 >K109873 AQ6 >K10 Q5 > 76 > 97432 > 2 > AJ864 > >After South had passed the 4C bid, West asked whether she should have >alerted it and explained it was "Blackwood" asking for aces. Given this >information, South took back his pass and replaced it with a bid of 5C, >which went round to East who doubled. > >5CX went 4 down for -1100 NS. > >After the play South enquired from East what the 4C bid meant and was >told it was a general force, ideally asking his partner if she had a >club control so that he could bid the slam. > >South claims that he has been damaged by the misinformation as he would >not have bid over a general force (he had already passed 4C, which >although not alerted could hardly be natural and appeared to be either a >general force, cue bid or splinter to him). He argues that this is a >purely destructive auction by NS so far in which they are trying to >attack the information content - he does not want EW to be able to >exchange Blackwood type info to enable them to decide whether to bid the >slam, but was quite happy to leave them to their own devices over a 4C >general force. > >South argues that if he passes then West is likely to bid 4H intending >it to show one ace, although East should interpret it as secondary heart >support as the explanation that West gave is unauthorised information to >him. Given East's situation he still does not know whether the slam is >off two top club tricks and even if West would take a 4NT bid as >Blackwood here, he cannot find out about the KC below slam level. > >South argues that he is entitled to the most favourable result. He >claims that logical alternative contracts for EW include 4H, 5D, 6D and >6H. He does not believe that EW should be allowed to bid the making D >slam when there are several other alternative contracts, some of which >fail e.g. 6H. > >NS are both county standard players. >E is a club player. >W is a weak club player. >All conventional calls are alertable in England. > >How do you rule? I was interested to see whether you ruled as I did. Nobody posting to BLML did, which worries me! Perhaps I have got it wrong! However there were a couple of relevant comments. Before I get on to them, let me just answer a couple of side questions from Adam: --------- Adam Beneschan wrote: >One missing piece of information: Did West's first pass deny 3-card >heart support? (It would for many pairs here in the U.S.) No, certainly not for poor club players. >South must not be a very good player if he left notrump and spade >contracts off the list. (I don't know what "county standard" means.) If you have matches between local areas then he is good enough to play in teams in such matches. --------- Now, let us get to the meat of the problem. Anne Jones wrote: >>After South had passed the 4C bid, West asked whether she should have >>alerted it and explained it was "Blackwood" asking for aces. Given this >>information, South took back his pass and replaced it with a bid of 5C, >Without the TD (who may or may not have allowed the change of call) >being called? I don't know, but this is critical. L21B1 says: Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17E), a player may, without penalty, change a call when it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent (failure to alert promptly to a conventional call or special understanding, where such alert is required by the sponsoring organisation, is deemed misinformation), provided that his partner has not subsequently called. Was 4C alertable if it was Blackwood? Certainly. Was 4C alertable if it was a general force? Certainly. How do readers of BLML know this? Because I put it in the question: >All conventional calls are alertable in England. So what right had South to retract his pass over the 4C bid? None that I can see. 4C was not alerted, true, but that makes it natural, and South knows it is not. He *knows* it is alertable but he did not ask. Thus he was not mis-informed by the failure to alert and so L21B1 gives him no right to change his call. There are two possibilities. Either the Director allowed him to change his call, which is Director error, and both sides are now to be treated as non-offending, or he changed it without a Director call, which is illegal, and South is now an offender. What do I do in the two cases? If the Director was called, he has caused the trouble. South has some validity to his argument, despite being a BL, so I might give him what he wants, 6H-1. I let EW keep their score. If [as I suspect] the Director was not called, then I issue a PP to NS: I fine him 10% of a top, and tell him to call the TD in future. I let the score stand. >However I am sure that the outcome will be that N/S >damaged themselves a) by not asking, and b) by making a bid which >was wild and gambling.c) by making a table ruling and losing their right to >penalise .L11A > >Result stands. This seems the right general approach, but wrong in detail. L11A is not right: it is because of their ruling that trouble was caused, not the playing on. --------- I also got an email from someone who claimed to be "just an hcd". I know I am not meant to quote from emails, so I shall just quote a little bit: "First of all, South should be expected to ask about the 4C bid if he is in doubt, whether it is alerted or not. He knows there has been a failure to alert (4C could hardly be natural). The first thing to look at here is the withdrawal of the pass. I would rule that the change is illegal under L21A." Perfect. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 8 11:02:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:02:54 +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 LAA25546 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:02:41 +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 11OW80-000OxH-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:02:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:28:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <199909071952.PAA14247@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909071952.PAA14247@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 >> There is no reference to damage in L40A. > >Perhaps that's because L40A cannot be broken? > >An action that is not within the parameters of L40A may be illegal >under one or more other laws or regulations, or it may be extraneous if >not covered by any rule, but I don't see how it can be a violation of >L40A itself. Fine. As you have said before. It is one thing that we are diametrically opposed on. A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. You say that this allows you to make a psychic call that *is not* based on a partnership understanding. You also say that this does not affect in any way your right to make a psychic call that *is* based on a partnership understanding. So, in effect, you say that L40A does not stop you doing anything, thus is meaningless. I can never see the point in this argument. Oh, I can see the logic in the language, but it is pointless. We can make bridge unplayable by such unhelpful interpretations of the Laws, destroying the meaning of Laws such as L40A, but if people wish to do so then they should be writing to an English usage mailing list. I see no point in interpretations of the Laws that leave them as meaningless, and I am surprised that anyone would wish 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 Sep 8 11:02:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:02:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25547 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:02:42 +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 11OW80-000OxG-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:02:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:19:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <066001bef8d0$5feb6160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <066001bef8d0$5feb6160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19990907165400.0085ca40@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990907165400.0085ca40@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 11:36 AM 9/7/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>>And when he plays the queen, I must disclose (okay, if asked) that >>>he hardly ever plays the queen from QJ. >> >> Of course you should. It may not be asked often, but that does not >>give you any right to deny opponents that knowledge. > >Does this mean that when I ask about the opponents' carding methods they >must include this with their agreements? Should they also tell me what >falsecards they are capable of? I do not think that would be helpful, do you? We are trying to run this game in a fashion that is helpful as a game. Asking players for their carding methods and getting a forty minute lecture would not be a good idea. If you need to know some detail you ask for it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 11:46:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:46:59 +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 LAA25698 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:45:51 +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 SAA18613; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 18:44:49 -0700 Message-Id: <199909080144.SAA18613@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: hesitation and double Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 18:44:51 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > >Andras Booc wrote: > > > >> Please comment the following situation > >> > >> North > >> Q6 > >> J > >> JT43 > >> AKQ532 > >> > >> West East > >> AJ432 K987 > >> A98 7653 > >> 9 KQ75 > >> 9874 T > >> South > >> T5 > >> KQT42 > >> A862 > >> J6 > >> Dealer W, both sides vuln. > >> > >> Bidding > >> West North East South > >> P 1 Cl P 1 H > >> 1 Sp 2 Cl 3 Sp* Dbl** > >> P*** 4 Cl P P > >> P > >> * Alerted as weak > >> ** South hesitated more than 10 sec, no Alert > >> ***due to the hesitation West calls TD. Now North explains he has > >> forgotten to Alert, the Dbl was not for penalty > >> Result: - 1 > >> > >> Thanks. > > > >North's delayed explanation smells awfully fishy. I'd have to be at > >the table, and I'd have to grill both N-S regarding what their actual > >agreement is, and try to determine the likelihood that they both > >remembered this with no problem. If the double really isn't for > >penalty, and if I'm convinced that North knew this right away, only > >then would I rule that passing is not an LA. (If passing is not an > >LA, I'd have to judge whether 4D was an LA and 4C was suggested over > >4D by the hesitation. If so, I change the contract to 4D -2, possibly > >doubled.) > > Why? what infraction? What is fishy? Why is a totally normal > situation so unlikely? We have a position where people nowadays rarely > play penalty doubles. Which people? The original poster didn't say anything about who the players were and where they were playing. If this occurred in a club in the U.S., I'd be suspicious of the pull of a slow double. Lots of people there would still think the double is penalty, and I suspect lots of them would leave in a quick double. But, as I said, I'd have to be there to decide what's really going on. Of course, I have no idea what the "normal" way to play is in Hungary. OK, maybe I went overboard in my comments. The auction---pulling a slow double---is one that comes up a lot in UI cases, and my first assumption was that this was another one of those. I suppose that depending on the players and what kind of "feeling" I get when I ask N-S what happened, maybe I would judge that they were clearly playing cooperative doubles here and that passing was not a LA. But I think it's impossible to judge without being at the table. I'll retract my comments that it seems likely there was an infraction---but I won't concede that it's likely there was no infraction. I don't have enough info to guess either way. > Someone makes a non-penalty double with a non- > penalty hand, and his partner is a little slow to remember, but does > eventually, and takes a non-penalty double out. > > What is the big deal? Of course, West gets his pass back, but there > is nothing else in the hand. I assume that's irrelevant unless West is a lunatic---I can't think of a possible reason for doing anything other than passing with the West hand. I assume we're talking about the pass on the third round. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 16:20:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:20:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26283 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:20:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id HAA14153 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 07:19:59 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 07:19 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: David Stevenson wrote: > >This is fundamentally wrong. If Steve or I play with Herman we will > >certainly have a disclosable partnership understanding. However, I > for >one do not regard this particular psyche as winning bridge and it > forms no >part of any "agreement" between Herman and myself. If you > consider this >1% chance of a psychic bid to be something that "an > opposing pair may >be reasonably expected to understand (L40B)" as I > do, then 1H is not even >alertable. Of course if you think a 1% chance > of a psychic is abnormally >high then you should alert (and get out > more). It would be ridiculous to >alert if playing against a subscriber > to this list. > > I think that if you know what partner is going to do that is an > agreement, The fact that you disapprove is not relevant. Knowing what partner will do is "an understanding". It takes my approval, and indeed playing the same thing, to make it an agreement. I play with partners who *know* I consider xxxx,Kxxxx,x,xxx a raise of 1H to 3H (and expect them to disclose such) even though they would never dream of doing it themselves. If we maintain that all understandings are agreements we lose a fine nuance of language and force partnerships into adopting symmetrical styles - IMO this would be a bad thing. > The alerting > rules tell you when to alert, not your intuition. If a call is > alertable then it is alertable against BLML opposition. I would be alerting an HdW Spanish Major as a "bid which may have an unexpected meaning" - this is a fairly generic catchall which I believe does require me to exercise intuition/judgement. The HdWSM does *not* have an unexpected meaning to a BLML subscriber (at least that was your original premise). > The %age thing is interesting. Suppose you play a 2C opening as > specifically 8 playing tricks, or 21-22 balanced, or 28-29 balanced, do > you consider that you have informed opponents correctly if you describe > it as "8 playing tricks, or 21-22 balanced" because the 28-29 balanced > is a less than 1% occurrence? I don't. Nor do I - this is clearly an agreement. Neither do I alert every opening bid my partners make on the grounds that there is a c1% of it being psychic (no real data but gut feel tells me 1% is a little low as an estimate of psyche frequency). I consider the HdWSM to be borderline alertable (due to the specific nature of psyching hands) and have no objection to being told I must alert it if playing with HdW > > >Try the following flow chart. > > > >1. Does the pair admit to/reveal an explicit/implicit level of > >understanding? Yes: Go to 3, No: Go to 2 > > Not good enough. Do you judge there to be an explicit/implicit level > of understanding. Ok (although this seems a minor difference since I can't see myself judging such agreement to exist unless my questioning revealed the possibility). > > >2. Was any unusual action taken by psycher's partner (eg did the > player >take an action that would not be considered an LA)? Yes: Go to > 3, No: End > > No: end? What about misinformation? At this stage I have determined that no understanding or agreement exists so there can be no MI. > > >3. Was the psyche an action that a reasonable player would be expected > to >allow for/suspect? Yes: End, No: Go to 4 > > Not good enough. Was the psyche an action that a reasonable player > would be expected to allow/for suspect with any partner? Ok (but substitute "an unknown" for "any" - nobody expects a psyche from someone who considers such things the Devil's work) > > >4. Make a record of the hand. > >Did the pair (under SO regulations) have an opportunity to disclose > the >understanding? No: End, Yes: Go to 5 > > > >5. Does the pair have previous form in this or a closely related > >situation? Yes: Award a PP, No: Consider a PP - in either case go to 6. > > > >6. Did the opponents suffer consequent damage > >Yes: Adjust, No:Result stands > > I do not agree with this either. If players do things that are not > permitted then damage is not necessary for them to lose their result. > It depends on the situation and Law references. There is no reference > to damage in L40A. > Nor is there reference to adjustment. IMO a PP (awarded at stage 5) is sufficient punishment. I'd prefer to see PPs for infractions kept entirely separate from adjustments (used when opponents are damaged). Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 17:18:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 17:18:02 +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 RAA26454 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 17:17:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA01202; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:17:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA20102; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:17:16 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:17:15 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Konrad Ciborowski cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Removing cards from the tray during bidding In-Reply-To: <37D598AC.820E96E7@omicron.comarch.pl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Here is a scene I saw during the last Warsaw Grand Prix Congress. > The Team's Tournament, one of the final rounds. The World Pairs > Champions Michal Kwiecien - Jacek Pszczola play against Jerzy Russyan (a > top Polish player) with his partner. Russyan and Kwiecien sit at the > same side of the screen. > On the first board of the match during the bidding Russyan makes a 3NT > bid. When the tray comes back with 4NT (Blackwood) Russyan fails to see > it. Kwiecien puts the green card on the tray. Russyan interprets this a > final pass and starts to put his cards back to the bidding box although > not putting his bid on the tray. At this very moment Kwiecien moves the > tray to the other side of the screen - there Pszczola, convinced that > the lack of Russyan's cards on the tray is equivalent to pass, makes an > opening lead. > > - Why did you pass my Blackwood? - asked Russyan's partner when he was > putting down dummy > - What Blackwood? > A short inspection cleared things up. Finally, all four players agreed > to reshuffle the board and play it again so the Director was not called. > > My question is: was Kwiecien entitled to push the tray to the other > side of the screen? Remember, Russyan did not put his card on the tray > yet. How would you rule in this case and what Law would you apply? Is > removing your cards from the tray equivalent to passing? Most players that I've seen in action behind screens, have the habit of picking up their bidding cards instead of putting down a final pass. (And then send the tray back half empty to indicate that the last bid was passed out. So, Kwiecien didn't follow the correct procedure but I think that it was clear the Russyan decided to pass and the final contract is 4NT. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 19:23:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:23:03 +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 TAA26681 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:22:55 +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 KAA17726; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:22:34 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA02514; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:21:35 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 08 Sep 1999 09:21:34 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA18946; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:21:33 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA18796; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:21:09 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:21:09 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909080921.KAA18796@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Martaandras@uze.net Subject: Re: hesitation and double X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Bidding > West North East South > P 1 Cl P 1 H > 1 Sp 2 Cl 3 Sp* Dbl** > P*** 4 Cl P P > P > * Alerted as weak > ** South hesitated more than 10 sec, no Alert > ***due to the hesitation West calls TD. > Now North explains he has forgotten to Alert, the Dbl was not for penalty > Result: - 1 > > Thanks. > > Andras Booc > martaandras@uze.net Was there a skip bid warning for 3S? Was the hesitation much longer than the normal 5 to 10s after a skip bid? Robin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 19:22:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:22:44 +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 TAA26667 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:22:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-40.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.40]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23652 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:22:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37D4D27A.A055695@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:53:14 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? References: <199909061531.LAA13089@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > [Ton, in the casebook:] > > at all. The question to be answered was whether NS were damaged by the use > > of this unknown convention (it was not illegal in itself, but they did not > > announce it properly). Could and would NS have done better knowing the > > convention? > > Is this right approach? It seems to me that L40B prescribes a specific > penalty for non-disclosure. On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable > applying L40B to an ordinary MI case. What is the distinction? > Indeed, the 64,000$ question. There is nothing different between this case and any other of misinformation. Maybe there was malicious concealment, in which case sever PP's are warranted, but other than that, it is simple MI and should be dealt with in that manner. > In any event, I fail to see why the TD (and AC) gave avg+/avg-. Why > not use L12C2 on the basis that the illegal 1NT overcall isn't made, > and the methods shown on the "as filed" CC are in effect? Perhaps this > would lead to a natural 2D overcall, or perhaps 2D was shown as > conventional, but anyway work out the rest of the auction in the usual > way, resolving doubtful points in favor of the NOS. What is wrong with > that? (As a practical matter, as David has said, you don't need to work > out every call but just pick a plausible result favorable to the NOS.) > > As for the earlier board, is it the appeals period or the correction > period that governs whether or not a change can be made? Was the > discovery of the illegal convention still within the relevant period? > > Lots of questions, I'm afraid. Perhaps the confusion is a result of > the Kaplan legacy of leaving certain matters deliberately vague. I > don't think there is any question that the final decision was legal > (except possibly as to changing the previous board if the correction > period was over) and justifiable, but I'm not sure it was the only > possible decision or even the best possible decision. I am quite certain that Ton (and I don't pretend speaking for him) would agree that even if there is only a slight degree of damage, an adjustment may well be necessary. If that is by means of an artificial score, it can be correct. But in the original ruling, the way it was presented, the AC and TD never looked for damage, and made their ruling without asking about it. That is what is wrong with that case. There may well have been damage, in which case the ruling may have been correct, but as it was, the ruling was based on wrong principles. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 19:22:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:22:45 +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 TAA26669 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:22:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-40.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.40]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23666 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:22:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37D4D2E8.2C7A0281@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:55:04 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? References: <199909061615.RAA02578@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > Steve writes: > > > > [Ton, in the casebook:] > > > at all. The question to be answered was whether NS were damaged by the use > > > of this unknown convention (it was not illegal in itself, but they did not > > > announce it properly). Could and would NS have done better knowing the > > > convention? > > > > Is this right approach? It seems to me that L40B prescribes a specific > > penalty for non-disclosure. On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable > > applying L40B to an ordinary MI case. What is the distinction? > > > > Just to be different, to me it appears to be a L40D problem. > > The sponsoring organisation require that for a bidding convention to be > played it must be on the pre-submitted convention card. So the pair in > question were playing a (40D)illegal convention, rather than concealing > a legal convention. > > As previously discussed: some authorities award av+/- for playing illegal > conventions. > > Robin Nope, won't wash. When I - by mistake - forget to put a convention that we play on my CC, that does not make this an illegal convention. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 19:41:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:41:32 +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 TAA26743 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:41:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc5s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.198] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11OeE7-0006SD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:41:16 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:44:41 +0100 Message-ID: <01bef9de$c61e8f20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 2:47 AM Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club >David Stevenson wrote: > > Now, let us get to the meat of the problem. > >Anne Jones wrote: > >>>After South had passed the 4C bid, West asked whether she should have >>>alerted it and explained it was "Blackwood" asking for aces. Given this >>>information, South took back his pass and replaced it with a bid of 5C, > >>Without the TD (who may or may not have allowed the change of call) >>being called? > > I don't know, but this is critical. L21B1 says: > > Until the end of the auction period (see > Law 17E), a player may, without penalty, > change a call when it is probable that > he made the call as a result of > misinformation given to him by an > opponent (failure to alert promptly to a > conventional call or special > understanding, where such alert is > required by the sponsoring organisation, > is deemed misinformation), provided that > his partner has not subsequently called. > > Was 4C alertable if it was Blackwood? Certainly. Was 4C alertable if >it was a general force? Certainly. How do readers of BLML know this? >Because I put it in the question: >>All conventional calls are alertable in England. > > So what right had South to retract his pass over the 4C bid? None >that I can see. 4C was not alerted, true, but that makes it natural, >and South knows it is not. He *knows* it is alertable but he did not >ask. Thus he was not mis-informed by the failure to alert and so L21B1 >gives him no right to change his call. > > There are two possibilities. Either the Director allowed him to >change his call, which is Director error, and both sides are now to be >treated as non-offending, or he changed it without a Director call, >which is illegal, and South is now an offender. > > What do I do in the two cases? > > If the Director was called, he has caused the trouble. South has some >validity to his argument, despite being a BL, so I might give him what >he wants, 6H-1. I let EW keep their score. > > If [as I suspect] the Director was not called, then I issue a PP to >NS: I fine him 10% of a top, and tell him to call the TD in future. I >let the score stand. > >>However I am sure that the outcome will be that N/S >>damaged themselves a) by not asking, and b) by making a bid which >>was wild and gambling.c) by making a table ruling and losing their right to >>penalise .L11A >> >>Result stands. > > This seems the right general approach, but wrong in detail. L11A is >not right: it is because of their ruling that trouble was caused, not >the playing on. Yes. I had a gut feeling that it was not L11A, but I didn't find the better L21A and thought I should find a reference. I knew someone would point me to the correct one. It just took longer than I expected. Thank you ?Magda. Someone once told me that I had a propensity to commit the greatest treason. "To do the right thing for the wrong reason." Anne > > --------- > > I also got an email from someone who claimed to be "just an hcd". I >know I am not meant to quote from emails, so I shall just quote a little >bit: > > "First of all, South should be expected > to ask about the 4C bid if he is in doubt, > whether it is alerted or not. He knows > there has been a failure to alert (4C > could hardly be natural). The first thing > to look at here is the withdrawal of the > pass. I would rule that the change is > illegal under L21A." > > Perfect. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 21:04:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 21:04:17 +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 VAA26920 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 21:04:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA20715; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:03:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JFQ8Q557NS0014JM@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:03:01 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Wed, 08 Sep 1999 13:03:01 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 13:02:58 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C252@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 > > > > > [Ton, in the casebook:] > > > > at all. The question to be answered was whether NS were > damaged by the use > > > > of this unknown convention (it was not illegal in > itself, but they did not > > > > announce it properly). Could and would NS have done > better knowing the > > > > convention? > > > > > > Is this right approach? It seems to me that L40B > prescribes a specific > > > penalty for non-disclosure. Does it? Not in my version. On the contrary, trying to find consistancy in the laws 40c seems to elaborate on 40a and 40b and asks for damage to adjust a score. On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable > > > applying L40B to an ordinary MI case. What is the distinction? good question: I proposed a distinction 10 exchanges ago and asked for a definition of 'illegal call'. I am not so much interested in what an Appeal Committee may do (almost all it wants to do), but in what it should do (which is more restrictive in my opinion). > > When I - by mistake - forget to put a convention that we > play on my CC, that does not make this an illegal > convention. > Herman DE WAEL Indeed, not in my definition. ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 21:45:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 21:45:01 +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 VAA27067 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 21:44:48 +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 HAA01783 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 07:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990908073735.00809b30@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 07:37:35 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990907165400.0085ca40@maine.rr.com> <066001bef8d0$5feb6160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <066001bef8d0$5feb6160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19990907165400.0085ca40@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:19 AM 9/8/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Tim Goodwin wrote: >>At 11:36 AM 9/7/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>>>And when he plays the queen, I must disclose (okay, if asked) that >>>>he hardly ever plays the queen from QJ. >>> >>> Of course you should. It may not be asked often, but that does not >>>give you any right to deny opponents that knowledge. >> >>Does this mean that when I ask about the opponents' carding methods they >>must include this with their agreements? Should they also tell me what >>falsecards they are capable of? > > I do not think that would be helpful, do you? No, but is it ever going to occur to anyone to ask a defender about their tendencies with QJ doubleton? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 22:07:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:07:23 +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 WAA27219 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:07:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA05791 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 08:08:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990908080839.006ef7d8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 08:08:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: hesitation and double In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:42 PM 9/7/99 +0100, Martaandras wrote: >Please comment the following situation > > North > Q6 > J > JT43 > AKQ532 > >West East >AJ432 K987 >A98 7653 >9 KQ75 >9874 T > South > T5 > KQT42 > A862 > J6 >Dealer W, both sides vuln. > >Bidding >West North East South >P 1 Cl P 1 H >1 Sp 2 Cl 3 Sp* Dbl** >P*** 4 Cl P P >P >* Alerted as weak >** South hesitated more than 10 sec, no Alert >***due to the hesitation West calls TD. Now North explains he has forgotten to Alert, the Dbl was not for penalty >Result: - 1 Assuming that N-S's explanations were consistent with their actual agreements, there was no MI, although that's an assumption which we really don't have enough information to be sure of. If that's the case, we're left with the question of whether N's 4C (presumably converting -140 to -100, hence damage) was based on UI. We must ask: (1) Was there UI? The mere fact that South hesitated for more than 10 seconds (11? 15? 30?) doesn't by itself create a presumption of UI; the TD/AC must determine the facts and decide. (2) If there was UI, did it suggest N's 4C bid? It seems to me that to answer that one we need to know more about N-S's agreements regarding S's double of 3S than just "not for penalty". 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 Sep 8 22:17:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:17:37 +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 WAA27276 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:17:29 +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 IAA06533 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 08:18:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990908081854.006a0ab8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 08:18:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: hesitation and double Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Earlier I wrote, a bit too quickly: >>West North East South >>P 1 Cl P 1 H >>1 Sp 2 Cl 3 Sp* Dbl** >>P*** 4 Cl P P >>P > >Assuming that N-S's explanations were consistent with their actual agreements, there was no MI, although that's an assumption which we really don't have enough information to be sure of. If that's the case, we're left with the question of whether N's 4C (presumably converting -140 to -100, hence damage) was based on UI. We must ask: That should, of course have said "converting -730 to -100". Sorry. 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 Sep 8 22:32:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:01:32 +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 WAA27135 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:01:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-57.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.57]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01768 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:01:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37D63283.5BF3DE23@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 11:55:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >6. Did the opponents suffer consequent damage > >Yes: Adjust, No:Result stands > > I do not agree with this either. If players do things that are not > permitted then damage is not necessary for them to lose their result. > It depends on the situation and Law references. There is no reference > to damage in L40A. > No there is not. But there are many laws like that. L44C : each player must follow suit if possible. By your reasoning, a player who revokes, whether there is damage or not, is in violation of L44C. Since no true result is possible, award a AAS. I realise the analogy has flaws. But the fact that someone breaks some Law is in itself not enough reason to disregard any other Law that covers the breaking. L40C does refer to damage. I do believe the regulators are clutching at straws. They see something they don't like, and they want to rule. Since L40C does not give them the right to do so, they use L40A. This should not be correct. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 22:40:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:40:37 +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 WAA27391 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:40:29 +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 IAA08282 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 08:41:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990908084149.006f2230@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 08:41:49 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: <00e701bef973$50ce3880$de84d9ce@host> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:55 PM 9/7/99 -0400, Craig wrote: >Am I the only who sees the case as adjust to grand slam making? If there is >no revoke by defender, it makes. The revoke by declarer does not occur >(probably because the hand is claimed.) The defender's revoke IS >established; the penalty for it is insufficient to restore equity for >declarer; director can do so (64C) and in my view should. We can ignore the >"second" revoke because play would almost surely have ceased before it >occured; if it did not, the discomfiture of declarer over failing in the >grand (which we are told precipitated his revoke) would not have occured, >making it overwhelmingly unlikely that he would have revoked. Any scenario >lacking the first revoke precludes the declarer from revoking; his is a >"shadow" revoke. It is consequent rather than sussequent. > > I would adjust...it sounds like if the list were the A/C I would be >overruled. On committee I would vote as I would rule. This seems a simple >matter of equity in a setting where the laws permit it, so restore equity. The problem is that if you accept the "discomfiture factor" as part of the definition of equity, you will be forced always to determine adjusted scores on the assumption that the NOs will always play perfectly from the point of the infraction on, regardless of what actually happens at the table. This seems like far too great a departure from common practice, not to mention just wrong. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 22:45:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:45:20 +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 WAA27416 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:45:13 +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 IAA08811 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 08:46:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990908084640.006f2230@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 08:46:40 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990907165400.0085ca40@maine.rr.com> References: <066001bef8d0$5feb6160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <066001bef8d0$5feb6160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:54 PM 9/7/99 -0400, Tim wrote: >At 11:36 AM 9/7/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>>And when he plays the queen, I must disclose (okay, if asked) that >>>he hardly ever plays the queen from QJ. >> >> Of course you should. It may not be asked often, but that does not >>give you any right to deny opponents that knowledge. > >Does this mean that when I ask about the opponents' carding methods they >must include this with their agreements? Should they also tell me what >falsecards they are capable of? All I can say is please oh pretty please do not put me on the first committee that is asked to adjudicate a claim of MI in response to a question about an opponent's false-carding tendencies. 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 Sep 8 23:04:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:04:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27482 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:04:07 +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 JAA10671 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:05:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990908090534.006f273c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 09:05:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience In-Reply-To: References: <199909071952.PAA14247@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199909071952.PAA14247@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:28 AM 9/8/99 +0100, David wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: David Stevenson >>> There is no reference to damage in L40A. >> >>Perhaps that's because L40A cannot be broken? >> >>An action that is not within the parameters of L40A may be illegal >>under one or more other laws or regulations, or it may be extraneous if >>not covered by any rule, but I don't see how it can be a violation of >>L40A itself. > > Fine. As you have said before. It is one thing that we are >diametrically opposed on. > > A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > or play that departs from commonly > accepted, or previously announced, use of > a convention), without prior announcement, > provided that such call or play is not > based on a partnership understanding. > > You say that this allows you to make a psychic call that *is not* >based on a partnership understanding. > > You also say that this does not affect in any way your right to make a >psychic call that *is* based on a partnership understanding. > > So, in effect, you say that L40A does not stop you doing anything, >thus is meaningless. > > I can never see the point in this argument. Oh, I can see the logic >in the language, but it is pointless. We can make bridge unplayable by >such unhelpful interpretations of the Laws, destroying the meaning of >Laws such as L40A, but if people wish to do so then they should be >writing to an English usage mailing list. I see no point in >interpretations of the Laws that leave them as meaningless, and I am >surprised that anyone would wish to do so. I'm not sure who's right about the intended meaning of L40A, but I disagree with David that Steve's interpretation makes it meaningless. A law needn't forbid something to be meaningful; it can grant a positive right, and L40A, whatever else it might do, certainly does that: "A player may make any call or play... not based on a partnership understanding." By itself, that doesn't mean that a player may not make any call or play that is based on a partnership understanding, so it's reasonable to conclude that the effect of L40A is to constrain what may be -- but need not be -- regulated by the SO. The Bill of Rights (part of the U.S. Constitution) doesn't stop me from doing anything; rather, it constrains what the government may stop me from doing. It is not meaningless. 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 Sep 8 23:32:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:01:38 +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 WAA27139 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:01:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-57.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.57]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01791 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:01:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37D63838.A23942E8@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 12:19:36 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Development References: <000e01bef907$fd852000$a05108c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > >Did you mean L40B? > > > +=+ My point is that not being a call made > in accordance with 40A and not having > been disclosed in accordance with 40B, > the psychic made on the basis of a > partnership understanding was a call > that was illegal at the moment it was > made. Both of these laws refer to the > legality or otherwise of making a call. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The problem with that statement is that the player, making the call, is in one of two positions : - he may well know that his psyching tendencies are subject to disclosure, but he can not know beforehand that his partner will fail to disclose (by the same reasoning, a transfer call becomes illegal _after_ partner has failed to alert it), or - he may not realise there is a tendency, or he may not realise it is disclosable, since the director only rules it thus afterwards. If you are calling the call itself illegal, you must do more to prove that there was a willingness, beforehand, to deceive opponents. Much as I want to declare a psychic meaning disclosable, I do not want to be calling the intentions of a pair illegal from scant evidence to that effect. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 8 23:59:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:59:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27646 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:59:14 +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 11OiFQ-000Hj0-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:58:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 12:19:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >This is fundamentally wrong. If Steve or I play with Herman we will >> >certainly have a disclosable partnership understanding. However, I >> for >one do not regard this particular psyche as winning bridge and it >> forms no >part of any "agreement" between Herman and myself. If you >> consider this >1% chance of a psychic bid to be something that "an >> opposing pair may >be reasonably expected to understand (L40B)" as I >> do, then 1H is not even >alertable. Of course if you think a 1% chance >> of a psychic is abnormally >high then you should alert (and get out >> more). It would be ridiculous to >alert if playing against a subscriber >> to this list. >> >> I think that if you know what partner is going to do that is an >> agreement, The fact that you disapprove is not relevant. > >Knowing what partner will do is "an understanding". It takes my approval, >and indeed playing the same thing, to make it an agreement. I play with >partners who *know* I consider xxxx,Kxxxx,x,xxx a raise of 1H to 3H (and >expect them to disclose such) even though they would never dream of doing >it themselves. If we maintain that all understandings are agreements we >lose a fine nuance of language and force partnerships into adopting >symmetrical styles - IMO this would be a bad thing. Oh, I see. The arguments over u/a/e have been fairly boring and I have been skip-reading them - and not taking them in. I see your distinction here, and agree with it. An agreement is regulatable [if not about non-conventional bids]: an understanding is disclosable. OK, I can live with that. Agreements are understandings but the reverse is not necessarily true. >> The alerting >> rules tell you when to alert, not your intuition. If a call is >> alertable then it is alertable against BLML opposition. > >I would be alerting an HdW Spanish Major as a "bid which may have an >unexpected meaning" - this is a fairly generic catchall which I believe >does require me to exercise intuition/judgement. The HdWSM does *not* >have an unexpected meaning to a BLML subscriber (at least that was your >original premise). This is interesting. While it may be technically correct you should allow yourself to be over-ruled where specific examples are given, and alert if in any doubt. Do you *know* that all members of BLML have read Herman's every word? >> >Try the following flow chart. >> > >> >1. Does the pair admit to/reveal an explicit/implicit level of >> >understanding? Yes: Go to 3, No: Go to 2 >> >> Not good enough. Do you judge there to be an explicit/implicit level >> of understanding. > >Ok (although this seems a minor difference since I can't see myself >judging such agreement to exist unless my questioning revealed the >possibility). TDs and ACs make judgements from all the facts and do not need admissions or revealing. Take a silly example, just to make the point clear. You ask a pair whether they have an agreement about an overcall. They say [as a Manchester pair did against Grattan and myself about fifteen or so years ago] that they have *no* agreement about overcalls whatever. If true, then that means that the pair have no idea when partner overcalls 1S over 1C whether it could be QTxx or AKQJx xxx KQx xxxx Qx xx xxx At that time, players from Liverpool would overcall on the first hand and players from Manchester on the second hand. Of course if the pair did not know each other .... but they had been married for some years! A Director would have no difficulty judging that they had some agreements about overcalls even though discovering what they were might have been difficult. [Aside: Over the years, I have found one strange English phenomenon: players who are helpful in describing their system otherwise are very unhelpful about simple overcalls. No idea why. On CCs they often write "Natural" as their only description.] >> >2. Was any unusual action taken by psycher's partner (eg did the >> player >take an action that would not be considered an LA)? Yes: Go to >> 3, No: End >> >> No: end? What about misinformation? >At this stage I have determined that no understanding or agreement exists >so there can be no MI. To reach #2 we needed a Yes from #1 which means you determined the opposite. >> >3. Was the psyche an action that a reasonable player would be expected >> to >allow for/suspect? Yes: End, No: Go to 4 >> >> Not good enough. Was the psyche an action that a reasonable player >> would be expected to allow/for suspect with any partner? >Ok (but substitute "an unknown" for "any" - nobody expects a psyche from >someone who considers such things the Devil's work) Good point. >> >6. Did the opponents suffer consequent damage >> >Yes: Adjust, No:Result stands >> >> I do not agree with this either. If players do things that are not >> permitted then damage is not necessary for them to lose their result. >> It depends on the situation and Law references. There is no reference >> to damage in L40A. >> >Nor is there reference to adjustment. IMO a PP (awarded at stage 5) is >sufficient punishment. I'd prefer to see PPs for infractions kept entirely >separate from adjustments (used when opponents are damaged). To be honest, I might be wrong here. Suppose your RHO psyches 1S and you miss a game. If the psyche is judged illegal then you are damaged. Suppose your RHO psyches 1S and you finish in one of several part- scores, so if you are damaged it is by no more than 30 aggregate points. If the psyche is judged illegal and it is pairs you are damaged: if teams only trivially. Suppose your RHO psyches 1S and you finish in a contract which scores well. If the psyche is judged illegal then you are not damaged. Now, the EBU approach is to conclude that damage is nearly impossible to assess since re-starting an auction from scratch allows for too many possibilities. Thus the non-psyching pair gets 60% or their session score or their score on the board whichever is the greatest. Technically, this means that sometimes they will get an adjustment when not damaged but it would have been very difficult to prove, and sometimes they lose when [say] they get a 70% score and might have got an 89% score. Your view is technically correct but our approach is practical and sensible. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 8 23:59:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:59:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27637 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:59:02 +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 11OiFQ-000Hj1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:58:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 12:22:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: hesitation and double References: <199909080144.SAA18613@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199909080144.SAA18613@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: >> What is the big deal? Of course, West gets his pass back, but there >> is nothing else in the hand. >I assume that's irrelevant unless West is a lunatic---I can't think of >a possible reason for doing anything other than passing with the West >hand. I assume we're talking about the pass on the third round. We are talking rulings here. I don't look at West's hand and I don't make bridge judgements for him: I just offer him his pass back. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 00:15:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:01:38 +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 WAA27140 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:01:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-57.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.57]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01804 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:01:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37D63A59.CE1BE20F@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 12:28:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Removing cards from the tray during bidding References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > Here is a scene I saw during the last Warsaw Grand Prix Congress. > > > The Team's Tournament, one of the final rounds. The World Pairs > > Champions Michal Kwiecien - Jacek Pszczola play against Jerzy Russyan (a > > top Polish player) with his partner. Russyan and Kwiecien sit at the > > same side of the screen. > > > On the first board of the match during the bidding Russyan makes a 3NT > > bid. When the tray comes back with 4NT (Blackwood) Russyan fails to see > > it. Kwiecien puts the green card on the tray. Russyan interprets this a > > final pass and starts to put his cards back to the bidding box although > > not putting his bid on the tray. At this very moment Kwiecien moves the > > tray to the other side of the screen - there Pszczola, convinced that > > the lack of Russyan's cards on the tray is equivalent to pass, makes an > > opening lead. > > > > - Why did you pass my Blackwood? - asked Russyan's partner when he was > > putting down dummy > > - What Blackwood? > > > A short inspection cleared things up. Finally, all four players agreed > > to reshuffle the board and play it again so the Director was not called. > > > > My question is: was Kwiecien entitled to push the tray to the other > > side of the screen? Remember, Russyan did not put his card on the tray > > yet. How would you rule in this case and what Law would you apply? Is > > removing your cards from the tray equivalent to passing? > > Most players that I've seen in action behind screens, have the habit of > picking up their bidding cards instead of putting down a final pass. (And > then send the tray back half empty to indicate that the last bid was > passed out. > > So, Kwiecien didn't follow the correct procedure but I think that it was > clear the Russyan decided to pass and the final contract is 4NT. > > Henk > > Indeed, most players would not put the final pass. But Russyan did not put the final pass. At this moment the bidding is: 4NT Pass (cards away) Kwiecien should not have pushed the tray. He should ahve understood there was something wrong. Anthough I would not know how to rule. There has been an opening lead, by a (small-?)(non-?)offender, while the bidding is not over. I would also allow them to agree on the reshuffle if the match situation permits it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 00:54:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:26:43 +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 WAA27328 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:26:32 +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 IAA07076 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 08:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990908082758.006e7e18@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 08:27:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: hesitation and double In-Reply-To: <199909072004.NAA11787@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:04 PM 9/7/99 PDT, Adam wrote: >Andras Booc wrote: > >> Please comment the following situation >> >> North >> Q6 >> J >> JT43 >> AKQ532 >> >> West East >> AJ432 K987 >> A98 7653 >> 9 KQ75 >> 9874 T >> South >> T5 >> KQT42 >> A862 >> J6 >> Dealer W, both sides vuln. >> >> Bidding >> West North East South >> P 1 Cl P 1 H >> 1 Sp 2 Cl 3 Sp* Dbl** >> P*** 4 Cl P P >> P >> * Alerted as weak >> ** South hesitated more than 10 sec, no Alert >> ***due to the hesitation West calls TD. Now North explains he has >> forgotten to Alert, the Dbl was not for penalty >> Result: - 1 >> >> Thanks. > >North's delayed explanation smells awfully fishy. I'd have to be at >the table, and I'd have to grill both N-S regarding what their actual >agreement is, and try to determine the likelihood that they both >remembered this with no problem. If the double really isn't for >penalty, and if I'm convinced that North knew this right away, only >then would I rule that passing is not an LA. (If passing is not an >LA, I'd have to judge whether 4D was an LA and 4C was suggested over >4D by the hesitation. If so, I change the contract to 4D -2, possibly >doubled.) > >This scenario doesn't seem likely, though, because of North's failure >to alert the double. More likely is either that North's comment was a >lame attempt to explain the 4C action, or that the hesitation somehow >alerted North to the fact that the double wasn't for penalty. In >those cases, passing is an LA, and I rule 4C is illegal. So now we >have to adjust the score. > >I think it's clear to give N-S -930 for 3SX making 4. It's not as >clear whether to give E-W +930, or +730, or let them keep the +100, or >maybe give them +300 in 4Dx. Suppose North was lying and the double >was really penalty. It's likely that the defense will cash one high >club and shift to a heart, in which event West must get the spades >right to make the contract; and given South's penalty double, I >believe West would be more likely to take the spade finesse for -200. I think it's sufficiently "likely" that W, having been told that the double of 3S was "not for penalty", would get the trumps right in 3S. I do not think that it's "at all probable" that N would fail to lead the HJ at trick (1 or) 2. Again, we don't know much about S's "not for penalty" double, but I think we'd have to find a much more specific agreement before I'd consider 4D an LA. So if we do adjust, I think the right AS is -/+730. 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 Sep 9 00:56:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA27839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 00:56:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA27832 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 00:56:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from pdcs11a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.171.221] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Oj8W-00053O-00; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:55:49 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01befa0a$3651cca0$ddab93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:54:20 +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 Date: 08 September 1999 11:07 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? ------------------ \x/ ----------- >When I - by mistake - forget to put a convention that we >play on my CC, that does not make this an illegal >convention. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html ++ True. However, if the disclosure regulation requires it to be on the CC then to make the call is illegal. Law 40B bars the *making* of such a call. It is illegal when made. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 00:57:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA27853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 00:57:16 +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 AAA27848 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 00:57:06 +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 11Oj9W-000KLY-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:56:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:36:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <3.0.5.32.19990907165400.0085ca40@maine.rr.com> <066001bef8d0$5feb6160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <066001bef8d0$5feb6160$3b085e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19990907165400.0085ca40@maine.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19990908073735.00809b30@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990908073735.00809b30@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 12:19 AM 9/8/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Tim Goodwin wrote: >>>At 11:36 AM 9/7/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>>>>And when he plays the queen, I must disclose (okay, if asked) that >>>>>he hardly ever plays the queen from QJ. >>>> >>>> Of course you should. It may not be asked often, but that does not >>>>give you any right to deny opponents that knowledge. >>> >>>Does this mean that when I ask about the opponents' carding methods they >>>must include this with their agreements? Should they also tell me what >>>falsecards they are capable of? >> >> I do not think that would be helpful, do you? > >No, but is it ever going to occur to anyone to ask a defender about their >tendencies with QJ doubleton? Yes, why ever not? You meet a situation where the information would be useful: you ask. WTP? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 9 01:07:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:01:35 +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 WAA27136 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:01:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-57.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.57]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01777 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:01:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37D6371D.9D848ACF@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 12:14:53 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Lethal combination (was: YC psyches) References: <199909031327.JAA10613@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >Please answer also for the explanation "Shows either 15-17 balanced or > >at most 8 HCP with a six-card or longer heart suit," and this is a legal > >convention for the game. > > That's perfectly legal. > > Players that have this agreement / understanding / tendency / > experience / style / anything you like and use it, and do not tell > their opponents in the prescribed way, and try to hide behind some > strange interpretation or other are not being ethical. Players that > disclose it in the required way are being ethical, but it is a > convention and may be regulated. > > Anyone who thinks that you can claim it is not regulatable because it > is style when they know partner does it and uses and hides the > information should re-evaluate their ethical approach to the game of > bridge. > There is a lethal combination at work here. Four premises are being debated, and all of them have many supporters. Not many people support all four, so the conclusion (the lethal combination) has not yet surfaced, but the more we try and convince each other of one or more of the four premises, and the more we are succeeding, the closer we get to the result no-one really wants. I am talking about the following four premises : 1) Any one call, even psychic, may be considered on face value to be a part of partnership experience. 2) Any part of partnership experience may be considered partnership understanding. 3) Any piece of partnership understanding can be regulated against. 4) All system regulations are written or interpreted as dealing very strictly with weak openings. The conclusion of the four is clear : psyching is forbidden. The more we convince ourselves that all four statements are true, the closer we get to "psyching is forbidden". You may do so once in your life, but preferably in the first month of your career, because in the second month you will not be able to prove you have not psyched before. Now don't get me wrong. I am in favour of the four statements, perhaps even more so than most : 1) If we allow players to get away with "I've never done this before", we shall never be able to rule. 2) The difference between experience and agreement must exist, but is so terribly hard to prove, that there might as well be no difference 3) SO's have found so many loopholes that we might as well say that this is true. 4) Only strict application of principles is the correct way of ruling. So do I believe psyches are forbidden. Of course not. My point-of-view is that system regulations should not be possible about "genuine" psyches. Any system regulation that does not include a "except psyche" clause is invalid and should be interpreted as having such a clause. It is up to regulators to decide what are "genuine" psyches. I have one example of something which is certainly not a genuine psyche. In the good old days, when the rule-of-18 was part of system regulation (a good example of clear regulations), when someone opened 1Sp with AKxxx Qxx xxx xx (9+8=17), I would rule : 1) one occasion is enough to convince me that you would always open this. 2) so you may well have an agreement about this 3) this is an invalid agreement, per regulation 4) I rule against you. Very clear, and very expected, and easy to explain. This is clearly not a "genuine" psyche (no gross misstatement). I have often tried to explain to baffled players that if they open 1He on the same hand, that would be permitted. Comments welcome. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 01:22:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:22:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27930 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:21:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA08331; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:21:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-113.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.113) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008066; Wed Sep 8 10:20:12 1999 Message-ID: <001601befa0e$77ac0180$7184d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:26:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There is indeed a slippery slope here Eric, and you do well to point it out. But I do not think you need to anticiplate perfect play by the NOS...just normal play. There is no reason to believe a revoke would have occured in the totally different, elemental cashing of winners that would have been the case (absent the probable claim) if there were no revoke by the OS. There is no question of BLing for a double shot here that we must protect against. There in fact is apparently no inferior line of play that could lose. The NOS or second revoke never happens in real life if the OS revoke does not occur. Therefore it should not deprivwe the NOS of redress. Let us take an alternate problem, where a revoke prevents access to dummy. Declarer's only hope to bring home the contract is to play a suit to break 5-1 with a stiff king by laying down the ace. It fails. The finesse would have worked. Do you deny redress based on the wild, gambling action of laying down the ace which would not have occured absent the revoke? I see the cases as parallel. -- Craig -Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 8:40 AM Subject: Re: Revoke >At 04:55 PM 9/7/99 -0400, Craig wrote: > >>Am I the only who sees the case as adjust to grand slam making? If there is >>no revoke by defender, it makes. The revoke by declarer does not occur >>(probably because the hand is claimed.) The defender's revoke IS >>established; the penalty for it is insufficient to restore equity for >>declarer; director can do so (64C) and in my view should. We can ignore the >>"second" revoke because play would almost surely have ceased before it >>occured; if it did not, the discomfiture of declarer over failing in the >>grand (which we are told precipitated his revoke) would not have occured, >>making it overwhelmingly unlikely that he would have revoked. Any scenario >>lacking the first revoke precludes the declarer from revoking; his is a >>"shadow" revoke. It is consequent rather than sussequent. >> >> I would adjust...it sounds like if the list were the A/C I would be >>overruled. On committee I would vote as I would rule. This seems a simple >>matter of equity in a setting where the laws permit it, so restore equity. > >The problem is that if you accept the "discomfiture factor" as part of the >definition of equity, you will be forced always to determine adjusted >scores on the assumption that the NOs will always play perfectly from the >point of the infraction on, regardless of what actually happens at the >table. This seems like far too great a departure from common practice, not >to mention just wrong. > > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 01:47:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:47:05 +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 BAA28027 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:46:58 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id KAA23874 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:46:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0F53S00S Wed, 08 Sep 99 10:46:42 Message-ID: <9909081046.0F53S00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 08 Sep 99 10:46:42 Subject: MISINFORMATION FROM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bridge-laws, B>From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au B>To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org B>From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Tue Sep 7 20:26:46 1999 B>Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) B> by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id UAA66068 B> for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:26:46 -0500 B>(CDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) B> by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25570 B> for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:03:00 +1000 (EST) B>Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net B>[194.217.242.20]) B> by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25557 B> for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:02:47 B>+1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) B> by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) B> id 11OW80-000OxJ-0K B> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:02:26 +0000 B>Message-ID: B>Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:09:48 +0100 B>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au B>From: David Stevenson B>Reply-To: David Stevenson B>Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club B>References: B>In-Reply-To: B>MIME-Version: 1.0 B>X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 B>Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au B>Precedence: bulk B>David Stevenson wrote: B>> -s- B>>How do you rule? B>So what right had South to retract his pass over the 4C bid? None B>that I can see. 4C was not alerted, true, but that makes it natural, B>and South knows it is not. He *knows* it is alertable but he did not B>ask. Thus he was not mis-informed by the failure to alert and so L21B1 B>gives him no right to change his call. B>There are two possibilities. Either the Director allowed him to B>change his call, which is Director error, and both sides are now to be B>treated as non-offending, or he changed it without a Director call, B>which is illegal, and South is now an offender. B>What do I do in the two cases? B>If the Director was called, he has caused the trouble. South has some B>validity to his argument, despite being a BL, so I might give him what B>he wants, 6H-1. I let EW keep their score. It seems to me that if the director rules on the matter of L21A and judges that S not be permitted to change his call, the proper ruling is 'Even without an alert S knew that 4C was conventional and did not ask, South's call was not based on MI but his own misunderstanding; auction proceeds'. If the director instead rules to back up the auction then has his judgement not said that S is entitled to change his call? I think that if the director rules on a finding of fact that S may change his call, then such a change of call is the result of a ruling and can not be termed illegal- with the consequences that DWS has pointed out. And if the players permit S to change his call and LHO subsequently calls, has not the illegally changed call been condoned without penalty? Roger Pewick B>If [as I suspect] the Director was not called, then I issue a PP to B>NS: I fine him 10% of a top, and tell him to call the TD in future. I B>let the score stand. B>>However I am sure that the outcome will be that N/S B>>damaged themselves a) by not asking, and b) by making a bid which B>>was wild and gambling.c) by making a table ruling and losing their B>right to >penalise .L11A B>> B>>Result stands. B>This seems the right general approach, but wrong in detail. L11A is B>not right: it is because of their ruling that trouble was caused, not B>the playing on. s-s B>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ B>Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ B> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= B> Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ B> Roger Pewick r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 02:44:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:42:10 +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 BAA27990 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:41:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Ojr2-000Bsx-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:41:48 +0000 Message-ID: <69HXd2A32n13Ew4A@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:16:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Removing cards from the tray during bidding In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes snip > At this very moment Kwiecien moves the >> tray to the other side of the screen - there Pszczola, convinced that >> the lack of Russyan's cards on the tray is equivalent to pass, makes an >> opening lead. >> >> - Why did you pass my Blackwood? - asked Russyan's partner when he was >> putting down dummy >> - What Blackwood? > >> A short inspection cleared things up. Finally, all four players agreed >> to reshuffle the board and play it again so the Director was not called. illegal but practical, nice gesture from the non-offenders. > >Most players that I've seen in action behind screens, have the habit of >picking up their bidding cards instead of putting down a final pass. (And >then send the tray back half empty to indicate that the last bid was >passed out. > >So, Kwiecien didn't follow the correct procedure but I think that it was >clear the Russyan decided to pass and the final contract is 4NT. > and since dummy has been spread we can't get back to the auction and apply L25B. In the UK we rule that it is a player's own fault if he doesn't see partner's bid when using screens. Hence 25A can't applay, although 25B can. 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 Sep 9 03:01:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 03:01:45 +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 DAA28438 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 03:01:27 +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 NAA24110 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:01:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA15060 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:01:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:01:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909081701.NAA15060@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Fine. As you have said before. It is one thing that we are > diametrically opposed on. Yes, it seems we will never see eye to eye on this one. Let's not exaggerate the problem, though. > A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > or play that departs from commonly > accepted, or previously announced, use of > a convention), without prior announcement, > provided that such call or play is not > based on a partnership understanding. > > You say that this allows you to make a psychic call that *is not* > based on a partnership understanding. Yes. Or more to the point, it disallows any penalty or adjustment if the evidence show this is what I've done. > You also say that this does not affect in any way your right to make a > psychic call that *is* based on a partnership understanding. A call based on a partnership understanding is not psychic, but leave that aside. Yes, I'm saying that L40A "_does not affect_" my right to make calls that are based on partnership understandings. That right is regulated by other laws and by SO regulations. What is wrong with that? > So, in effect, you say that L40A does not stop you doing anything, > thus is meaningless. No, it is not meaningless. See above. > We can make bridge unplayable by > such unhelpful interpretations of the Laws, I fail to see why the interpretation is unhelpful, and I certainly do not believe it makes bridge unplayable. In fact, I believe this interpretation is exactly the one given by the WBF LC at Lille. Further, _as a practical matter_, you and I are going to use much the same process in adjudicating alleged psychics: 1. Is there a partnership understanding? If no, L40A, end. If yes: 2. Is the partnership understanding legal? 3. Was the partnership understanding properly disclosed? (2 and 3 are answered by reference to several laws and SO regulations but not L40A. We have already decided it doesn't apply.) We end up in the same place -- don't we? The only difference is that we take a different route to get there. Your reading would seem to imply that "any call or play...based on a partnership understanding" is illegal. Talk about unhelpful interpretations making bridge unplayable! Assuming that the laws mean what they say usually leads to a sensible result. Why do you wish to assume otherwise? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 03:33:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:42:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27992 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:42:02 +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 11Ojqz-000Bsz-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:41:46 +0000 Message-ID: <9NzWRzAkwn13Ew60@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:09:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C252@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C252@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> , "Kooijman, A." writes snip > >good question: I proposed a distinction 10 exchanges ago and asked for a >definition of 'illegal call'. An illegal call exists when the SO has regulations making the call illegal (subject to the Laws of course). Circumlocutary but it comes down to a matter of regulation IMO. A call IMO cannot be illegal if the partnership has no *agreement* about the call. IMO they can have experience of the call without it being illegal, provided that the action of the other member of the partnership does not cater for the possibility of an agreement about an illegal call. Example, I overcall 1NT (15-17) with 6 hearts and a near bust. Pard alerts. Pard has a choice of actions: Stayman or 3NT. He is allowed to use Stayman even though he has partnership experience of my psyche if he holds a 4 card major. If he uses Stayman intending to rebid 3N with no 4 card major then he has catered for my illegal call (I'll be passing 2C btw) He has on a couple of occasions said "I was pretty sure you'd psyched the H, and knew we were dead in the water if you had, as there is no 'legal' way I can get out". So partner bends over backwards *not* to cater for my "possible" psyche. He refuses to have an agreement with me. I cannot find anything illegal in this approach, and opponents have never seen fit even to call the Director when these matters arise, agreeing that there is no attempt to 'field'. Decent UK players don't much bother with recording psyches btw. -- 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 Sep 9 03:50:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 03:50:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA28718 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 03:50:40 +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 NAA28231 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:50:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA15107 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:50:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909081750.NAA15107@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SW> It seems to me that L40B prescribes a specific penalty for SW> non-disclosure. > From: "Kooijman, A." > Does it? Not in my version. "Penalty" may have been a poor choice of word, but my FLB says "...may not make a call or play...unless...." This seems closely analogous to penalties requiring a player to pass, for example. In other words, if you don't disclose, the call or play is illegal, just as would be a bid when you are required to pass. How one deals with violations is not entirely clear. > On the contrary, trying to find consistancy in > the laws 40c seems to elaborate on 40a and 40b and asks for damage to adjust > a score. Uh, oh. Are you adopting David's reading? L40C says the TD may adjust when there is damage, but I don't see anything in it about a violation of L40B with no damage. Since L40B is a separate law and should stand on its own, I would look at L12A and of course L90. L12A1 says "indemnity," which sure sounds as though it requires damage, but L12A2 only says "normal play." That is subject to wide (and varying!) interpretation, as we have seen. SW> On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable SW> applying L40B to an ordinary MI case. What is the distinction? > good question: I proposed a distinction 10 exchanges ago and asked for a > definition of 'illegal call'. I apologize, but somehow I missed it. Would you mind repeating, or does someone else have the relevant message? From the subsequent posts, I suspect I'm not the only one. HdW> When I - by mistake - forget to put a convention that we HdW> play on my CC, that does not make this an illegal convention. > Indeed, not in my definition. This is what I'm trying to understand. There seems to me a difference between forgetting to put down that our RKCB is 1430 (as long as I explain before the opponents need to know) and turning in an advance CC that says Acol when our real system is some HUM. I'm just not sure where to draw the line. Maybe there's no real difference? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 03:55:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 03:55:31 +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 DAA28743 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 03:55:21 +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 NAA28419 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:55:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA15115 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:55:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:55:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909081755.NAA15115@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > All I can say is please oh pretty please do not put me on the first > committee that is asked to adjudicate a claim of MI in response to a > question about an opponent's false-carding tendencies. OK. You get all the cases resulting from psychic bidding, though. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 03:56:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:42:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27994 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:42:02 +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 11Ojr2-000Bsz-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:41:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:36:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip helpful retatement > > Now, let us get to the meat of the problem. > >Anne Jones wrote: > >>>After South had passed the 4C bid, West asked whether she should have >>>alerted it and explained it was "Blackwood" asking for aces. Given this >>>information, South took back his pass and replaced it with a bid of 5C, > >>Without the TD (who may or may not have allowed the change of call) >>being called? > > I don't know, but this is critical. L21B1 says: > > Until the end of the auction period (see > Law 17E), a player may, without penalty, > change a call when it is probable that > he made the call as a result of > misinformation given to him by an > opponent (failure to alert promptly to a > conventional call or special > understanding, where such alert is > required by the sponsoring organisation, > is deemed misinformation), provided that > his partner has not subsequently called. > I am certain in my own mind that South expected the 4C call to be conventional, and further that it was either a general force or a Q. It did cross his mind that it was 'Blackwood'. The failure to alert is immaterial in my view. The misinformation lies in the fact that, innocently gleaned as it was, the meaning was totally unexpected. Whether this allows South to change his call is another question. > Was 4C alertable if it was Blackwood? Certainly. Was 4C alertable if >it was a general force? Certainly. How do readers of BLML know this? >Because I put it in the question: >>All conventional calls are alertable in England. > > So what right had South to retract his pass over the 4C bid? None >that I can see. 4C was not alerted, true, but that makes it natural, >and South knows it is not. He *knows* it is alertable but he did not >ask. Thus he was not mis-informed by the failure to alert and so L21B1 >gives him no right to change his call. Is it probable that South was mis-informed? IMO Yes. Because of the failure to alert South is in the invidious position of not wanting to ask and create UI. Had there been an alert he *might* have asked, and from this point I am going to allow the change of call. ... and from there on I have no difficulty adjusting to 5D +1 (+6 for ACBLers). > > There are two possibilities. Either the Director allowed him to >change his call, which is Director error, and both sides are now to be >treated as non-offending, or he changed it without a Director call, >which is illegal, and South is now an offender. > > What do I do in the two cases? > > If the Director was called, he has caused the trouble. South has some >validity to his argument, despite being a BL, so I might give him what >he wants, 6H-1. I let EW keep their score. > > If [as I suspect] the Director was not called, then I issue a PP to >NS: I fine him 10% of a top, and tell him to call the TD in future. I >let the score stand. In your scenario I agree with your actions. In mine: Case 1: 5D + 1, because that's obvious Case 2: 5D + 1. as above, and I like the PP of 3 imps or 1/2 VP. Law 21A would have applied IMO if the 4C call had been alerted and South didn't ask. The failure to alert *might* have caused a problem though. 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 Sep 9 04:03:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 04:03:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA28817 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 04:03:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA08006; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:01:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-113.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.113) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma007776; Wed Sep 8 13:00:53 1999 Message-ID: <002901befa24$eaf2cd20$7184d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:06:43 -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 Law 40A would not be rendered meaningless with Steve's interpretation. It expressly permits an action, whether or not it forbids an alternate action. Laws do not merely exist to say what is wrong; they may also say what is right. Law 40A would be important for specifically permitting psyches regardless of whether you believe it forbids those based on partnership understandings. If it did not exist, it would be lawful to ban all psyches. It is not. That is not meaningless. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 9:02 PM Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: David Stevenson >>> There is no reference to damage in L40A. >> >>Perhaps that's because L40A cannot be broken? >> >>An action that is not within the parameters of L40A may be illegal >>under one or more other laws or regulations, or it may be extraneous if >>not covered by any rule, but I don't see how it can be a violation of >>L40A itself. > > Fine. As you have said before. It is one thing that we are >diametrically opposed on. > > A player may make any call or play > (including an intentionally misleading > call - such as a psychic bid - or a call > or play that departs from commonly > accepted, or previously announced, use of > a convention), without prior announcement, > provided that such call or play is not > based on a partnership understanding. > > You say that this allows you to make a psychic call that *is not* >based on a partnership understanding. > > You also say that this does not affect in any way your right to make a >psychic call that *is* based on a partnership understanding. > > So, in effect, you say that L40A does not stop you doing anything, >thus is meaningless. > > I can never see the point in this argument. Oh, I can see the logic >in the language, but it is pointless. We can make bridge unplayable by >such unhelpful interpretations of the Laws, destroying the meaning of >Laws such as L40A, but if people wish to do so then they should be >writing to an English usage mailing list. I see no point in >interpretations of the Laws that leave them as meaningless, and I am >surprised that anyone would wish 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 Thu Sep 9 06:30:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 06:30:32 +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 GAA29348 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 06:30:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.188]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990908203017.FZUM19053.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:30:17 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 22:30:15 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199909012156.RAA08885@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909012156.RAA08885@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 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 GAA29349 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:56:17 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Adam Beneschan >> Here, the only way the NO could do any >> better is if the opponents had a misunderstanding and explained >> everything correctly---virtually the same kind of contradiction. > >Isn't this the normal way to rule in a MI case? It should be. We should rule based on an assumption that there was no explanation heard by the offenders, but that the non-offenders somehow knew the offenders' system anyway. Otherwise, we would allow the offenders to get out of their misunderstanding with the help of a question from an opponent - we should not do that. In other words, our adjustments should not be to the result that would occur if a correct _explanation_ was given at the table, but rather to the result that would occur if the opponents already knew the system and did not have to ask. As for the specific case, Anne's point that S could hardly have believed that 4C had a non-alertable meaning is the important one. On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:09:48 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > What do I do in the two cases? > > If the Director was called, he has caused the trouble. South has some >validity to his argument, despite being a BL, so I might give him what >he wants, 6H-1. Agreed. >I let EW keep their score. This does not seem right. EW are to be considered non-offenders and should get the "most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". The irregularity is the call of 5C, and without that call the result cannot be the result of 5C doubled. I think EW should get either 4H or 6D, depending on whether 6D is considered "likely" when W replies 4H to show one ace. It does not seem to me to be "likely". > If [as I suspect] the Director was not called, then I issue a PP to >NS: I fine him 10% of a top, and tell him to call the TD in future. I >let the score stand. Strictly speaking, S has made a L25B-like change of call. If you rule by the law book, this is perfectly legal, and NS gets at most A-, while EW keeps their 1100. If you rule by the WBFLC "interpretation", this is not legal, but there is then no law to tell us what to do. Since W bid on, it would be reasonable to consider the change of call accepted and let the score stand. But 10% for not calling the TD does seem reasonable anyway. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 06:30:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 06:30:35 +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 GAA29352 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 06:30:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from jd-private.internal ([195.249.193.188]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990908203023.FZUX19053.fep4@jd-private.internal> for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:30:23 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 22:30:21 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 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 GAA29354 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:36:09 +0100, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >Is it probable that South was mis-informed? IMO Yes. Because of the >failure to alert South is in the invidious position of not wanting to >ask and create UI. Had there been an alert he *might* have asked, and >from this point I am going to allow the change of call I don't understand this. How does it create less UI to ask about an alerted call than to ask about an unalerted call that everybody at the table knows perfectly well must be artificial and therefore alertable? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 07:03:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 07:03:42 +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 HAA29592 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 07:03:30 +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 OAA01714; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:02:47 -0700 Message-Id: <199909082102.OAA01714@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: What is damage? [was: Misinformation from an English Club] Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 14:02:49 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > It should be. We should rule based on an assumption that there > was no explanation heard by the offenders, but that the > non-offenders somehow knew the offenders' system anyway. > > Otherwise, we would allow the offenders to get out of their > misunderstanding with the help of a question from an opponent - > we should not do that. > > In other words, our adjustments should not be to the result that ^^^^^^^^^^^ > would occur if a correct _explanation_ was given at the table, > but rather to the result that would occur if the opponents > already knew the system and did not have to ask. Since my point apparently didn't get through the first time, I'd like to reiterate that I already agree with this, when it comes to *adjustments*, but there is a distinction between *adjustments* and *damage*. And the Laws say we have to decide there is damage before we make an adjustment. To make an adjustment, we give the non-offenders the "most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity had not occurred." But does the same standard apply when asking whether there was damage? Assuming no double shots or egregious errors that break the causality have occurred, is a non-offender automatically damaged when his result is less than the "most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred"? Or is there some other standard for determining whether "damage" occurred? The Laws don't define damage, and they don't give a standard for determining whether a NO was damaged. I'd like others' opinions on this, because I think it's an important point. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 07:32:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 07:32:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29768 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 07:32:32 +1000 (EST) From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (af06@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.114.243]) by mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11OpJm-0005hC-00; Wed, 08 Sep 1999 23:31:50 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA216276309; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:31:49 +0200 Subject: Re: hesitation and double To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:31:49 +0200 (CES) In-Reply-To: <199909072246.PAA15030@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Sep 07, 1999 03:46:49 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to Adam Beneschan: > > >af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: >> >> According to Adam Beneschan: >. . . . >> >> Did you have your law book at hand when you >> wrote this??? > >Yes. > >Obviously you didn't post just to ask a yes/no question. I'm sure you >included an explanation of just what Law my post got wrong, but then >your cat stepped on the DELETE key and that part of your message >disappeared. Could you please restore the missing part? Thanks. I thought that was obvious: >>I think it's clear to give N-S -930 for 3SX making 4. It's not as >>clear whether to give E-W +930, or +730, or let them keep the +100, or >>maybe give them +300 in 4Dx. Suppose North was lying and the double >>was really penalty. It's likely that the defense will cash one high >>club and shift to a heart, in which event West must get the spades >>right to make the contract; and given South's penalty double, I >>believe West would be more likely to take the spade finesse for -200. I would like to know where in the laws of bridge you found a statement that the score of the non-offending side is computed in the way you suggested in your last sentence. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 07:54:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 07:54:21 +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 HAA29872 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 07:54:13 +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 OAA02609; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:53:32 -0700 Message-Id: <199909082153.OAA02609@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: hesitation and double Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 14:53:33 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: > I thought that was obvious: > >>I think it's clear to give N-S -930 for 3SX making 4. It's not as > >>clear whether to give E-W +930, or +730, or let them keep the +100, or > >>maybe give them +300 in 4Dx. Suppose North was lying and the double > >>was really penalty. It's likely that the defense will cash one high > >>club and shift to a heart, in which event West must get the spades > >>right to make the contract; and given South's penalty double, I > >>believe West would be more likely to take the spade finesse for -200. > > > I would like to know where in the laws of > bridge you found a statement that the score of > the non-offending side is computed in the way > you suggested in your last sentence. Law 12C1: When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred . . . It was my judgment that, *if* the double was penalty and West were correctly informed that is was penalty, that 3SX making 3 was (probably) not a "likely" enough result for the TD to award this score to the non-offenders. It's a possible result, but I don't consider it "likely" because I think few Wests would play for the drop under these circumstances. (All of this assumes there was a UI infraction.) Finally, please note that > the score of the non-offending side is computed in the way you > suggested in your last sentence. isn't really true. I did *not* suggest that's how the score of the non-offending side is computed. I did suggest that -200 was likely in 3S doubled and +730 was unlikely. I did *not* draw the conclusion that we should give the nonoffenders -200. The only conclusion I drew was that perhaps we shouldn't give them +730. I did suggest that the NO's score should be at least +100---please see my second sentence above, "It's not as clear whether..." Hope this clears things up. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 09:44:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 09:44:05 +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 JAA00522 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 09:43:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from saratoga.jcu.edu.au (saratoga.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.5]) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA17044 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 09:43:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by saratoga.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA08487 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 09:43:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: saratoga.jcu.edu.au: sci-lsk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 09:43:52 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C252@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > > > > > [Ton, in the casebook:] > > > > > at all. The question to be answered was whether NS were > > damaged by the use > > > > > of this unknown convention (it was not illegal in > > itself, but they did not > > > > > announce it properly). Could and would NS have done > > better knowing the > > > > > convention? > > > > > > > > Is this right approach? It seems to me that L40B > > prescribes a specific > > > > penalty for non-disclosure. > > Does it? Not in my version. On the contrary, trying to find consistancy in > the laws 40c seems to elaborate on 40a and 40b and asks for damage to adjust > a score. > > On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable > > > > applying L40B to an ordinary MI case. What is the distinction? > > good question: I proposed a distinction 10 exchanges ago and asked for a > definition of 'illegal call'. I am not so much interested in what an Appeal > Committee may do (almost all it wants to do), but in what it should do > (which is more restrictive in my opinion). > > > > > When I - by mistake - forget to put a convention that we > > play on my CC, that does not make this an illegal > > convention. > > > Herman DE WAEL > > Indeed, not in my definition. > > ton Maybe not in the general sense, but when the CoC lays down specific conditions for disclosure (pre-submission in the Polish case), then failure to conform does make it's use illegal. 40D and 40E anyone? Laurie Australia From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 10:07:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 10:07:20 +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 KAA00685 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 10:07:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd3s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.212] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Orjy-0003ZJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:07:02 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:10:36 +0100 Message-ID: <01befa57$bdca40c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 6:47 PM Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? . Decent UK players don't >much bother with recording psyches btw. That is a statement which really annoys me. My experience of "decent players" is that they belong to a world apart. They arrive after the advertised starting time,They do not score on the correct line. They do not move the boards in the right direction, they are not charming to their opponents, and now they ignore the regulations. What an example to set the lesser mortals! In YC it would appear to be with the support of the TD. I can only view this as self serving.(They won't record my psyche next time!) Is this good for Bridge? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 10:17:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 10:17:27 +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 KAA00759 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 10:17:13 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id fIIJa16296 (4244); Wed, 8 Sep 1999 20:15:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <58cb332.25085623@aol.com> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 20:15:31 EDT Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? 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 21 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 9/8/99 8:14:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, eajewm@globalnet.co.uk writes: > That is a statement which really annoys me. > My experience of "decent players" is that they belong to a world > apart. They arrive after the advertised starting time,They do not > score on the correct line. They do not move the boards in the > right direction, they are not charming to their opponents, and now > they ignore the regulations. What an example to set the lesser > mortals! In YC it would appear to be with the support of the TD. > I can only view this as self serving.(They won't record my psyche > next time!) > Is this good for Bridge? > > Anne > BRAVO! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 12:54:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:54:16 +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 MAA01317 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:54:03 +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 11OuLO-0006Om-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 02:53:51 +0000 Message-ID: <8zZ04JAW$v13EwYD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:31:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: MISINFORMATION FROM References: <9909081046.0F53S00@bbs.hal-pc.org> In-Reply-To: <9909081046.0F53S00@bbs.hal-pc.org> 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 MAA01322 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger wrote: I really think, roger, that you should make an attempt to discover some software that is at least faintly compatible with a mailing list. I do not know what others think, but in view of your software I propose to abandon reading your articles. This would be a pity since you often make nice points but they are such a pain to read. Your articles do not thread. The subject line is always changed. The quotes from other people do not start with a > so that they are not in a different colour making it near-impossible to see what you have written. All sorts of rubbish is added by your software at the start of articles. Please, Roger, pretty please, try FreeAgent or something. For once I shall not snip so that you can see all the stuff we have to wade through. > >Bridge-laws, > >B>From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >B>To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >B>From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Tue Sep 7 20:26:46 1999 >B>Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) >B> by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id UAA66068 >B> for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:26:46 -0500 >B>(CDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) >B> by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25570 >B> for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:03:00 +1000 (EST) >B>Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net >B>[194.217.242.20]) >B> by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25557 >B> for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:02:47 >B>+1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) >B> by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) >B> id 11OW80-000OxJ-0K >B> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:02:26 +0000 >B>Message-ID: >B>Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:09:48 +0100 >B>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >B>From: David Stevenson >B>Reply-To: David Stevenson >B>Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club >B>References: >B>In-Reply-To: >B>MIME-Version: 1.0 >B>X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 >B>Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >B>Precedence: bulk 30 lines of gibberish. > >B>David Stevenson wrote: >B>> > >-s- > >B>>How do you rule? > > >B>So what right had South to retract his pass over the 4C bid? None >B>that I can see. 4C was not alerted, true, but that makes it natural, >B>and South knows it is not. He *knows* it is alertable but he did not >B>ask. Thus he was not mis-informed by the failure to alert and so L21B1 >B>gives him no right to change his call. > >B>There are two possibilities. Either the Director allowed him to >B>change his call, which is Director error, and both sides are now to be >B>treated as non-offending, or he changed it without a Director call, >B>which is illegal, and South is now an offender. > >B>What do I do in the two cases? > >B>If the Director was called, he has caused the trouble. South has some >B>validity to his argument, despite being a BL, so I might give him what >B>he wants, 6H-1. I let EW keep their score. > > >It seems to me that if the director rules on the matter of L21A and judges >that S not be permitted to change his call, the proper ruling is 'Even >without an alert S knew that 4C was conventional and did not ask, South's >call was not based on MI but his own misunderstanding; auction proceeds'. >If the director instead rules to back up the auction then has his judgement >not said that S is entitled to change his call? We are discussing on this list what the Laws mean and how they should be applied. Certainly if the Director allows a change then he has done so in his judgement: I just consider his judgement wrong. >I think that if the director rules on a finding of fact that S may change >his call, then such a change of call is the result of a ruling and can not >be termed illegal- with the consequences that DWS has pointed out. It is only illegal insofar as it is wrong in Law, thus is against the Laws, and I referred to that as illegal. >And if the players permit S to change his call and LHO subsequently calls, >has not the illegally changed call been condoned without penalty? .... which is why I said result stood in such a case. > > >Roger Pewick > >B>If [as I suspect] the Director was not called, then I issue a PP to >B>NS: I fine him 10% of a top, and tell him to call the TD in future. I >B>let the score stand. > >B>>However I am sure that the outcome will be that N/S >B>>damaged themselves a) by not asking, and b) by making a bid which >B>>was wild and gambling.c) by making a table ruling and losing their >B>right to >penalise .L11A >B>> >B>>Result stands. > >B>This seems the right general approach, but wrong in detail. L11A is >B>not right: it is because of their ruling that trouble was caused, not >B>the playing on. > >s-s > >B>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >B>Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ >B> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= >B> Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ >B> >Roger Pewick >r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >___ >*SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader This last dozen lines seems superfluous. OK, Roger, I know it is not your fault, but please could you do something about 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 Sep 9 12:54:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:54:15 +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 MAA01318 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:54:03 +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 11OuLO-0006On-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 02:53:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:35:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is damage? [was: Misinformation from an English Club] References: <199909082102.OAA01714@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199909082102.OAA01714@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> It should be. We should rule based on an assumption that there >> was no explanation heard by the offenders, but that the >> non-offenders somehow knew the offenders' system anyway. >> >> Otherwise, we would allow the offenders to get out of their >> misunderstanding with the help of a question from an opponent - >> we should not do that. >> >> In other words, our adjustments should not be to the result that > ^^^^^^^^^^^ >> would occur if a correct _explanation_ was given at the table, >> but rather to the result that would occur if the opponents >> already knew the system and did not have to ask. > >Since my point apparently didn't get through the first time, I'd like >to reiterate that I already agree with this, when it comes to >*adjustments*, but there is a distinction between *adjustments* and >*damage*. And the Laws say we have to decide there is damage before >we make an adjustment. > >To make an adjustment, we give the non-offenders the "most favorable >result that was likely had the irregularity had not occurred." But >does the same standard apply when asking whether there was damage? >Assuming no double shots or egregious errors that break the causality >have occurred, is a non-offender automatically damaged when his result >is less than the "most favorable result that was likely had the >irregularity not occurred"? Or is there some other standard for >determining whether "damage" occurred? The Laws don't define damage, >and they don't give a standard for determining whether a NO was >damaged. I'd like others' opinions on this, because I think it's an >important point. Damage seems to me to mean that without the infraction a better result might have occurred. A NO is damaged when his result is less than the "most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". In practice I don't think deciding whether damage has occurred is too helpful: better is to decide it might have occurred, see what adjustment is suitable, and then if the adjustment improves the NOs' score, adjust because of damage. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 9 13:22:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 13:22:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01400 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 13:12:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt091nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.47.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA18462 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 20:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007201befa70$64054260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000601bef919$85db6840$f3ad93c3@pacific> Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 20:04:42 -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 > +=+ Fair disclosure calls for opponents to be > truthfully told of our understanding and > expectations in respect of partner's card > play in defence. > > False carding is lawful if it is an intermittent > thing; but if he habitually plays J from Q J this is > something that *must* be made known to > opponents - if leads are listed on the convention > card it should be there. If he always (almost) does > it the lead is his method and not a matter of style. > Style/judgement are essentially the subject of > appraisal and decision hand by hand. It is up to > regulations to define the requirements, and to set > limits on any requirement that habitual method > must be the same both sides of the table. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It is time to establish a principle, one that all the anti-psychers and anti-falsecarders ought to recognize. I am defending against a 5S contract, and get my trump trick while partner discards with a signal in clubs (high encouraging, low discouraging). Dummy on my left has some trumps, a long solid diamond suit, and KJ of clubs. Obviously I have to lead a club. (1) I have the ace of clubs, and partner signals (against anyone) that he has the queen, so I underlead. (2) I have the ace of clubs, and partner signals (against anyone) that he does not have the queen, so I cash out. (3) I have the queen of clubs, and partner the ace. Against a good declarer, partner signals high to show either the ace or queen. Any other policy is a losing policy. Against a naive declarer, he will no doubt signal low in clubs, hoping declarer will think he does not have the ace. This means a low card always denies the queen, against anyone. Now, in situation (3) of course I have to lead a low club, and naive declarer, who has read what Grattan and Herman wrote, turns to me and asks what I know about partner's signals in this situation. Do I have to say, "His low club absolutely denies the queen."? And the answer is no. The principle is this (very hard to put into words, but I'll try) IF PARTNERSHIP EXPERIENCE IS OF NO POSSIBLE VALUE TO ME, THEN I DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT. In case (3), with Qxx of clubs, I have to lead a low club willy-nilly, so partner's play has no possible value for me, I don't even have to look at the card he signals with. Ergo, no disclosure is required. Please cite the Law that says otherwise, I can't find it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 16:32:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 16:32:17 +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 QAA01987 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 16:32:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt091nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.47.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA05557 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <016f01befa8c$f52a2d20$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990907171524.01282c08@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: hesitation and double Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:23:50 -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 Mike Dennis wrote in regard to this auction: West North East South P 1C P 1H 1S 2C 3S Dbl P 4C All pass > This type of mid-level double in competitive auctions is tricky. No doubt > that its "standard" meaning, referring to the type of bridge that most of > us grew up playing, is penalty. In fact, I still play it that way myself. > But I realize that the treatment of doubles has changed much over the last > 25 or 30 years (at least), tending more and more toward take-out > treatments, and would expect that the majority of strong players would > treat this as card-showing/competitive. > Whether this treatment has become predominant enough that it no longer > requires an alert is of course a matter for SO regulation. But at least in > the ACBL, it is difficult for the average player to keep up with the > shifting sands in this respect. There are no "shifting sands" in the ACBL Alert regulations, at least not since the current Alert Procedure (AP) was established two years ago. The double is Alertable, because *all* doubles after partner has acted (except for ordinary negative doubles of suit overcalls, through 4H, after a one-level natural suit opening) are Alertable. This is a nice simple rule, easy to remember. Whether a different meaning for a double becomes predominant over time doesn't matter, at least until the ACBL changes the AP. In order to "keep up," all the "average player" has to do is download the AP from the ACBL website, or download the digest of the AP from David Stevenson's website. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 17:04:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 17:04:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from dynamite.com.au (m1.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02098 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 17:04:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from bridge (isp285.canb.dynamite.com.au [202.139.69.31]) by dynamite.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA17682; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 17:04:26 +1000 Message-ID: <005601befa92$42a177c0$1f458bca@dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000c01befa0a$3651cca0$ddab93c3@pacific> Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 17:07:31 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 12:54 AM Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "The number of malefactors authorizes not > the crime." - Dr. Thomas Fuller > gegegegegegegegegegegegegegegegege > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Date: 08 September 1999 11:07 > Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? > > > ------------------ \x/ ----------- > >When I - by mistake - forget to put a convention that we > >play on my CC, that does not make this an illegal > >convention. > > > >-- > >Herman DE WAEL > >Antwerpen Belgium > >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > ++ True. However, if the disclosure regulation requires > it to be on the CC then to make the call is illegal. Law > 40B bars the *making* of such a call. It is illegal > when made. ~ Grattan ~ ++ > Am I to understand from your comments that you do not see a difference between a convention not allowed, by regulation, in the particular event and a convention that could , by regulation , be used in the event but was not properly disclosed? Sean Mullamphy From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 18:09:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA02422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 18:09:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from firewall.dit.dk (firewall.dit.dk [194.192.112.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02413 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 18:09:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by firewall.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13458; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 10:08:54 +0200 Received: from UNKNOWN(10.160.6.6), claiming to be "JD.i.softco.dk" via SMTP by firewall.dit.dk, id smtpda13454; Thu Sep 9 10:08:49 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misinformation from an English Club Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 10:08:49 +0200 Message-ID: References: <199909012156.RAA08885@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 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 SAA02415 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 22:30:15 +0200, I wrote: >Strictly speaking, S has made a L25B-like change of call. > >If you rule by the law book, this is perfectly legal, and NS gets >at most A-, while EW keeps their 1100. As Steve has pointed out to me in a private message, this is of course wrong: the change was condoned by the next hand, so the 1100 stands for both sides. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 18:22:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA02514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 18:22:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from firewall.dit.dk (firewall.dit.dk [194.192.112.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02509 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 18:21:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by firewall.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13535; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 10:21:44 +0200 Received: from UNKNOWN(10.160.6.6), claiming to be "JD.i.softco.dk" via SMTP by firewall.dit.dk, id smtpda13533; Thu Sep 9 10:21:35 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MISINFORMATION FROM Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 10:21:34 +0200 Message-ID: References: <9909081046.0F53S00@bbs.hal-pc.org> <8zZ04JAW$v13EwYD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8zZ04JAW$v13EwYD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 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 SAA02510 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:31:18 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > I really think, roger, that you should make an attempt to discover >some software that is at least faintly compatible with a mailing list. >I do not know what others think, but in view of your software I propose >to abandon reading your articles. This would be a pity since you often >make nice points but they are such a pain to read. I second this suggestion. In addition, I would like to ask everybody to please _not_ change the subject line in any way when following up to an existing thread. The changes break up the threads for those of us who use software that keeps track of threads. > Please, Roger, pretty please, try FreeAgent or something. Not _Free_ Agent - Free Agent is a newsreader program and cannot receive e-mail at all. The USD 29 Agent (http://www.forteinc.com), on the other hand, is a very good combined news and mail program, and I recommend it. The newest version (1.6), which can probably also be downloaded from any TuCows mirror site, has a free 30-day trial period. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 21:33:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:33:26 +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 VAA02995 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:33:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-161.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.161]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18831 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 13:33:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37D7927A.7DB7D3DF@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 12:56:58 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > This is interesting. While it may be technically correct you should > allow yourself to be over-ruled where specific examples are given, and > alert if in any doubt. Do you *know* that all members of BLML have read > Herman's every word? > I am certain they haven't. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 21:33:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:33:27 +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 VAA02996 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:33:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-161.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.161]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18839 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 13:33:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37D79497.B7FC74F4@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 13:05:59 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? References: <000c01befa0a$3651cca0$ddab93c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >When I - by mistake - forget to put a convention that we > >play on my CC, that does not make this an illegal > >convention. > > > >-- > > ++ True. However, if the disclosure regulation requires > it to be on the CC then to make the call is illegal. Law > 40B bars the *making* of such a call. It is illegal > when made. ~ Grattan ~ ++ OK, if the regulation actually states that "to play a convention that is not mentioned on the CC is illegal". I have never seen that. I can imagine that in many international championships, there would be many illegal conventional calls if that were the regulation. Perhaps some Danish input: in the complicated Danish relay sequences, there can be up to 10 conventional asking calls. Do the Danish pairs have all the meanings on their CC? I doubt it. System notes would be brought up. You simply cannot put everything on a CC. So a regulation like Grattan speaks of would be hard to implement. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 22:57:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 22:57:51 +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 WAA03383 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 22:57:34 +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 MAA20595 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:56:48 GMT Message-ID: <37D7AE93.DA7997E5@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 14:56:52 +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: understanding, agreement, experience References: <000601bef919$85db6840$f3ad93c3@pacific> <007201befa70$64054260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > > > It is time to establish a principle, one that all the anti-psychers > and anti-falsecarders ought to recognize. > > I am defending against a 5S contract, and get my trump trick while > partner discards with a signal in clubs (high encouraging, low > discouraging). > > Dummy on my left has some trumps, a long solid diamond suit, and KJ > of clubs. Obviously I have to lead a club. > > (1) I have the ace of clubs, and partner signals (against anyone) > that he has the queen, so I underlead. > > (2) I have the ace of clubs, and partner signals (against anyone) > that he does not have the queen, so I cash out. > > (3) I have the queen of clubs, and partner the ace. Against a good > declarer, partner signals high to show either the ace or queen. Any > other policy is a losing policy. Against a naive declarer, he will > no doubt signal low in clubs, hoping declarer will think he does not > have the ace. > > This means a low card always denies the queen, against anyone. > > Now, in situation (3) of course I have to lead a low club, and naive > declarer, who has read what Grattan and Herman wrote, turns to me > and asks what I know about partner's signals in this situation. > > Do I have to say, "His low club absolutely denies the queen."? > > And the answer is no. > > The principle is this (very hard to put into words, but I'll try) > > IF PARTNERSHIP EXPERIENCE IS OF NO POSSIBLE VALUE TO ME, THEN I > DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT. > > In case (3), with Qxx of clubs, I have to lead a low club > willy-nilly, so partner's play has no possible value for me, I don't > even have to look at the card he signals with. Ergo, no disclosure > is required. Even with this behaviour, you are done: when you have the ace, you answer that a high signal means queen and when you have the queen you answer that you don't need to disclose anything which is of no value for you. In each case, declarer can deduct which honor you own. Anyway, I dislike this behaviour, intending to deceive opponent by making him believe your signals are related to the ace when they are related to the queen. I could agree if your answer was: "my partner's signal is related to whichever honor the location of which could be of some value for me", or "my partner encourages when he thinks there is no danger for me to lead a low club". A competent declarer could extract the appropriate conclusion and a less competent could be wrong but nobody would be deliberately deceived. JP Rocafort > > > Please cite the Law that says otherwise, I can't find it. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 23:01:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 23:01:18 +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 XAA03426 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 23:01:07 +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 11P3on-0006hw-0A; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 13:00:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 13:59:10 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <000601bef919$85db6840$f3ad93c3@pacific> <007201befa70$64054260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <007201befa70$64054260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <007201befa70$64054260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >> +=+ Fair disclosure calls for opponents to be >> truthfully told of our understanding and >> expectations in respect of partner's card >> play in defence. >> >> False carding is lawful if it is an intermittent >> thing; but if he habitually plays J from Q J this is >> something that *must* be made known to >> opponents - if leads are listed on the convention >> card it should be there. If he always (almost) does >> it the lead is his method and not a matter of style. >> Style/judgement are essentially the subject of >> appraisal and decision hand by hand. It is up to >> regulations to define the requirements, and to set >> limits on any requirement that habitual method >> must be the same both sides of the table. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >It is time to establish a principle, one that all the anti-psychers >and anti-falsecarders ought to recognize. > >I am defending against a 5S contract, and get my trump trick while >partner discards with a signal in clubs (high encouraging, low >discouraging). > >Dummy on my left has some trumps, a long solid diamond suit, and KJ >of clubs. Obviously I have to lead a club. > >(1) I have the ace of clubs, and partner signals (against anyone) >that he has the queen, so I underlead. > >(2) I have the ace of clubs, and partner signals (against anyone) >that he does not have the queen, so I cash out. > >(3) I have the queen of clubs, and partner the ace. Against a good >declarer, partner signals high to show either the ace or queen. Any >other policy is a losing policy. Against a naive declarer, he will >no doubt signal low in clubs, hoping declarer will think he does not >have the ace. > >This means a low card always denies the queen, against anyone. > >Now, in situation (3) of course I have to lead a low club, and naive >declarer, who has read what Grattan and Herman wrote, turns to me >and asks what I know about partner's signals in this situation. > >Do I have to say, "His low club absolutely denies the queen."? > >And the answer is no. > or "YES" >The principle is this (very hard to put into words, but I'll try) > >IF PARTNERSHIP EXPERIENCE IS OF NO POSSIBLE VALUE TO ME, THEN I >DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT. What Law is that Marv ?:) > >In case (3), with Qxx of clubs, I have to lead a low club >willy-nilly, so partner's play has no possible value for me, I don't >even have to look at the card he signals with. Ergo, no disclosure >is required. > >Please cite the Law that says otherwise, I can't find it. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > > -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 9 23:23:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 23:23:36 +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 XAA03489 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 23:23:22 +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 OAA14279 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 14:23:03 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA16500 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 14:21:59 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 09 Sep 1999 13:21:58 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA29518 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 14:21:55 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA20099 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 14:21:33 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 14:21:33 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909091321.OAA20099@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman writes: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > >When I - by mistake - forget to put a convention that we > > >play on my CC, that does not make this an illegal > > >convention. > > > > > >-- > > > > ++ True. However, if the disclosure regulation requires > > it to be on the CC then to make the call is illegal. Law > > 40B bars the *making* of such a call. It is illegal > > when made. ~ Grattan ~ ++ > > OK, if the regulation actually states that "to play a > convention that is not mentioned on the CC is illegal". I > have never seen that. > > I can imagine that in many international championships, > there would be many illegal conventional calls if that were > the regulation. > [ examples snipped ] > > So a regulation like Grattan speaks of would be hard to > implement. You can imagine weaker regulations which would still make the original 1NT overcall illegal. "A call is illegal which should appear on the CC but does not." Where "should appear" applies to (something like) opening bid, overcalls, responses, and anything opponents are likely to need to prepare a special defence to. An even weaker regulation would be "A call is illegal which appears on the CC submitted in advance with a different meaning". I do think that an automatic penalty (i.e. regardless of consequent damage) is appropriate for pairs who say in advance that they are playing one thing and turn up and play another. (I understand Ton and Herman disagree.) Robin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 10 00:27:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:27:31 +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 AAA03715 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:27:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id QAA01368; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 16:26:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JFRU40UFPQ001MT8@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 16:25:54 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 09 Sep 1999 16:25:54 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 16:25:52 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? To: "'Robin Barker'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C25D@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 do think that an automatic penalty (i.e. regardless of consequent > damage) is appropriate for pairs who say in advance that they are > playing one thing and turn up and play another. (I understand Ton > and Herman disagree.) > > Robin > I don't disagree. I prefer an automatic penalty above one which is given by one TD and not by another, depending on who is walking around. I wrote that I could live with the penalty given to this Polish pair. You need to know the facts in detail to be able to judge that. My experience is that with some countries we seem to have problems with convention cards all the time. My feeling in this case and from some comments getting the impression that this should be the general approach, is that we give automatic adjusted scores, because we assume that automatic damage occurred. I expressed my opinion that I don't like that approach at all. I do not consider it to be supported by law 40. That opinion hasn't changed during this discussion. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 10 00:42:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:42:39 +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 AAA03815 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:42:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt091nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.47.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA11045 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 07:42:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01b701befad1$7a64fc60$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990907171524.01282c08@pop.mindspring.com> <016f01befa8c$f52a2d20$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: hesitation and double (slight correction) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 07:41:56 -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 I wrote: > There are no "shifting sands" in the ACBL Alert regulations, at > least not since the current Alert Procedure (AP) was established two > years ago. The double is Alertable, because *all* doubles after > partner has acted (except for ordinary negative doubles of suit > overcalls, through 4H, after a one-level natural suit opening) are > Alertable. This is a nice simple rule, easy to remember. Whether a > different meaning for a double becomes predominant over time doesn't > matter, at least until the ACBL changes the AP. > An adjective accidentally left out. that's "all* non-penalty doubles, etc. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 10 00:52:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:52:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03862 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:52:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt091nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.47.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA13471 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 07:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01d201befad2$e4ad6e80$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000601bef919$85db6840$f3ad93c3@pacific><007201befa70$64054260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 07:48:27 -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 Michael Amos wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > > The principle is this (very hard to put into words, but I'll try) > > > > IF PARTNERSHIP EXPERIENCE IS OF NO POSSIBLE > > VALUE TO ME, THEN I > > DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT. > What Law is that Marv ?:) The point is that there is no Law requiring such disclosure. > >Please cite the Law that says otherwise, I can't find it. > > > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 10 01:13:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 01:13:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03936 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 01:12:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt091nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.47.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA17909 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 08:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01d701befad5$b9fd0ee0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000601bef919$85db6840$f3ad93c3@pacific> <007201befa70$64054260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> <37D7AE93.DA7997E5@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 08:09:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort a écrit : "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > Even with this behaviour, you are done: when you have the ace, you answer that a high signal means queen and when you have the queen you answer that you don't need to disclose anything which is of no value for > you. In each case, declarer can deduct which honor you own. > Anyway, I dislike this behaviour, intending to deceive opponent by making him believe your signals are related to the ace when they are related to the queen. I could agree if your answer was: "my partner's signal is related to whichever honor the location of which could be of some value for me", or "my partner encourages when he thinks there is no danger for me to lead a low club". A competent declarer could extract the appropriate conclusion and a less competent could be wrong but > nobody would be deliberately deceived. The only disclosure is this: When signalling attitude, a high card is encouraging, a low card is discouraging. L73E: A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience). The false signal of a low card when sitting over dummy's KJ may be familiar to partner from previous experience, but the deception is not protected by that knowledge when partner can lead only one certain card no matter what. The deceptive play would be made with a complete stranger for partner, perhaps in an individual event. It is not based on a "special partnership understanding." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 10 01:49:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 01:49:16 +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 BAA04085 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 01:49:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from p5fs05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.96] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11P6R2-0007rZ-00; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 16:48:29 +0100 Message-ID: <00a801befada$bc7bd840$4c8993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 16:46:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 09 September 1999 14:48 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? >> >> OK, if the regulation actually states that "to play a >> convention that is not mentioned on the CC is illegal". I >> have never seen that. +=+ The regulations say what is to appear on the CC. The *law* says that if the regulations say that disclosure is to include mention on the CC it is illegal to make the call when it is not there. The regulation is not required to say this.+=+ >> I can imagine that in many international championships, >> there would be many illegal conventional calls if that were >> the regulation. >> +=+ having at times acted as scrutineer of CCs lodged under WBF regulations, I can agree this is so. It has not stopped the WBF from implementing sanctions. +=+ >[ examples snipped ] >> >> So a regulation like Grattan speaks of would be hard to >> implement. +=+ At times it is hard but the effort has been made with varying rigour in various tournaments. It is not at all wise to try it+=+ > >"A call is illegal which should appear on the CC but does not." +=+ Merely repeating the law, if you put the word 'made' after 'call' ? +=+ > >Where "should appear" applies to (something like) >opening bid, overcalls, responses, and anything opponents are >likely to need to prepare a special defence to. > +=+ It lies with the regulating authority to specify what exclusions there are to be from any general requirement it expresses. The players do not make their own arrangements. +=+ > >An even weaker regulation would be "A call is illegal which >appears on the CC submitted in advance with a different meaning". > >I do think that an automatic penalty (i.e. regardless of consequent >damage) is appropriate for pairs who say in advance that they are >playing one thing and turn up and play another. > +=+ As for example, requiring the partnership to play the WBF Standard CC until a satisfactory CC has been submitted and approved? Or standing them down for a match or more whilst they rewrite it? Or, commonly, requiring a convention be added to the CC and ordering that it be not used until Round 'x'? (However, 'automatic' is not it; decisions are made.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 10 06:50:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 06:50:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA05289 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 06:50:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehb6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.102]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA30107 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 16:50:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990909164752.01288714@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 16:47:52 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: hesitation and double In-Reply-To: <016f01befa8c$f52a2d20$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990907171524.01282c08@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:23 PM 9/8/99 -0700, Marv wrote: >There are no "shifting sands" in the ACBL Alert regulations, at >least not since the current Alert Procedure (AP) was established two >years ago. The double is Alertable, because *all* doubles after >partner has acted (except for ordinary negative doubles of suit >overcalls, through 4H, after a one-level natural suit opening) are >Alertable. This is a nice simple rule, easy to remember. Whether a >different meaning for a double becomes predominant over time doesn't >matter, at least until the ACBL changes the AP. > >In order to "keep up," all the "average player" has to do is >download the AP from the ACBL website, or download the digest of the >AP from David Stevenson's website. > The ACBL Alert Procedures have undergone at least three significant revisions in the past 10 to 15 years, I believe. Nor are they quite so simple, with respect to doubles, as you have suggested. In fact, your mis-statement of the AP demonstrates more eloquently than anything I could write just how messy this procedure is. Surely your phrase "*all* doubles" was meant to refer to "all non-penalty doubles". But even then, you have substantially oversimplified a procedure that not one in ten ACBL members could accurately summarize. For the benefit of those lacking the patience to wade through this mess, I will simply point out that the procedures divides doubles into Type I and Type II. I quote from the web version: "Type I doubles are those made when partner has made no call other than PASS, it is EARLY in the auction and BELOW the level of 4H, or it is the usual negative double (see Part II, 5, Negative Doubles) below 4H after partner has opened one of a suit. " "Type II doubles are those made when partner has made any call other than a PASS or the double is: of notrump, or a call above 4H or LATE in the auction Type II doubles if for penalty or penaltyish do not require an Alert, non-penalty REQUIRE an Alert." Now if a Type I double is for penalty _or_ for any unusual non-penalty meaning, it must be alerted, while a Type II double is non-penalty it must be alerted. Except there's some extra stuff about balancing doubles which I forget. Simple? Hardly. Only people like us (i.e., BLML'ers) could even hope to utilize this framework, and even then I would like to be able to sneak a peak at the written version rather than rely on my memory. It is, in truth, an abject failure at its nominal objective, which is to provide a clear, understandable guide for ACBL players to use in knowing when to alert. Bad enough, I suppose, but there's more. Correctly followed, the policy leads to a result which is contrary to the putative purpose of Alerts: to warn the opponents when an unusual or unexpected agreement is in force. If, as many have argued in this thread, the meaning of the original double would be other than penalty in most partnerships, then the curious effect of the AP is to require alerts for the usual, expected meaning of the double while not requiring them for the unexpected meaning (penalty). And of course the particular double in question is (potentially) representative of an entire class of responsive/competitive/card-showing doubles which are increasing in popularity. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 10 10:31:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:31:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05973 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:31:04 +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 11PEaX-0009YV-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:30:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 17:33:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience References: <000601bef919$85db6840$f3ad93c3@pacific> <007201befa70$64054260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> <01d201befad2$e4ad6e80$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01d201befad2$e4ad6e80$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Michael Amos wrote: > > Marvin L. French wrote: > >> > The principle is this (very hard to put into words, but I'll try) >> > >> > IF PARTNERSHIP EXPERIENCE IS OF NO POSSIBLE >> > VALUE TO ME, THEN I >> > DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT. > >> What Law is that Marv ?:) > >The point is that there is no Law requiring such disclosure. My Law book has a L75A, and strangely enough, it has no exception dependent on whether the info is useful to you. >> >Please cite the Law that says otherwise, I can't find 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 Fri Sep 10 10:51:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:51:45 +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 KAA06048 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:51:37 +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 11PEuU-000AFq-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:51:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 01:50:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? In-Reply-To: <01befa57$bdca40c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01befa57$bdca40c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >-----Original Message----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 6:47 PM >Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? > > > >. Decent UK players don't >>much bother with recording psyches btw. > >That is a statement which really annoys me. >My experience of "decent players" is that they belong to a world >apart. They arrive after the advertised starting time,They do not >score on the correct line. They do not move the boards in the >right direction, they are not charming to their opponents, and now >they ignore the regulations. There is no requirement to record a psyche, and no requirement even for the TD to record it if asked to. EBU OB 6.3.1. I do record some players where I have doubts about their agreements. I also disagree with your other comments. The most difficult players generally are playing in the third quartile of a big event. In my experience the top quartile is pretty much excellent behaviour, ethics and general demeanour. >What an example to set the lesser >mortals! In YC it would appear to be with the support of the TD. >I can only view this as self serving.(They won't record my psyche >next time!) Depends whether it is fielded or not :)) >Is this good for Bridge? > Going back to decent players: generally they self-police themselves. None of the shenanegins which happen where I direct would be tolerated if anyone had even the faintest suspicions of unethical behaviour. The calls I get are when the less able players make use of UI against the better players, or abjectly fail to explain agreements which they have. I ruled a +140 back to -1400 (22 Butler Imps) on Friday for blatant use of UI and it wasn't even worth posting in this forum, unless you're interested. The usual form of request at the top tables is "John, could you look at this please?" often supported by all 4 players. This is good for Bridge. Recording Green psyches isn't. >Anne > > -- 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 Sep 10 11:17:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:17:51 +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 LAA06153 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:17:43 +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 11PFJi-000NaS-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 01:17:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 02:15:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Marvin L. French wrote: >>Michael Amos wrote: >> >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>> > The principle is this (very hard to put into words, but I'll try) >>> > >>> > IF PARTNERSHIP EXPERIENCE IS OF NO POSSIBLE >>> > VALUE TO ME, THEN I >>> > DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT. >> >>> What Law is that Marv ?:) >> >>The point is that there is no Law requiring such disclosure. > > My Law book has a L75A, and strangely enough, it has no exception >dependent on whether the info is useful to you. > >>> >Please cite the Law that says otherwise, I can't find it. > > "Partner has signalled possession of at least one high honour (the Ace and/or Queen), or not, (as the case may be,) depending firstly on his perception of your bridge ability as competent or not, and secondly his view of my perception. He will, in any event, be attempting to make you go wrong if there is a possibilty that you can by false-carding if he feels it appropriate". No doubt we'll get a ZT busting for this, but that is what I know partner does. I do not see why I have to state my own view of the player's ability (although he might deduce it), nor do I see that I have to tell him that partner can't have the Queen when he signals no interest when he feels that declarer is not competent. That is general bridge experience. I'm pretty much with Marv 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 Sep 10 14:08:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:08:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06669 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:08:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt091nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.47.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA16104 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <025701befb42$117bec60$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000601bef919$85db6840$f3ad93c3@pacific><007201befa70$64054260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com><01d201befad2$e4ad6e80$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:00:44 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Michael Amos wrote: > > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >> > The principle is this (very hard to put into words, but I'll try) > >> > > >> > IF PARTNERSHIP EXPERIENCE IS OF NO POSSIBLE > >> > VALUE TO ME, THEN I > >> > DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT. > > > >> What Law is that Marv ?:) > > > >The point is that there is no Law requiring such disclosure. > > My Law book has a L75A, and strangely enough, it has no exception > dependent on whether the info is useful to you. > L75A: Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). We are not going to agree on what constitutes a "special" partnership agreement, so there's probably no point in discussing that. I believe partnership experience that I cannot utilize in some way is nothing "special." L75C: ...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. Partnership experience alone does not convey "special information" to me if I cannot profit from that information in any way. *All* that I know about the falsecards and psychs of my partners comes from my general knowlege and experience, not from any special partnership agreement. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 10 14:39:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:39:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06759 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:39:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt091nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.47.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA23012 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:39:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <02b401befb46$5b423260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990907171524.01282c08@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990909164752.01288714@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: hesitation and double Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:38:36 -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 Michael Dennis wrote: >Marv wrote: > >There are no "shifting sands" in the ACBL Alert regulations, at > >least not since the current Alert Procedure (AP) was established two > >years ago. The double is Alertable, because *all* doubles after > >partner has acted (except for ordinary negative doubles of suit > >overcalls, through 4H, after a one-level natural suit opening) are > >Alertable. This is a nice simple rule, easy to remember. Whether a > >different meaning for a double becomes predominant over time doesn't > >matter, at least until the ACBL changes the AP. > > > >In order to "keep up," all the "average player" has to do is > >download the AP from the ACBL website, or download the digest of the > >AP from David Stevenson's website. > > > The ACBL Alert Procedures have undergone at least three significant > revisions in the past 10 to 15 years, I believe. You call that "shifting sands"? I call it solid steppingstones. >Nor are they quite so > simple, with respect to doubles, as you have suggested. In fact, your > mis-statement of the AP demonstrates more eloquently than anything I could > write just how messy this procedure is. Surely your phrase "*all* doubles" > was meant to refer to "all non-penalty doubles". Yes, non-penalty doubles, of course. I corrected that obvious omission in a later e-mail. You are not justified in attributing my inadvertent omission of an adjective to the complexity of the AP. It is not Netiquette to jump on typos and other obvious small mistakes. We type e-mail off-the-cuff with no time for laborious editing. It's informal, like writing a letter, so please show some tolerance. >But even then, you have > substantially oversimplified a procedure that not one in ten ACBL members > could accurately summarize. Not one in ten ACBL members has any grasp of the Laws of the game they are playing. It's pure laziness. Bridge is a complex game, and the rules have to be complex. And what do you mean, "oversimplified"? We were discussing the Alertability of non-penalty doubles after partner has acted, which is so simple that it cannot be oversimplified. Alert all non-penalty doubles after partner has acted, with the exception of common negative doubles through 4H. (The exception was added at the demand of players, who felt that negative doubles were so very common that, like normal takeout doubles, they should no longer be Alerted.) Here's another simple rule that few seem to know: Alert all non-penalty doubles of opposing notrump bids. That includes 1x-P-1NT-Dbl, even though this is commonly played as a takeout double. > > For the benefit of those lacking the patience to wade through this mess, I > will simply point out that the procedures divides doubles into Type I and > Type II. I quote from the web version: > Snip of AP definition of Type I and Type II doubles, which doesn't read well. > Simple? Hardly. I didn't say that *all* Alert rules for doubles are simple. I thought we were discussing non-penalty doubles after partner has acted, which is a simple subject. >Only people like us (i.e., BLML'ers) could even hope to > utilize this framework, and even then I would like to be able to sneak a > peak at the written version rather than rely on my memory. It is, in truth, > an abject failure at its nominal objective, which is to provide a clear, > understandable guide for ACBL players to use in knowing when to alert. My digest of the AP, viewable on David Stevenson's website, sorts out the "mess" quite well, I believe. Have you seen it? In creating it, with the help of Gary Blaiss, I came to think the 16-page AP wasn't too bad when boiled down to its elements. A one-page WordPerfect version is available from me for the asking. Anyone who can't remember one page of Alert rules ought not to be playing (or directing) serious duplicate bridge > > Bad enough, I suppose, but there's more. Correctly followed, the policy > leads to a result which is contrary to the putative purpose of Alerts: to > warn the opponents when an unusual or unexpected agreement is in force. If, > as many have argued in this thread, the meaning of the original double > would be other than penalty in most partnerships, then the curious effect > of the AP is to require alerts for the usual, expected meaning of the > double while not requiring them for the unexpected meaning (penalty). And > of course the particular double in question is (potentially) representative > of an entire class of responsive/competitive/card-showing doubles which are > increasing in popularity. > The ACBL Alert policy is not driven only by what is expected, because that would make the it hideously complex, and indeed there would be "shifting sand" as expectations change. Rather, it provides an assumed unAlertable meaning for calls, common or not, and requires an Alert or Announcement for other meanings, even though some of them are "expected." The obvious goal was to minimize the number of exceptions. This philosophy has not been followed consistently, but they did the best they could. Micromanagement by the BoD may have interfered with the process. There are times when the ACBL can't seem to make up its mind(s) about the Alert philosophy. The rules on the Alertability of major suit bypasses are extremely complex and should be simplified. Instead of making a simple rule (Alert all possible major suit bypasses at the one-level), the AP has some complicated rules that cater to the "what is expected" philosophy, a poor decision. Not one player in a thousand knows the current bypass rules, and you can legitimately complain about that. Let's remember that writing a good set of Alert regulations is a very difficult task. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 10 17:02:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 17:02:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07203 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 17:02:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA29222 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 08:02:07 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 08:02 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: understanding, agreement, experience To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: David Stevenson > >I would be alerting an HdW Spanish Major as a "bid which may have an > >unexpected meaning" - this is a fairly generic catchall which I > believe >does require me to exercise intuition/judgement. The HdWSM > does *not* >have an unexpected meaning to a BLML subscriber (at least > that was your >original premise). > > This is interesting. While it may be technically correct you should > allow yourself to be over-ruled where specific examples are given, and > alert if in any doubt. Do you *know* that all members of BLML have read > Herman's every word? I'd be surprised if *any* member had read his every word! I'd be in no doubt that regular posters were aware of his specific proclivities in this instance. Playing rubber bridge I will pre-alert, or alert, if one of my opponents is a relative stranger to the club and partner is known to be a frequent psycher but not if both oppos are regulars - this seems to me an analogous situation. > > Take a silly example, just to make the point clear. You ask a pair > whether they have an agreement about an overcall. They say [as a > Manchester pair did against Grattan and myself about fifteen or so years > ago] that they have *no* agreement about overcalls whatever. > > If true, then that means that the pair have no idea when partner > overcalls 1S over 1C whether it could be > > QTxx or AKQJx > xxx KQx > xxxx Qx > xx xxx > > At that time, players from Liverpool would overcall on the first hand > and players from Manchester on the second hand. Of course if the pair > did not know each other .... but they had been married for some years! I would take this as revealing an implicit agreement unless they could convince me that a) Despite being married they had very seldom played together b) One was a Merseysider and the other a Manc > > A Director would have no difficulty judging that they had some > agreements about overcalls even though discovering what they were might > have been difficult. Agreed > > [Aside: Over the years, I have found one strange English phenomenon: > players who are helpful in describing their system otherwise are very > unhelpful about simple overcalls. No idea why. On CCs they often write > "Natural" as their only description.] Curious. Perhaps we just don't really think about such things - I think I'd find it harder to describe this than any other aspects of my partner's style. > >> >2. Was any unusual action taken by psycher's partner (eg did the > >> player >take an action that would not be considered an LA)? Yes: Go > > to >3, No: End > >> > >> No: end? What about misinformation? > > >At this stage I have determined that no understanding or agreement > exists >so there can be no MI. > > To reach #2 we needed a Yes from #1 which means you determined the > opposite. A yes from #1 went to #3 (#2 is an additional level of investigation that is only required if no understanding is implied at #1). > Now, the EBU approach is to conclude that damage is nearly impossible > to assess since re-starting an auction from scratch allows for too many > possibilities. Neither of us like it when ACBL ACs award A+/A- on the grounds that finding an adjusted score is too difficult. I'd prefer to see a proper adjustment with generous interpretations of possible damage. >Thus the non-psyching pair gets 60% or their session > score or their score on the board whichever is the greatest. > Technically, this means that sometimes they will get an adjustment when > not damaged but it would have been very difficult to prove, and > sometimes they lose when [say] they get a 70% score and might have got > an 89% score. Your view is technically correct but our approach is > practical and sensible. Not only practical but commonly understood and fairly well regarded. For these reasons it may not be desirable to try and replace it even if we do come up with a technically better process (but speculation does no harm). Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 10 18:09:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA07386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 18:09:59 +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 SAA07381 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 18:09:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-19.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.19]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA24844 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:09:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37D7D779.D37C6D59@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 17:51:21 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? References: <199909091321.OAA20099@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > OK, if the regulation actually states that "to play a > > convention that is not mentioned on the CC is illegal". I > > have never seen that. > > > > I can imagine that in many international championships, > > there would be many illegal conventional calls if that were > > the regulation. > > > [ examples snipped ] > > > > So a regulation like Grattan speaks of would be hard to > > implement. > > You can imagine weaker regulations which would still make > the original 1NT overcall illegal. > > "A call is illegal which should appear on the CC but does not." > > Where "should appear" applies to (something like) > opening bid, overcalls, responses, and anything opponents are > likely to need to prepare a special defence to. > > An even weaker regulation would be "A call is illegal which > appears on the CC submitted in advance with a different meaning". > The English are getting into a corner here. Yes indeed, a regulation like the one Robin describes could be possible, but it does not exist in any SO that I know of. Barring such a regulation, a call cannot be "illegal" just because there is less than full disclosure about it. > I do think that an automatic penalty (i.e. regardless of consequent > damage) is appropriate for pairs who say in advance that they are > playing one thing and turn up and play another. (I understand Ton > and Herman disagree.) > No I don't, and I have already read Ton's answer, so I can say, we don't. All the things described in many of these threads can be subject to PP's, and in most cases I would in fact apply quite a few of those. But none of the cases described renders any call illegal, and so ArtAS are not being correctly applied. They all need damage, and consequently L12C2 adjustments. > Robin -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 10 21:48:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:48:36 +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 VAA07935 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:48:26 +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 11PPA8-0004Rc-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:48:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:50:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? References: <01befa57$bdca40c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01befa57$bdca40c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >From: John (MadDog) Probst >. Decent UK players don't >>much bother with recording psyches btw. >That is a statement which really annoys me. >My experience of "decent players" is that they belong to a world >apart. They arrive after the advertised starting time,They do not >score on the correct line. They do not move the boards in the >right direction, they are not charming to their opponents, and now >they ignore the regulations. What an example to set the lesser >mortals! In YC it would appear to be with the support of the TD. >I can only view this as self serving.(They won't record my psyche >next time!) >Is this good for Bridge? Your experience is different from most people's hereabouts. The general opinion is that the ones who behave as you describe tend to be the experienced middle-of-the-road players. Not all of them by any means, but they are the ones that cause the trouble and bad feelings. Of course there are exceptions at every level but my experience from directing is that when someone calls the Director for a petty problem [as they did in Bournemouth when declarer claimed in 7NT holding 13 tricks on top] it is either [a] a total novice who does not understand what is going on or [b] a bloody-minded experienced middle-of-the-road player. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 11 00:15:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA08461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 00:15:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.mail.gxn.net [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA08456 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 00:15:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from p95s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.150] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11PRS1-00067k-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:14:53 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:18:50 +0100 Message-ID: <01befb97$6797fd00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: David Stevenson Date: Friday, September 10, 1999 3:17 PM Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Friday, September 10, 1999 1:16 PM >Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? > > >>Anne Jones wrote: >>>From: John (MadDog) Probst >> >>>. Decent UK players don't >>>>much bother with recording psyches btw. >> >>>That is a statement which really annoys me. >>>My experience of "decent players" is that they belong to a world >>>apart. They arrive after the advertised starting time,They do not >>>score on the correct line. They do not move the boards in the >>>right direction, they are not charming to their opponents, and now >>>they ignore the regulations. What an example to set the lesser >>>mortals! In YC it would appear to be with the support of the TD. >>>I can only view this as self serving.(They won't record my psyche >>>next time!) >>>Is this good for Bridge? >> >> Your experience is different from most people's hereabouts. The >>general opinion is that the ones who behave as you describe tend to be >>the experienced middle-of-the-road players. Not all of them by any >>means, but they are the ones that cause the trouble and bad feelings. >> >> Of course there are exceptions at every level but my experience from >>directing is that when someone calls the Director for a petty problem >>[as they did in Bournemouth when declarer claimed in 7NT holding 13 >>tricks on top] it is either [a] a total novice who does not understand >>what is going on or [b] a bloody-minded experienced middle-of-the-road >>player. > >I appreciate what you say, but you are talking about Bournemouth which is >a tournament. JP and I were discussing "decent players" when they play >in their own clubs. There are exceptions of course, and some are more >"decent " than others. Very seriously, I have found that a high percentage >of the better players in my area, behave very badly in the club. There are >one or two who can devastate a movement with no effort, and when >chastised, laugh and say "we knew you'd sort it out for us Anne". I no >longer direct the "decent" movement in our club because of this Prima-Donna >attitude of our Grand Masters. Ours is a strong club, and we have 14 of >Wales' >26 GMs as members. I am perfectly happy to direct them in a tournament >however. I know they behave differently then. >If anyone else has had the same experience I would be delighted to hear >about it. >Anne > > >> >>-- >>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >>Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 11 02:50:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 02:50:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA09430 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 02:50:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from p5es04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.95] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11PTsQ-0008Iy-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 17:50:18 +0100 Message-ID: <002001befbac$898209a0$5f8493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 17:49:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Date: 10 September 1999 09:30 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? -------------------------- \x/ --------------------- > >The English are getting into a corner here. > >Yes indeed, a regulation like the one Robin describes could >be possible, but it does not exist in any SO that I know of. +=+ Just once more: the regulation only needs to require disclosure by inclusion on the CC; the law then takes over - if it is required and not there, to make the call is a violation of Law 40B. (And quite unfair on an opponent who would have discussed what to do against it.) +=+ > >Barring such a regulation, a call cannot be >"illegal" just because there is less than full >disclosure about it. > +=+" .... may not make any call ....... *unless* an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, *or unless* his side discloses the use of such call .... in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." (Law 40B). [note that 'an opposing pair' does not mean just the current opponents at the table, but a pair amongst opponents generally in the tournament. And note that we are not talking about "less than full" we are talking about absence of *disclosure as required*. It is up to the regulations to determine what disclosure is demanded.] +=+ > +=+ In the recent discussion I have done my best to restrain myself from saying much about the Director's use of the powers which the laws give him. I have been concerned to ensure that the actual meaning of the English text of the laws should be recognised. It remains as I have said it is and where anyone fails to read Law 40 and understand the English meaning I have so far thought of only four possible causes: 1. that there is a desire to interpret this law, which has no ambiguity, to say what the individual believes it ought to say (as distinct from what it does say); 2. that the individual is familiar with the law in a faulty translation and continues to compound an error of translation; 3. that the individual wishes to act in a given way and therefore needs the law to countenance his actions; or 4. that there is an inadequate comprehension of the English language on the part of the individual. A good friend, who has a view which of these four is prevalent, suggests that I cease to impale myself on the sword of frustration. So be it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 11 06:48:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 06:48:35 +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 GAA10258 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 06:48:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveif5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.229]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA06744 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990910164601.0128382c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:46:01 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: hesitation and double In-Reply-To: <02b401befb46$5b423260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990907171524.01282c08@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990909164752.01288714@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:38 PM 9/9/99 -0700, Marv wrote: >Yes, non-penalty doubles, of course. I corrected that obvious omission in >a later e-mail. You are not justified in attributing my inadvertent >omission of an adjective to the complexity of the AP. It is not Netiquette >to jump on typos and other obvious small mistakes. We type e-mail >off-the-cuff with no time for laborious editing. It's informal, like >writing a letter, so please show some tolerance. Sorry. 'Twas a cheap shot, to be sure. >>But even then, you have >> substantially oversimplified a procedure that not one in ten ACBL >members >> could accurately summarize. > >Not one in ten ACBL members has any grasp of the Laws of the game they are >playing. It's pure laziness. Bridge is a complex game, and the rules have >to be complex. I think this is a bit exaggerated. Most of them couldn't pass a bar exam on the Laws, and some specific areas are misunderstood by a discouragingly high percentage. But that's not really the point. The rules governing the Alert procedure are put in place to accomplish a specific purpose within the Laws: to ensure that players are fully informed about the opponents' methods. If most players don't know or can't reasonably be expected to remember which are the "default" meanings in many instances, then the very purpose of these regulations is thwarted. Yes, it would be desirable for more players to be knowledgeable about the Laws and the regulations. But players' ignorance about the complexities in LOOT rulings or the subtleties in determining LA's does not have the same impact as their ignorance of the AP. It is the job of TD's to master and apply most of the arcana of the Laws. >And what do you mean, "oversimplified"? We were discussing the >Alertability of non-penalty doubles after partner has acted, which is so >simple that it cannot be oversimplified. Alert all non-penalty doubles >after partner has acted, with the exception of common negative doubles >through 4H. (The exception was added at the demand of players, who felt >that negative doubles were so very common that, like normal takeout >doubles, they should no longer be Alerted.) > Still not quite right. I don't mean to pick on omissions here, but non-penalty doubles of balancing doubles are not alertable, at least at relatively low levels, and as I read the AP this is true whether or not partner has acted, e.g., 1C - Dbl- P - 1S - P - P - Dbl Or maybe I have mis-understood the procedure. In any case, there's _something_ exceptional about balancing doubles, even if it isn't quite clear what. >Here's another simple rule that few seem to know: Alert all non-penalty >doubles of opposing notrump bids. That includes 1x-P-1NT-Dbl, even though >this is commonly played as a takeout double. You're right. Almost nobody knows this rule, and in fact, almost nobody follows it, at least in the type of auction you offer. To you, apparently, this reflects a deficiency in the bridge-playing masses. To me, it suggests a problem with the rule. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 11 07:33:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 07:33:02 +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 HAA10431 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 07:32:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveif5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.229]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA23904 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 17:32:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990910173032.0127a960@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 17:30:32 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. In-Reply-To: <002001befbac$898209a0$5f8493c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:49 PM 9/10/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ In the recent discussion I have done my best to >restrain myself from saying much about the Director's >use of the powers which the laws give him. I have >been concerned to ensure that the actual meaning of >the English text of the laws should be recognised. It >remains as I have said it is and where anyone >fails to read Law 40 and understand the English >meaning I have so far thought of only four possible >causes: >1. that there is a desire to interpret this law, which has >no ambiguity, to say what the individual believes it >ought to say (as distinct from what it does say); >2. that the individual is familiar with the law in a faulty >translation and continues to compound an error of >translation; >3. that the individual wishes to act in a given way and >therefore needs the law to countenance his actions; >or 4. that there is an inadequate comprehension of the >English language on the part of the individual. > >A good friend, who has a view which of these four is >prevalent, suggests that I cease to impale myself on >the sword of frustration. So be it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > An Olympian proclamation, to be sure. But rather than imputing either malign intent or sheer stupidity to those who read the Laws differently, perhaps it would be better to acknowledge an honest difference in opinion among honorable and generally thoughtful individuals. For example, you have maintained within this discussion that the single word "judgement" in L40E gives authorization to consider the following information in making a bidding decision: 1. That our side is vulnerable and the opponents are not. 2. That the opponents are recent world champions. 3. That partner couldn't count trumps if he was playing double dummy. 4. That partner is a solid sort who always has his bids. 5. That the opponents are aggressive players who psych a lot. But not 6. That partner likes to psych a lot. Now I have to tell you that your expansive reading of the plain English text of L40E in this instance beggars belief, IMO. To impute to a single undefined word both the breadth and the specific discriminatory power necessary to reach these conclusions is so violative of normal usage that one might be tempted to speculate: Does Grattan suffer from an irrational hatred of psychic bidding, or is he perhaps driven by unseen and unappreciated political concerns in claiming, as the Emperor's clothiers might, that the Laws state that which they so obviously do not? Someone might be tempted that way, but I am not. As the acknowledged leading authority in this forum, and as someone with a lifetime of contributions in this area to his credit, you are most certainly entitled to the presumption that your views are an honest expression of carefully reasoned judgements. What is less obvious, perhaps, but equally vital to the life of BLML, is that even those of us with far less imposing credentials should be accorded that same presumption. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 11 18:02:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA11690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 18:02:25 +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 SAA11685 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 18:02:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([195.89.178.100]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 4679300 ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 07:57:32 -0000 Message-ID: <000a01befc2b$e1dcf4a0$64b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 09:00:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do not know if I dare ask a question. A year ago a pair played at our club as visitors. They wrote Benj Acol on their score card but did not say anything about weak twos. When they opened one of these the pair they were playing against, senior citizens, had not thought what to do with a bid that was new to them. My mother stopped them playing the board and gave 60-40. Do some people say this was wrong? Why? Mother says that is what Mr Franklin would do. mt To: Bridge Laws Date: 10 September 1999 18:39 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. > >+=+ Just once more: the regulation only needs to >require disclosure by inclusion on the CC; the >law then takes over - if it is required and not there, >to make the call is a violation of Law 40B. >(And quite unfair on an opponent who would >have discussed what to do against it.) +=+ >> >>Barring such a regulation, a call cannot be >>"illegal" just because there is less than full >>disclosure about it. >> From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 11 19:53:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA11900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 19:53:33 +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 TAA11890 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 19:53:25 +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 11PjqL-00036Q-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 09:53:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 00:35:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? References: <01befb97$6797fd00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01befb97$6797fd00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Anne Jones >To: David Stevenson >Date: Friday, September 10, 1999 3:17 PM >Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? > > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David Stevenson >>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>Date: Friday, September 10, 1999 1:16 PM >>Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - a platform reached? >> >> >>>Anne Jones wrote: >>>>From: John (MadDog) Probst >>> >>>>. Decent UK players don't >>>>>much bother with recording psyches btw. >>> >>>>That is a statement which really annoys me. >>>>My experience of "decent players" is that they belong to a world >>>>apart. They arrive after the advertised starting time,They do not >>>>score on the correct line. They do not move the boards in the >>>>right direction, they are not charming to their opponents, and now >>>>they ignore the regulations. What an example to set the lesser >>>>mortals! In YC it would appear to be with the support of the TD. >>>>I can only view this as self serving.(They won't record my psyche >>>>next time!) >>>>Is this good for Bridge? >>> >>> Your experience is different from most people's hereabouts. The >>>general opinion is that the ones who behave as you describe tend to be >>>the experienced middle-of-the-road players. Not all of them by any >>>means, but they are the ones that cause the trouble and bad feelings. >>> >>> Of course there are exceptions at every level but my experience from >>>directing is that when someone calls the Director for a petty problem >>>[as they did in Bournemouth when declarer claimed in 7NT holding 13 >>>tricks on top] it is either [a] a total novice who does not understand >>>what is going on or [b] a bloody-minded experienced middle-of-the-road >>>player. >> >>I appreciate what you say, but you are talking about Bournemouth which is >>a tournament. JP and I were discussing "decent players" when they play >>in their own clubs. There are exceptions of course, and some are more >>"decent " than others. Very seriously, I have found that a high percentage >>of the better players in my area, behave very badly in the club. There are >>one or two who can devastate a movement with no effort, and when >>chastised, laugh and say "we knew you'd sort it out for us Anne". I no >>longer direct the "decent" movement in our club because of this Prima-Donna >>attitude of our Grand Masters. Ours is a strong club, and we have 14 of >>Wales' >>26 GMs as members. I am perfectly happy to direct them in a tournament >>however. I know they behave differently then. >>If anyone else has had the same experience I would be delighted to hear >>about it. I am not talking about Bournemouth. I gave that as an example. At clubs in the Merseyside area what I say is true. In lesser events in the Merseyside area what I say is true. In Welsh events that I have played in what I say is true. At the only Welsh club I have played in what I say is true. It has been my experience at all levels of the game for many years. If you have a specific problem in a club that is different, of course: I was only talking generalities. If the good players are bloody-minded they are easier to deal with anyway. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 11 19:53:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA11901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 19:53:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA11892 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 19:53:28 +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 11PjqM-000Lok-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 09:53:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 00:19:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: hesitation and double References: <3.0.1.32.19990907171524.01282c08@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990909164752.01288714@pop.mindspring.com> <02b401befb46$5b423260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990910164601.0128382c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990910164601.0128382c@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 09:38 PM 9/9/99 -0700, Marv wrote: >>Here's another simple rule that few seem to know: Alert all non-penalty >>doubles of opposing notrump bids. That includes 1x-P-1NT-Dbl, even though >>this is commonly played as a takeout double. >You're right. Almost nobody knows this rule, and in fact, almost nobody >follows it, at least in the type of auction you offer. To you, apparently, >this reflects a deficiency in the bridge-playing masses. To me, it suggests >a problem with the rule. Maybe. This particular rule is the same in the EBU/WBU. How do you solve it? Easy: you introduce an exception to the general rules. Are you sure that exceptions to the general rules is the answer? That makes the rules more complex and less 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 ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 11 23:38:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA12377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 23:38:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA12372 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 23:38:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei39.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.105]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA29552 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 09:38:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990911093547.0127d4ac@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 09:35:47 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: hesitation and double In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990910164601.0128382c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990907171524.01282c08@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990909164752.01288714@pop.mindspring.com> <02b401befb46$5b423260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990910164601.0128382c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:19 AM 9/11/99 +0100, David wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>At 09:38 PM 9/9/99 -0700, Marv wrote: > >>>Here's another simple rule that few seem to know: Alert all non-penalty >>>doubles of opposing notrump bids. That includes 1x-P-1NT-Dbl, even though >>>this is commonly played as a takeout double. > >>You're right. Almost nobody knows this rule, and in fact, almost nobody >>follows it, at least in the type of auction you offer. To you, apparently, >>this reflects a deficiency in the bridge-playing masses. To me, it suggests >>a problem with the rule. > > Maybe. This particular rule is the same in the EBU/WBU. How do you >solve it? Easy: you introduce an exception to the general rules. > > Are you sure that exceptions to the general rules is the answer? That >makes the rules more complex and less understood. > You're right, of course, that making the rules more complex is not the answer. How about making them simpler? Several possibilities suggest themselves: a) All doubles which are, by agreement, non-penalty must be alerted. b) No doubles need to be alerted. c) Only alert doubles with specific artificial meanings unrelated to either a desire to penalize or a generalized interest in competing in unbid suits. Examples include support doubles (and redoubles), Rosenkranz doubles, DONT-style puppets, and DOPI/DEPO/PODIUM treatments. I could live with any of these, although my personal preference is b). Like a cuebid, a double carries a built-in alert of sorts, and it is reasonable to expect that players could protect their own interests by asking the meaning of any double. What is plainly unreasonable (and unworkable, as the above example illustrates) is to base the alert system upon a 16-page system of categories hedged about with exceptions with the ostensible purpose of making it easier for players to know what to expect from their opponents' actions. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 01:09:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 01:09:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from relay1.telekom.ru ([194.190.195.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12647 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 01:09:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.62) id TAA00241; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 19:09:21 +0400 (MSD) Received: from h107.50.elnet.msk.ru(195.58.50.107) by gateway via smap (V2.0) id xma000215; Sat, 11 Sep 99 19:08:30 +0400 Message-ID: <37DA70B9.C3EB3440@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 19:09:48 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. References: <000a01befc2b$e1dcf4a0$64b259c3@default> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6B1C4CE9AB1AE70F47FC6914" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ýòî ñîîáùåíèå çàêîäèðîâàíî â ôîðìàòå MIME è ñîñòîèò èç íåñêîëüêèõ ÷àñòåé. --------------6B1C4CE9AB1AE70F47FC6914 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------6B1C4CE9AB1AE70F47FC6914 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="my_2.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline; filename="my_2.txt" Hi all:) Positions became more clear, discussion continues - but it seems that one= Part does not hear (might be: does not hear some of the) arguments of an= other Part:) I'd like to start with last Grattan's post: " .... may not make any call ....... *unless* an opposing pair may reason= ably be expected to understand its meaning, *or unless* his side disclose= s the use of such call .... in accordance with the regulations of the spo= nsoring organisation." (Law 40B). [note that 'an opposing pair' does not mean just the current opponents at= the table, but a pair amongst opponents generally in the tournament. And= note = that we are not talking about "less than full" we are talking about absen= ce of *disclosure as required*. It is up to the regulations to determine = what = disclosure is demanded.]" One more quote: The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the fa= ce of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious. Note = that "may" becomes very strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger i= njunction than "shall not", just short of "must not." Well, we (players, TDs) may have disagreement with several positions (poi= nts, laws) of the Laws - but we have no authority for change them: we sho= uld live with these Laws. So - the breach of "may not"-condition is almos= t the same as breach of "must"-condition and is estimated by the Laws as = "serious". The Laws have no definition for word "illegal" - but I guess t= hat everyone understands that for common-sense-usage the difference betwe= en "serious violation" and "illegal action" does not matter. There is the= only place in the Laws, where the strongest words are used: LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION = B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 2. Prearranged Communication The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information= through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned= by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion. When a player breaches the procedure with "must"-condition he produces "s= erious violation" of the procedure and he will be penalized. In L40B the = "must"-condition describes not procedure - the possibility of usage/not-u= sage of "special partnership agreement". When a player breaches the "must= "-condition of L40B - he did not breach the procedure: his doing should b= e considered from bridge point of view (by TD/AC). And consideration of t= his bridge action by AC confirmed that the action constituted "serious vi= olation" of the Laws. One may (as Grattan did) called it "illegal action"= - naming does not matter at all: breach of "must"-condition in such a ca= se demands cancelling all this action (IMO) as doing that made against ba= sic bridge principles. The TD/AC decision on bridge action may provide to= AS - including (as in the discussed case) case without any damage for re= ason: "serious violation" of bridge basis. One may discussed the meaning of the expression "special partnership unde= rstanding" (and it seems to me it is what one Part of disputants is tryin= g to do) - and that's why (IMO) consequently there appears arguments abou= t MI and undisclosing. So: - special partnership understandings (SPU) may constitute so by partners'= discussion as by partners' common experience - SPU due partners' discussion provides so to conventions as to treatment= s - there happens that even using of treatment one should announce in advan= ce and alert this SPU (for example Roman Club natural 1NT respond after p= artner's opening at 1 level) - the main part of SPU consists of conventions - these conventions may become (during their usage) so familiar that one = may even imagine that they are conventions (for example: created by Light= ner forcing one-over-one or two-over-one responds etc.); now we considere= d them as "bridge common-sense knowledge" (convention of range 0) - another conventions are so popular that everybody knows and understands= them (take-out double over opponent's 1-level-opening, JTB, Stayman) but= everybody recognises them as conventions; these agreements are treated n= owadays rather as above case (convention of range 1) - next class of conventions consists on agreements that are well-known an= d usually it'll do only to name them - and opponent (especially - high cl= ass opponent) will understand their meaning (for example: RKC, Cappuletti= , negative double etc.); but these conventions constitute SPU: they must = be alerted and/or announced in advance (according with SO establishing) -= (convention of range 3) - last class of conventions consists on agreements that are rare-used or = even self-made (by the players); these conventions also constitute SPU, t= hey must be alerted and/or announced in advance and they must be very car= efully explained because it were using pair who is responsible for full d= isclosing (convention of range 4). The discussed case is from the last class. And I fully agreed with AC dec= ision: the higher level of player - the more severe penalty should be imp= osed. = There are voices for estimating this case as "undisclosed agreement", MI,= "non-proved damage". I think that because of not clear wording of the La= ws Grattan's position really need to be proved - in spite of its obviousn= ess (sorry - it may be only my personal opinion). But when one constructs= examples for proving counter-position he lightly may reach a position wh= en concealed agreement might be proved as MI or undisclosing because eros= ion of exactingness in one place with necessity will provide to such ero= sion in another place. I dare to remind example from E.Kaplan (sorry for wording - it is seconda= ry translation from Russian to English): "South's hand: KJxx, AQxxx, x, AJx. Bidding (ooponents passed): South - 1= Heart, North - 1 Spade; South rebid 2 Clubs, North - 2 NT. Then South fi= nished the bidding with 3 NT. By lucky chance North had only xx in Spade = and 6 cards in Diamond... It is possible that North mistook his three Dia= monds as Spades, and South - his two Spades as Diamonds. But if Committee= believes them - this Committee will believe to anything." Well - it was Kaplan position. Now from the view of the Part of disputant= s it might be another case: MI. Because South simple forgot to alert and = to announce (forgot to fulfil the CC) that 1 Spade respond might have no = correspondence to Spade. In case it was natural North should repeat it (e= ven with 4 cards). And for my opinion there is nothing different between = this case - and discussed one. I dare to comment some quotes: Ton wrote: "I really don't agree with the suggestion that not disclosed partnership = understandings when used should lead to AS." Herman wrote: "There is nothing different between this case and any other of misinforma= tion." I agree that undisclosing (MI) leads to AS only when there is damage. But= I distinguish undisclosing (MI) case from discussed one. Ton wrote: "Are you suggesting that we might define it in such a way that using an i= llegal call (we are talking about L 40B here) automatically gives damage = to the opponents?" Herman wrote: "But in the original ruling, the way it was presented, the AC and TD neve= r looked for damage, and made their ruling without asking about it. That = is what is wrong with that case. There may well have been damage, in whic= h case the ruling may have been correct, but as it was, the ruling was ba= sed on wrong principles." No - it should make AS because of producing "serious violation" per se Ton wrote: "If you want to subtract x VP's from a result for disciplinary reasons, g= o ahead." But discussed case was not disciplinary one: there was bridge action and = it should be considered by TD/AC from the position of bridge reasons. Ton wrote: "What to do with a brown sticker being used? As long as it doesn't harm t= he opponents normally don't ask for a ruling. And if it harms, for sure t= here will be a ruling. What if opponents call the TD and he decides 'no d= amage'? We don't know." IMO - it is clear discussed above case: moreover, there was sure damage f= rom the point of view of all other pairs (at the same direction as offend= er pair). Herman wrote: "When I - by mistake - forget to put a convention that we play on my CC, = that does not make this an illegal convention." It depends on several condition: SO regulations, range of undisclosed con= vention, your level as player, level of tournament, - and should be consi= dered rather not-theoretical Herman wrote: "If you are calling the call itself illegal, you must do more to prove th= at there was a willingness, beforehand, to deceive opponents." Firstly - let's remind that it was decision of TD/AC. Bridge is rather un= protected game - and I hope that experienced TD/AC have enough authority,= possibility and caution for making right decision - especially in simila= r cases. Herman wrote: "Much as I want to declare a psychic meaning disclosable, I do not want t= o be calling the intentions of a pair illegal from scant evidence to that= effect." But it may happen - it will depend on concrete circumstances and usually = none (especially person with similar inclinations - often-psychic-doer) c= an insure himself in advance. Best wishes Vitold --------------6B1C4CE9AB1AE70F47FC6914-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 01:09:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 01:09:42 +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 BAA12648 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 01:09:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.117] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11PomJ-000DzV-00; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 16:09:23 +0100 Message-ID: <021701befc67$9ec38f80$755208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 15:49:06 +0100 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: 10 September 1999 22:58 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. >But not >6. That partner likes to psyche a lot. +=+ In this I maintain the view of past 'Olympian' authorities that the information is not authorised. +=+ >Does Grattan suffer from an irrational >hatred of psychic bidding, > +=+ Hilarious. I psyche. I try to do it sufficiently unpredictably for partner to have no inkling of it. That includes not too frequently and with some invention when imagination serves. One of my past long running partnerships reached a stage where it seemed we knew too much, and enough was too much of a good thing. I think it bad when players psyche and the partnership understands this without any indication of it from legitimate sources. But such a finding needs to be based upon evidence; maybe of a history. I disagreed with the finding in the notorious Lille case - I could not see the evidence to justify it. As to my competence in the language of the laws, perhaps it is relevant that in a career of over thirty years I spent much time devising rules (in English) on which millions of Pounds rested, and wording devised by me has been incorporated in English statutory law. But, yes, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how much faith I put in my grasp of English. Mere assertion that I am wrong, however, means nothing; please quote the laws, as I have. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 04:22:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA13352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 04:22:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA13347 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 04:22:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveiib.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.75]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA06787 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 14:22:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990911141938.0127e270@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 14:19:38 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. In-Reply-To: <021701befc67$9ec38f80$755208c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:49 PM 9/11/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > But, yes, you are entitled to > your opinion, no matter how much faith I put > in my grasp of English. Mere assertion that I > am wrong, however, means nothing; please > quote the laws, as I have. Fair enough. You have cited L40E1 as the authorization for a player to consider such factors as vulnerabilty, scoring, opponents' skill level, partner's skill level, and opponents' known tendency to psych (but not partner's tendency toward frequent psychs) when making bidding decisions. I quote: "E. Convention Card 1. Right to Prescribe The sponsoring organization may prescribe a convention card on which partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method). " Now I assert two things about this Law. In the first place, it says _nothing whatsoever_ about any of the specific factors listed above, either to authorize or deny authorization for their use in making bidding decisions. And in the second place, the entire text of this Law pertains to the right of the SO to prescribe a convention card and set conditions for its use. It makes no pretense to define what is or is not AI. It doesn't use any phrasing such as "Authorized" or "Unauthorized" or "Information", nor does it contain any references to the Laws commonly associated with those questions. Given the total irrelevance of this Law to the questions of what types of information may be relied upon in making bidding decisions, your reliance upon it as "authorization" for using some information (but not other information of an identical kind) is difficult to fathom. You have stated that the text of the Laws specify the totality of information which is Authorized, and that information lying outside of that totality is therefore UI. A worthy ideal, perhaps, but your reliance on L40E1 in this context underscores the gap between this vision and the actual text of the Laws. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 07:02:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 07:02:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from relay1.telekom.ru ([194.190.195.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13791 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 07:02:17 +1000 (EST) Received: by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.62) id BAA20615; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 01:02:10 +0400 (MSD) Received: from h68.37.elnet.msk.ru(195.58.37.68) by gateway via smap (V2.0) id xma020560; Sun, 12 Sep 99 01:01:13 +0400 Message-ID: <37DAC31C.D62CEDF6@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 01:01:19 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. References: <001601befc94$5870cf20$e35108c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------BB68E8A3640E72BDFB5BC5A1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ýòî ñîîáùåíèå çàêîäèðîâàíî â ôîðìàòå MIME è ñîñòîèò èç íåñêîëüêèõ ÷àñòåé. --------------BB68E8A3640E72BDFB5BC5A1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------BB68E8A3640E72BDFB5BC5A1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="my_2.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="my_2.txt" Hi all:) Sorry - I was said that my previous post was Almost unreadable - that's why I make my Second try with it. Positions became more clear, discussion continues - but it seems that one Part does not hear (might be: does not hear some of the) arguments of another Part:) I'd like to start with last Grattan's post: " .... may not make any call ....... *unless* an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, *or unless* his side discloses the use of such call .... in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." (Law 40B). [note that 'an opposing pair' does not mean just the current opponents at the table, but a pair amongst opponents generally in the tournament. And note that we are not talking about "less than full" we are talking about absence of *disclosure as required*. It is up to the regulations to determine what disclosure is demanded.]" One more quote: The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious. Note that "may" becomes very strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than "shall not", just short of "must not." Well, we (players, TDs) may have disagreement with several positions (points, laws) of the Laws - but we have no authority for change them: we should live with these Laws. So - the breach of "may not"-condition is almost the same as breach of "must"-condition and is estimated by the Laws as "serious". The Laws have no definition for word "illegal" - but I guess that everyone understands that for common-sense-usage the difference between "serious violation" and "illegal action" does not matter. There is the only place in the Laws, where the strongest words are used: LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 2. Prearranged Communication The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion. When a player breaches the procedure with "must"-condition he produces "serious violation" of the procedure and he will be penalized. In L40B the "must"-condition describes not procedure - the possibility of usage/not-usage of "special partnership agreement". When a player breaches the "must"-condition of L40B - he did not breach the procedure: his doing should be considered from bridge point of view (by TD/AC). And consideration of this bridge action by AC confirmed that the action constituted "serious violation" of the Laws. One may (as Grattan did) called it "illegal action" - naming does not matter at all: breach of "must"-condition in such a case demands cancelling all this action (IMO) as doing that made against basic bridge principles. The TD/AC decision on bridge action may provide to AS - including (as in the discussed case) case without any damage for reason: "serious violation" of bridge basis. One may discussed the meaning of the expression "special partnership understanding" (and it seems to me it is what one Part of disputants is trying to do) - and that's why (IMO) consequently there appears arguments about MI and undisclosing. So: - special partnership understandings (SPU) may constitute so by partners' discussion as by partners' common experience - SPU due partners' discussion provides so to conventions as to treatments - there happens that even using of treatment one should announce in advance and alert this SPU (for example Roman Club natural 1NT respond after partner's opening at 1 level) - the main part of SPU consists of conventions - these conventions may become (during their usage) so familiar that one may even imagine that they are conventions (for example: created by Lightner forcing one-over-one or two-over-one responds etc.); now we considered them as "bridge common-sense knowledge" (convention of range 0) - another conventions are so popular that everybody knows and understands them (take-out double over opponent's 1-level-opening, JTB, Stayman) but everybody recognises them as conventions; these agreements are treated nowadays rather as above case (convention of range 1) - next class of conventions consists on agreements that are well-known and usually it'll do only to name them - and opponent (especially - high class opponent) will understand their meaning (for example: RKC, Cappuletti, negative double etc.); but these conventions constitute SPU: they must be alerted and/or announced in advance (according with SO establishing) - (convention of range 3) - last class of conventions consists on agreements that are rare-used or even self-made (by the players); these conventions also constitute SPU, they must be alerted and/or announced in advance and they must be very carefully explained because it were using pair who is responsible for full disclosing (convention of range 4). The discussed case is from the last class. And I fully agreed with AC decision: the higher level of player - the more severe penalty should be imposed. There are voices for estimating this case as "undisclosed agreement", MI, "non-proved damage". I think that because of not clear wording of the Laws Grattan's position really need to be proved - in spite of its obviousness (sorry - it may be only my personal opinion). But when one constructs examples for proving counter-position he lightly may reach a position when concealed agreement might be proved as MI or undisclosing because erosion of exactingness in one place with necessity will provide to such erosion in another place. I dare to remind example from E.Kaplan (sorry for wording - it is secondary translation from Russian to English): "South's hand: KJxx, AQxxx, x, AJx. Bidding (ooponents passed): South - 1 Heart, North - 1 Spade; South rebid 2 Clubs, North - 2 NT. Then South finished the bidding with 3 NT. By lucky chance North had only xx in Spade and 6 cards in Diamond... It is possible that North mistook his three Diamonds as Spades, and South - his two Spades as Diamonds. But if Committee believes them - this Committee will believe to anything." Well - it was Kaplan position. Now from the view of the Part of disputants it might be another case: MI. Because South simple forgot to alert and to announce (forgot to fulfil the CC) that 1 Spade respond might have no correspondence to Spade. In case it was natural North should repeat it (even with 4 cards). And for my opinion there is nothing different between this case - and discussed one. I dare to comment some quotes: Ton wrote: "I really don't agree with the suggestion that not disclosed partnership understandings when used should lead to AS." Herman wrote: "There is nothing different between this case and any other of misinformation." I agree that undisclosing (MI) leads to AS only when there is damage. But I distinguish undisclosing (MI) case from discussed one. Ton wrote: "Are you suggesting that we might define it in such a way that using an illegal call (we are talking about L 40B here) automatically gives damage to the opponents?" Herman wrote: "But in the original ruling, the way it was presented, the AC and TD never looked for damage, and made their ruling without asking about it. That is what is wrong with that case. There may well have been damage, in which case the ruling may have been correct, but as it was, the ruling was based on wrong principles." No - it should make AS because of producing "serious violation" per se Ton wrote: "If you want to subtract x VP's from a result for disciplinary reasons, go ahead." But discussed case was not disciplinary one: there was bridge action and it should be considered by TD/AC from the position of bridge reasons. Ton wrote: "What to do with a brown sticker being used? As long as it doesn't harm the opponents normally don't ask for a ruling. And if it harms, for sure there will be a ruling. What if opponents call the TD and he decides 'no damage'? We don't know." IMO - it is clear discussed above case: moreover, there was sure damage from the point of view of all other pairs (at the same direction as offender pair). Herman wrote: "When I - by mistake - forget to put a convention that we play on my CC, that does not make this an illegal convention." It depends on several condition: SO regulations, range of undisclosed convention, your level as player, level of tournament, - and should be considered rather not-theoretical Herman wrote: "If you are calling the call itself illegal, you must do more to prove that there was a willingness, beforehand, to deceive opponents." Firstly - let's remind that it was decision of TD/AC. Bridge is rather unprotected game - and I hope that experienced TD/AC have enough authority, possibility and caution for making right decision - especially in similar cases. Herman wrote: "Much as I want to declare a psychic meaning disclosable, I do not want to be calling the i ntentions of a pair illegal from scant evidence to that effect." But it may happen - it will depend on concrete circumstances and usually none (especially person with similar inclinations - often-psychic-doer) can insure himself in advance. Best wishes Vitold --------------BB68E8A3640E72BDFB5BC5A1-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 07:11:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 07:11:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13820 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 07:10:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveid1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.161]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA06247 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:11:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990911170834.012883c0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:08:34 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: hesitation and double In-Reply-To: <009001befc74$62b53040$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990907171524.01282c08@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990909164752.01288714@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990910164601.0128382c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:34 AM 9/11/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: > >From: Michael S. Dennis > >> Still not quite right. I don't mean to pick on omissions here, but >> non-penalty doubles of balancing doubles are not alertable, >> at least at relatively low levels, and as I read the AP this is true whether or not >> partner has acted, e.g., > >> 1C - Dbl- P - 1S - P - P - Dbl > >The sole example given by the AP for a balancing double is > >1C-P-1S-P; 2S/2C P P Dbl, > >In which the doubler's partner has not acted. If the double is takeout or >general strength-showing, it's not Alertable, even though it comes "LATE >in the auction." Since this is the only example given for "balancing >doubles," it must be assumed that they are not making an exception to the >general rule that (except for normal negative doubles) non-penalty doubles >are Alertable if partner has previously acted. If they intended that an >auction such as the one you cite, in which partner has previously acted, >should be an exception, they surely would have included an example of that >sort. > To quote from the procedure: "Balancing doubles do not have to be Alerted if they are for takeout or general strength showing. Balancing doubles that are mostly or strictly for penalty must be Alerted. " It is true that this paragraph appears within the section on Type I Doubles (i.e., those where partner has not acted, etc.). But so does the paragraph on negative doubles. It appears that both of these are intended as exceptions to the general rule that "all non-penalty doubles after partner has acted are alertable." Your reasoning about the examples is specious; obviously they couldn't include all possible balancing sequences, and the omission of any specific category of sequence cannot be construed as overriding the unambiguous language above, which provides no exception for balancing doubles in competitive auctions. Whatever. I am less interested in determining who is correct about the alertability of certain non-penalty balancing doubles than in the fact that this could be a point of contention at all. How can this level of complexity serve the purpose of the procedure, which is supposed to make it obvious to players at all levels what to expect from a non-alerted call? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 08:30:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 08:30:39 +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 IAA14033 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 08:30:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.129] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Pvf5-000Nvg-00; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 23:30:23 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01befca5$39624ee0$e35108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 23:27:21 +0100 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: 11 September 1999 19:45 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. >Fair enough. You have cited L40E1 as the authorization for a player to >consider such factors as vulnerabilty, scoring, opponents' skill level, >partner's skill level, and opponents' known tendency to psych (but not >partner's tendency toward frequent psychs) when making bidding decisions. > +=+ I think there is a misunderstanding here as to my meaning. I referred to 40E in connection with the distinction between style and judgement on the one hand and method on the other. I think that when you are assessing what you experience or believe of opponent's skill level this is a use of judgement. This applies also to your assessment of opponents' tendency to psyche. Your knowledge of partner derives from partnership experience, his skill is a matter of estimation but his indulgence in psyching is knowledge of his method, and any anticipation of partner's psychic action based on experience of it must be disclosed [75B] and may be deemed to constitute an implicit agreement. The Director and the AC make the decision. The other words to note in Law 75B are "so long as his partner is unaware of the violation" - if A makes a call that violates the partnership agreements and partner B is aware of it without evidence from the information on which B is entitled to base his actions, A has made a call in violation of 75B. You will not need me to add any reminder that what is authorised in my view is what the laws specify or imply to be authorised; I can think of no place in the laws where knowledge of partner's psyching tendencies is stated or implied to be authorized information. [ Dictionary - 'authorize': make legally valid, give formal approval to, sanction. - Note that each of these variations requires an *act* of authorization, it does not occur passively. Absence of prohibition is not synonymous with authorization.] In passing you will have noted Schoder's explosion a little while back about the failure of some to observe the prohibition in 40A of partnership understandings about psychics. Vulnerability, scoring and other similar matters are dealt with in various other sections of the Laws and it is from these laws that authorization is to be inferred. State of the match also where the laws and regulations entitle you to know it; when they do not it is a matter that may be estimated (judgment) - not always accurately! :-)) My opinions relate to the dictionary meanings of the words used in the laws (where not defined in Chap. I) and the English grammar employed. I believe that all the drafting was done in the knowledge of the dictionary definitions - where else do we go? (This being so I have no option in my reading of 40A and 40B; the wording leaves no room for doubt. If there is scope for the kind of mitigation of the effects that others argue, so far as I am concerned it lies within the use made of the powers the Director is given.) The only problem word for me in the laws, as I recall, is 'special'. I think the laws should use less liberally defined language where this appears. Until my colleagues persuade me otherwise I shall stay with that one of the dictionary definitions which reads : "additional to the usual". I believe this reflects the intention of the legislators. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 09:43:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 09:43:05 +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 JAA14210 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 09:42:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg2g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.80]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA24806 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 19:42:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990911194034.0128a74c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 19:40:34 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. In-Reply-To: <002d01befca5$39624ee0$e35108c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:27 PM 9/11/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I think there is a misunderstanding here as to >my meaning. I referred to 40E in connection with >the distinction between style and judgement on >the one hand and method on the other. I think that >when you are assessing what you experience or >believe of opponent's skill level this is a use of >judgement. This applies also to your assessment >of opponents' tendency to psyche. Your knowledge >of partner derives from partnership experience, >his skill is a matter of estimation but his indulgence >in psyching is knowledge of his method, and any >anticipation of partner's psychic action based on >experience of it must be disclosed [75B] and may >be deemed to constitute an implicit agreement. Of course _your estimation_ of partner's or opponents' skill level, the opponents' tendency to psych, or likewise partner's tendency to psych, are all matters of "judgement". But this does not make any of them information which is Authorized. Neither L40E1 nor any other Law suggests directly or otherwise that "all matters of judgement are AI." Psyching is certainly not a matter of method, since it is by definition contrary to method. It is rather a matter of style, which is in fact lumped together with judgement in L40E1, if we are still under the mis-apprehension that that Law has any bearing on this discussion. >The Director and the AC make the decision. The >other words to note in Law 75B are "so long as his >partner is unaware of the violation" - if A makes a >call that violates the partnership agreements and >partner B is aware of it without evidence from the >information on which B is entitled to base his >actions, A has made a call in violation of 75B. I generally agree, but our dispute has been solely over the legal rights and obligations of B when he suspects a psych by a partner who has been known for his aggressive tactics. Is his knowledge of partner's proclivities UI or not? > You will not need me to add any reminder that what is >authorised in my view is what the laws specify or >imply to be authorised; I can think of no place in >the laws where knowledge of partner's psyching >tendencies is stated or implied to be authorized >information. Nor I. Nor can I find any place in the Laws where "knowledge of opponents' psyching tendencies" is stated or implied to be authorized information. Certainly L40E1 provides no cover. Yes, the Laws do mention vulnerability and various forms of scoring, but these references never occur in the context of AI/UI distinctions, and their brief mention in unrelated contexts cannot fairly be construed as Authorization for use in making bidding/play decisions. It might be better if the Laws really were so explicit in authorizing all these categories of information, but they are not. Your view that "what is authorised ... is what the laws specify or imply to be authorised" is unsupported by the text itself. It would seem to make redundant the specific list of UI sources provided in L16, and is wholly out of line with how everyone plays (including, I assume, yourself), insofar as we all rely on dozens of categories of information that are neither explicitly nor implicitly authorized within the Laws. [ Dictionary - 'authorize': make legally >valid, give formal approval to, sanction. - Note that >each of these variations requires an *act* of >authorization, it does not occur passively. Absence >of prohibition is not synonymous with authorization.] > >In passing you will have noted Schoder's explosion >a little while back about the failure of some to >observe the prohibition in 40A of partnership >understandings about psychics. > >Vulnerability, scoring and other similar matters are >dealt with in various other sections of the Laws and >it is from these laws that authorization is to be >inferred. State of the match also where the laws and >regulations entitle you to know it; when they do not >it is a matter that may be estimated (judgment) - not >always accurately! :-)) > >My opinions relate to the dictionary meanings of the >words used in the laws (where not defined in Chap. I) >and the English grammar employed. I believe that >all the drafting was done in the knowledge of the >dictionary definitions - where else do we go? (This >being so I have no option in my reading of 40A and >40B; the wording leaves no room for doubt. If there >is scope for the kind of mitigation of the effects that >others argue, so far as I am concerned it lies within >the use made of the powers the Director is given.) >The only problem word for me in the laws, as I recall, >is 'special'. I think the laws should use less liberally >defined language where this appears. Until my >colleagues persuade me otherwise I shall stay with >that one of the dictionary definitions which reads : >"additional to the usual". I believe this reflects the >intention of the legislators. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 10:22:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:22:21 +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 KAA14316 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:22:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11PxP8-000OLx-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:22:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 11:53:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. References: <000a01befc2b$e1dcf4a0$64b259c3@default> In-Reply-To: <000a01befc2b$e1dcf4a0$64b259c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda.thain wrote: >I do not know if I dare ask a question. A year ago a pair played at our >club as visitors. They wrote Benj Acol on their score card but did not >say anything about weak twos. When they opened one of these the pair >they were playing against, senior citizens, had not thought what to do >with a bid that was new to them. My mother stopped them playing the >board and gave 60-40. Do some people say this was wrong? Why? It depends whether Benjaminised Acol is allowed in your club. If not, then your mother was right - but the earlier players who saw Benj Acol on their card and said nothing could have been more helpful to newcomers. Also, I think your mother should warn newcomers if this is not allowed. Probably as much as 35% of all club players in England play Benj Acol so it is hardly surprising that a new pair would not realise it was not permitted. The exception to this is if your club advertises itself as "Simple Systems", "Novices" or "Improvers": in those cases it would not be normal to allow Benj Acol so a new pair should not assume it. But if your club is a normal club it is *extremely* unusual not to permit Benj Acol and newcomers should always be warned. If, on the other hand, Benj Acol is allowed in your club, then I do not think she has a right to stop them playing it. Maybe it is unusual for your club members but that is no reason to penalise a pair if they have done nothing wrong. >Mother says that is what Mr Franklin would do. I am not prepared to comment on that! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 18:31:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA15266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:31:39 +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 SAA15255 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:31:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-30.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.30]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA08790 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:31:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37DB6361.BDD88197@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:25:05 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: My wrong ruling Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday, pub drive in Antwerp. I get called to a table. I find, in North-South, a pair from Antwerpen, that I know, not very good players. In East-West, a Dutch couple. West calls me, and says, "I think the young lady has made an erroneous call". The bidding cards have already gone, so I ask the bidding : W N E S 1NT p 2He p 2Sp p 3NT p 4He p p p I ask her and indeed, she has taken the wrong card out of the box and of course intended to bid 4Sp. "I believe she can change that", says west. Now I am not one to let a minor matter like TFLB come between me and my feeling for right or wrong (big smiley here: ;-)). (for the less initiated TD's : in the 1997 laws this is no longer permitted, since partner has already called) I won't even go into a L25A or L25B question. So of course I rule that the bid is 4Sp, offer all three players another go at passing, and have the contract played. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 18:31:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA15267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:31:40 +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 SAA15257 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:31:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-30.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.30]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA08794 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:31:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37DB647B.E8A5DDC0@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:29:47 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: L22A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Another ruling from the pub drive. While in the computer room, Mik, the lady from the bar comes to fetch me. "They urgently require a director". I joke: "why don't you handle it ?". Mik has been standing behind the bar at the biggest bridge club of Antwerp for six months now, so her knowledge of bridge is excellent. I go to the table, where they ask me: "We have passed all four, what do we do now?" Two minutes later, I go to the bar and tell Mik she really could have handled it! TMTBLR (to make this bridge-laws related) Where in TFLB do we find the score for a round-pass ? I don't believe we find it anywhere! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 18:55:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA15332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:55:47 +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 SAA15327 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:55:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([195.89.178.67]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 4837400 ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 08:50:46 -0000 Message-ID: <001101befcfc$7d5f2c60$43b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 09:53:48 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you this is helpful. Mother says she was called to the table with the question Is this allowed? she thought that weak twos should be shown on the front of the score card. We had not thought about whether the system was allowed. The club is mostly retired people. One pair say they play Culbertson and we do not really know if they do, but it is not a problem with most bids being strong mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 12 September 1999 01:56 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. >magda.thain wrote: >>I do not know if I dare ask a question. A year ago a pair played at our >>club as visitors. They wrote Benj Acol on their score card but did not >>say anything about weak twos. When they opened one of these the pair >>they were playing against, senior citizens, had not thought what to do >>with a bid that was new to them. My mother stopped them playing the >>board and gave 60-40. Do some people say this was wrong? Why? > > It depends whether Benjaminised Acol is allowed in your club. If not, >then your mother was right - > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 22:04:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 22:04:00 +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 WAA15654 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 22:03:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.155] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Q8M8-000954-00; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 13:03:40 +0100 Message-ID: <003c01befd16$d732efa0$9b5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 13:02:29 +0100 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: 12 September 1999 01:07 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. > >Of course _your estimation_ of partner's or opponents' skill level, the >opponents' tendency to psych, or likewise partner's tendency to psych, are >all matters of "judgement". But this does not make any of them information >which is Authorized. Neither L40E1 nor any other Law suggests directly or >otherwise that "all matters of judgement are AI." > +=+ to me when style and judgement are ordered not to be regulated the inference is that they may be used. +=+ > >Psyching is certainly not a matter of method, since it is by definition >contrary to method. +=+ In this you are at odds with the bridge world in which I work. This world understands that there is a stage at which true psychic activity develops into method through the growth of a partnership understanding; at that stage it ceases to be 'contrary to method'. +=+ >>The Director and the AC make the decision. The >>other words to note in Law 75B are "so long as his >>partner is unaware of the violation" - if A makes a >>call that violates the partnership agreements and >>partner B is aware of it without evidence from the >>information on which B is entitled to base his >>actions, A has made a call in violation of 75B. > >I generally agree, but our dispute has been solely over the legal rights >and obligations of B when he suspects a psych by a partner who has been >known for his aggressive tactics. Is his knowledge of partner's >proclivities UI or not? > >> You will not need me to add any reminder that what is >>authorised in my view is what the laws specify or >>imply to be authorised; I can think of no place in >>the laws where knowledge of partner's psyching >>tendencies is stated or implied to be authorized >>information. > >Nor I. Nor can I find any place in the Laws where "knowledge of opponents' >psyching tendencies" is stated or implied to be authorized information. >Certainly L40E1 provides no cover. > +=+ I regard it as a matter in which you use your judgment since it is not a matter of partnership experience. If you are right on this then it ceases to be usable information, but I do not think this the intention. Maybe some of my colleagues feel it is the intention. +=+ >Yes, the Laws do mention vulnerability >and various forms of scoring, but these references never occur in the >context of AI/UI distinctions, and their brief mention in unrelated >contexts cannot fairly be construed as Authorization for use in making >bidding/play decisions. +=+ we disagree as to the inferences that may be made from what the law provides as general knowledge. +=+ > >It might be better if the Laws really were so explicit in authorizing all >these categories of information, but they are not. Your view that "what is >authorised ... is what the laws specify or imply to be authorised" is >unsupported by the text itself. > +=+ Firstly, we know that to provide an exhaustive *list* of what is authorized is a practical nightmare and not the rational approach. The laws do not give an *exhaustive* list of what is UI either. They leave what is not actively authorized to be UI. My view of what may be deemed 'authorized' conforms to the dictionary definition of the word. There has to be an act of authorization to make a thing authorized; over the years the drafters of the laws have worked on a basis that the existence of such authorization could either be specified in or be inferred from the laws. It is simply not in accordance with the meaning of 'authorize' to suggest that when neither a statement nor an inference exists to indicate it, an action has been authorized. Authorization has to be apparent even if not explicitly specified. +=+ > PLEASE READ AGAIN:- >[ Dictionary - 'authorize': make legally >>valid, give formal approval to, sanction. - Note that >>each of these variations requires an *act* of >>authorization, it does not occur passively. Absence >>of prohibition is not synonymous with authorization.] >> >> >>My opinions relate to the dictionary meanings of the >>words used in the laws (where not defined in Chap. I) >>and the English grammar employed. +=+ I seek to defend the English language against corruption of its meaning. You seek to ignore a meaning since it does not serve you. Here I think we must leave it; an email tells me I am foolish to give time to your 'sophistry' (sic). The source is respected. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 22:03:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 22:03:58 +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 WAA15651 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 22:03:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.155] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Q8M6-000954-00; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 13:03:38 +0100 Message-ID: <003a01befd16$d5cad420$9b5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: My wrong ruling Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:34:03 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws Date: 12 September 1999 09:53 Subject: My wrong ruling >Yesterday, pub drive in Antwerp. > >I get called to a table. > +=+ A table? How conventional. +=+ > >Now I am not one to let a minor matter like TFLB come >between me and my feeling > +=+ I have never seen it alleged [ <:-( ] +=+ ~G~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 12 22:03:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 22:03:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15652 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 22:03:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.155] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Q8M7-000954-00; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 13:03:39 +0100 Message-ID: <003b01befd16$d681ef20$9b5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L22A Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:37:59 +0100 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 Date: 12 September 1999 09:52 Subject: L22A > >Where in TFLB do we find the score for a round-pass ? > >I don't believe we find it anywhere! +=+ I believe that keeping your hands in your pockets when it is your turn to pay is known as 'inactive ethics' ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 13 00:57:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:57:15 +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 AAA16011 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:57:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-238-173.s173.tnt2.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.238.173]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA11012 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:56:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003801befd2f$00671b40$adee7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <37DB6361.BDD88197@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: My wrong ruling Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:56:30 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, September 12, 1999 4:25 AM Subject: My wrong ruling > Yesterday, pub drive in Antwerp. > > I get called to a table. > > I find, in North-South, a pair from Antwerpen, that I know, > not very good players. In East-West, a Dutch couple. > > West calls me, and says, "I think the young lady has made an > erroneous call". The bidding cards have already gone, so I > ask the bidding : > > W N E S > 1NT p 2He > p 2Sp p 3NT > p 4He p p > p > > I ask her and indeed, she has taken the wrong card out of > the box and of course intended to bid 4Sp. > > "I believe she can change that", says west. > > Now I am not one to let a minor matter like TFLB come > between me and my feeling for right or wrong (big smiley > here: ;-)). > > (for the less initiated TD's : in the 1997 laws this is no > longer permitted, since partner has already called) > I won't even go into a L25A or L25B question. > > So of course I rule that the bid is 4Sp, offer all three > players another go at passing, and have the contract played. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > You have left out critical information here. Did she say "Oh s**t" after seeing the 4He card ? On a more serious note, did you consider the partner's pass of 4He? Why didn't partner correct back to spades? The 4He call can only be some sort of mild slam try- IMO it cannot be natural in this sequence unless this partnership conceals 5 card majors to open NT. The players might not be good enough to recognize the slam try, or to consider hiding a major, but S gave N a choice between NT and Sp and then let the contract stop in He? Just how bad are these players? Despite a sympathy for N for the bidding box error, I leave the contract where it is. The law is clear that this call can no longer be changed, and S is not guiltless in the debacle. If they're not very good players, they're not going to improve if you bend the laws to let them get away with their errors. They will also not learn the laws, which could shock them if they ever get a ruling in a similar situation from a TD who carries a law book. That particular TD who makes that ruling is going to have to listen to a long lecture from them about how changing the call is really legal- after all, no less than Herman De Wael let them do it before... One of the biggest complaints that players of all levels have about TDs is that rulings are inconsistent from TD to TD. Perhaps if we started by attempting to rule according to the Laws, particularly when the ruling is as completely clear as this one, we could reduce some of that inconsistency. While I heartily endorse the concepts of "sportsmanship" and "ethics" and applaud all efforts to increase both of these in bridge, we must also recognize that they occur within the context of the Laws. Some of the biggest headaches I have had directing are from higher level players who deliberately violate the Laws in the name of "active ethics". How do we get the players to stay within the Laws when the TDs won't? I'm completely in favor of being lenient about bidding box errors, but not when it involves a deliberate violation of law by the TD. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 13 05:14:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:14:25 +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 FAA16701 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:14:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-022.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.214]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA24420 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 20:13:38 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <000301befd54$cf16a300$d6307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Clarification on 43B2b Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 20:27:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Your help with clearing up this muddle will be appreciated. An impatient dummy looks at his partner's curtain card. Subsequently declarer calls for a high Club from dummy but revokes in his hand. Dummy asks declarer about the possible revoke and declarer admits to having a small club. Declarer corrects his revoke, the revoke is established and Law 64 applies - ok so far. But is this a 64A1 or a 64A2 ruling. I think we have been directed to 64A1. In other words we treat it as if declarer won the trick in hand. If this is right are we saying that there will only be a 2 trick penalty if the declarer wins a subsequent trick? Best regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 13 05:26:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:26:24 +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 FAA16728 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:26:16 +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 11QFGG-000DDg-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 19:26:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 03:22:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: hesitation and double References: <3.0.1.32.19990910164601.0128382c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990907171524.01282c08@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990909164752.01288714@pop.mindspring.com> <02b401befb46$5b423260$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990910164601.0128382c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990911093547.0127d4ac@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990911093547.0127d4ac@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 12:19 AM 9/11/99 +0100, David wrote: >>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>>At 09:38 PM 9/9/99 -0700, Marv wrote: >> >>>>Here's another simple rule that few seem to know: Alert all non-penalty >>>>doubles of opposing notrump bids. That includes 1x-P-1NT-Dbl, even though >>>>this is commonly played as a takeout double. >> >>>You're right. Almost nobody knows this rule, and in fact, almost nobody >>>follows it, at least in the type of auction you offer. To you, apparently, >>>this reflects a deficiency in the bridge-playing masses. To me, it suggests >>>a problem with the rule. >> >> Maybe. This particular rule is the same in the EBU/WBU. How do you >>solve it? Easy: you introduce an exception to the general rules. >> >> Are you sure that exceptions to the general rules is the answer? That >>makes the rules more complex and less understood. >> >You're right, of course, that making the rules more complex is not the >answer. How about making them simpler? Several possibilities suggest >themselves: > >a) All doubles which are, by agreement, non-penalty must be alerted. >b) No doubles need to be alerted. >c) Only alert doubles with specific artificial meanings unrelated to either >a desire to penalize or a generalized interest in competing in unbid suits. >Examples include support doubles (and redoubles), Rosenkranz doubles, >DONT-style puppets, and DOPI/DEPO/PODIUM treatments. > >I could live with any of these, although my personal preference is b). Like >a cuebid, a double carries a built-in alert of sorts, and it is reasonable >to expect that players could protect their own interests by asking the >meaning of any double. What is plainly unreasonable (and unworkable, as the >above example illustrates) is to base the alert system upon a 16-page >system of categories hedged about with exceptions with the ostensible >purpose of making it easier for players to know what to expect from their >opponents' actions. Well, I wasn't arguing for the ACBL alerts! Some of the reason we get nagged about our English alerts is that we have a few not too complicated rules and *no* exceptions. Granted we need some interpretations. As for doubles, I have mentioned a number of times before that you need alerting of first round doubles. I do not believe that it is reasonable to have 1S X as self-alerting: you really lose the whole point of the alert procedure approach if you cannot rely on that to be takeout if not alerted. Our doubles have some of the ACBL's complexity, insofar as we have too types, though our distinction is simpler. I do not believe that there is anything much wrong with it: people do not have to learn every nuance of alerting you know, just know when they should alert. The actual sequence that started all this is simple enough: in England you have to alert non-penalty doubles of NT. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 13 07:01:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 07:01:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA16901 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 07:01:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehmu.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.222]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA21145 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:01:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990912165844.0129a0a4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:58:44 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Last Words In-Reply-To: <003c01befd16$d732efa0$9b5108c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:02 PM 9/12/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" > - Henry II of England. A flattering reference in the present context. But surely you aren't suggesting.... >>Of course _your estimation_ of partner's or opponents' skill level, the >>opponents' tendency to psych, or likewise partner's tendency to psych, are >>all matters of "judgement". But this does not make any of them information >>which is Authorized. Neither L40E1 nor any other Law suggests directly or >>otherwise that "all matters of judgement are AI." >> >+=+ to me when style and judgement are >ordered not to be regulated the inference >is that they may be used. +=+ >> >>Psyching is certainly not a matter of method, since it is by definition >>contrary to method. >+=+ In this you are at odds with the bridge world > in which I work. This world understands that > there is a stage at which true psychic activity > develops into method through the growth of > a partnership understanding; at that stage it > ceases to be 'contrary to method'. +=+ At that stage, it ceases to be psyching. If I am playing with Herman, I will become aware, either through bitter experience or explicit discussion, of his appetite for "psychic" 1M openings in third seat. At that point, such bids are no longer psychic at all; they are an expected part of Herman's method. This method may be legal or not, depending on the jurisdiction, but it is in any case required that it be made clear to the opponents, within the guidelines laid down by the particular SO. >>It might be better if the Laws really were so explicit in authorizing all >>these categories of information, but they are not. Your view that "what is >>authorised ... is what the laws specify or imply to be authorised" is >>unsupported by the text itself. >> >+=+ Firstly, we know that to provide an exhaustive >*list* of what is authorized is a practical nightmare >and not the rational approach. The laws do not give >an *exhaustive* list of what is UI either. They leave >what is not actively authorized to be UI. My view of >what may be deemed 'authorized' conforms to the >dictionary definition of the word. There has to be an >act of authorization to make a thing authorized; over >the years the drafters of the laws have worked on a >basis that the existence of such authorization could >either be specified in or be inferred from the laws. It >is simply not in accordance with the meaning of >'authorize' to suggest that when neither a statement >nor an inference exists to indicate it, an action has >been authorized. Authorization has to be apparent >even if not explicitly specified. +=+ >> >PLEASE READ AGAIN:- >>[ Dictionary - 'authorize': make legally >>>valid, give formal approval to, sanction. - Note that >>>each of these variations requires an *act* of >>>authorization, it does not occur passively. Absence >>>of prohibition is not synonymous with authorization.] >>> >>> >>>My opinions relate to the dictionary meanings of the >>>words used in the laws (where not defined in Chap. I) >>>and the English grammar employed. > >+=+ I seek to defend the English language against >corruption of its meaning. You seek to ignore >a meaning since it does not serve you. You are obviously committed to your position that "The laws do not give an *exhaustive* list of what is UI either. They leave what is not actively authorized to be UI." It is a view which is entirely consistent with the "dictionary definition" of Authorization. Under the sway of this axiom, you have fallen prey to the following syllogism: 1. Certain categories of information, including those I have listed, are obviously legal to use in making bidding and play decisions. In fact, you do so all the time. 2. (Axiom) Only information _actively authorized_ by the Laws may be used in making bidding and play decisions. 3. (Conclusion) Therefore, these categories of information must be actively authorized. That your conclusion fails before any fair reading of the text seems not to slow you down at all. You have resorted to linguistic snake-charming to argue that these categories really are authorized, after all, but your assertions in this vein barely rise to the level of pretext. And as you admit, "we know that to provide an exhaustive *list* of what is authorized is a practical nightmare and not the rational approach." Of course. So how about an alternative approach? AI and UI are really just terms of art in bridge law anyway, so we are not necessarily bound by "dictionary definitions" in understanding how these concepts should apply in the context of our game. We are free to take the view that UI is that which the Laws identify as such, and that the machinery of L16 and L72 really should only be brought to bear against these explicitly identified categories. The sun will still come up tomorrow if we abandon the untenable axiom, and no important tool of adjudication wil be lost as a consequence. >Here I think we must leave it; an email tells me >I am foolish to give time to your 'sophistry' (sic). >The source is respected. ~ G ~ +=+ > I expect we all know who your mysterious Source is, although I am not quite sure he is as universally resp (Excuse me, but there's someone at the gate. Strange, but it sounds like horsemen. BRB) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 13 07:42:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 07:42:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (int-gu.gu.net [194.93.160.46]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA16985 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 07:42:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from kapustin (ppp06.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.106]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19589 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:45:02 +0300 (EEST) Message-Id: <199909122145.AAA19589@hunter2.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: Subject: Re: Clarification on 43B2b Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:38:36 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1154 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote >Hi, > > Your help with clearing up this muddle will be appreciated. > > An impatient dummy looks at his partner's curtain card. Subsequently > declarer calls for a high Club from dummy but revokes in his hand. Dummy > asks declarer about the possible revoke and declarer admits to having a > small club. > > Declarer corrects his revoke, the revoke is established and Law 64 applies - > ok so far. > But is this a 64A1 or a 64A2 ruling. I think we have been directed to 64A1. > In other words we treat it as if declarer won the trick in hand. If this is > right are we saying that there will only be a 2 trick penalty if the > declarer wins a subsequent trick? > Best regards, > Fearghal I think - we have been directed to 64A2. The trick on which the revoke occured was not won by the declarer (offender player). So there are no cases to applay 2 tricks penalty. Best regards Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 13 08:10:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:10:19 +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 IAA17053 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:10:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-199-26.s280.tnt4.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.199.26]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA22586 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002001befd6b$80e26040$1ac77ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199909122145.AAA19589@hunter2.int.kiev.ua> Subject: Re: Clarification on 43B2b Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:09:35 -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: Sergey Kapustin To: Sent: Sunday, September 12, 1999 5:38 PM Subject: Re: Clarification on 43B2b > > > Fearghal O'Boyle wrote > >Hi, > > > > Your help with clearing up this muddle will be appreciated. > > > > An impatient dummy looks at his partner's curtain card. Subsequently > > declarer calls for a high Club from dummy but revokes in his hand. Dummy > > asks declarer about the possible revoke and declarer admits to having a > > small club. > > > > Declarer corrects his revoke, the revoke is established and Law 64 > applies - > > ok so far. > > But is this a 64A1 or a 64A2 ruling. I think we have been directed to > 64A1. > > In other words we treat it as if declarer won the trick in hand. > If this is > > right are we saying that there will only be a 2 trick penalty if the > > declarer wins a subsequent trick? > > Best regards, > > Fearghal > > I think - we have been directed to 64A2. The trick on which the revoke > occured was not won by the declarer (offender player). So there are no > cases to applay 2 tricks penalty. > > Best regards > Sergey Kapustin > Agreed that 64A2 applies, as the trick was won in dummy, not by the hand that revoked (declarer). If, however, declarer were to win a trick with a club later in the hand, the penalty would be two tricks. So, it is not correct to say that there are no cases where two trick penalty applies. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 13 10:20:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:20:58 +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 KAA17331 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:20:45 +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 11QJrG-0005Jx-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:20:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 01:16:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L22A In-Reply-To: <37DB647B.E8A5DDC0@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <37DB647B.E8A5DDC0@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Another ruling from the pub drive. > >While in the computer room, Mik, the lady from the bar comes >to fetch me. "They urgently require a director". > >I joke: "why don't you handle it ?". >Mik has been standing behind the bar at the biggest bridge >club of Antwerp for six months now, so her knowledge of >bridge is excellent. > >I go to the table, where they ask me: > >"We have passed all four, what do we do now?" > >Two minutes later, I go to the bar and tell Mik she really >could have handled it! > >TMTBLR (to make this bridge-laws related) > >Where in TFLB do we find the score for a round-pass ? > >I don't believe we find it anywhere! > I award +40 to 4th in hand (at pairs) :)))) 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 Sep 13 10:58:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:58:01 +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 KAA17432 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:57:52 +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 11QKRC-0000kk-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:57:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 22:58:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. References: <001101befcfc$7d5f2c60$43b259c3@default> In-Reply-To: <001101befcfc$7d5f2c60$43b259c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda.thain wrote: >Thank you this is helpful. Mother says she was called to the table with >the question Is this allowed? she thought that weak twos should >be shown on the front of the score card. We had not thought about >whether the system was allowed. The club is mostly retired people. >One pair say they play Culbertson and we do not really know if they >do, but it is not a problem with most bids being strong Perhaps the time has come to review what you allow and do not. Clubs have a right to decide what to allow. Most English clubs use one of the EBU's five Levels, though you do not have to. What you want to avoid is having to make a decision after the problem has arrived. Most English clubs allow Level 3, which includes some strange items such as Strong Diamond, Romex and the Multi. Quite a few allow Level 4, which includes strange two openings, Either/Or clubs, transfers in many situations and lots of relays! As for Level 5, leave that to the Young Chelsea! You might consider Level 2, which is what simpler clubs permit, and is normal on Bridge Holidays. That includes Acol and Precision, Weak Twos, transfers, and all the basic conventions. If you feel your club is not suitable even for these then you must choose Level 1, which is extremely restrictive, and basically makes everyone play the same thing, and tends to be very unpopular, or you have to decide what you will allow and not for yourself. But players need to know, and if you are going to restrict to a greater degree, you must warn newcomers. My experience is that if you do not allow Level 2 you will get more unfriendliness from arguments over whether conventions are permitted than you will save. My advice is to allow Weak Twos and go for Level 2. This would include all the basic bids of Culbertson. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 13 10:58:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:58:14 +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 KAA17439 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:58:06 +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 11QKRJ-0000yw-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:57:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 01:50:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Clarification on 43B2b References: <000301befd54$cf16a300$d6307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <000301befd54$cf16a300$d6307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >An impatient dummy looks at his partner's curtain card. An infraction under L43A2A. I know certain people will argue about the language of this Law, but it clearly means this, so let's get on. > Subsequently >declarer calls for a high Club from dummy but revokes in his hand. Dummy >asks declarer about the possible revoke and declarer admits to having a >small club. According to L43B2B: If dummy, after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceding: {Asks Declarer about Possible Irregularity} is the first to ask declarer if a play from declarer's hand constitutes a revoke, declarer must substitute a correct card if his play was illegal, and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. So, declarer must correct his revoke: >Declarer corrects his revoke, Good so far. The revoke is not established: > the revoke is established Whoops! Note the Law does not say the revoke is established, even though the penalty provisions of L64 apply as though it was established. If the revoke was established the revoke would not be corrected. On to L64: > and Law 64 applies - >ok so far. Fine! >But is this a 64A1 or a 64A2 ruling. I think we have been directed to 64A1. We have been directed by the Law quoted above to L64, not to any specific part of it. >In other words we treat it as if declarer won the trick in hand. Why? Did he win it in hand? No. So where is the requirement that we treat is as though he did? There is none. So we should treat it as L64A2 and see whether this leads to two tricks or fewer. > If this is >right are we saying that there will only be a 2 trick penalty if the >declarer wins a subsequent trick? In my view, since declarer did not win the revoke trick [even though his side did] it will be a two trick revoke if and only if declarer wins a later trick with a club. So, is there a problem? Yes! I quote from the EBL TD guide 43.6 [ii]: A ruling of the WBF Laws Committee states: "The reference in Law 43B2C to the penalty in Law 64 is interpreted to mean the two trick penalty in this law". The WBFLC in Lille 1998 confirmed: No change is to be made in the interpretation of Law that the reference in Law 43B2b to the penalty in Law 64 means the two trick penalty. The trouble with these decisions is that they are ambiguous. My sympathies usually lie with the Laws Committee because I understand how difficult it is to get right, but in view of the fact that people have read this in two different ways I do think they might have used unambiguous wording the second time. Some people read this as saying that two tricks are to be transferred so long as there are two tricks to be transferred, without reference to who wins the remaining tricks. This is a perfectly valid way to read this decision. It does rather disagree with a logical reading of the Law, and people that think this Law is not ambiguous [as I do] do not come to this conclusion. It also seems a strange way to read this Law: why should there be a two trick penalty when the laws do not suggest it? Other people read this as merely reminding the reader that two tricks may be at stake, and he should read L64 to find out whether two are to transferred. The trouble with this reading is that it is not very clear why the WBFLC should bother to comment on this ruling which seems somewhat obvious. In my view, the latter is the only possibly correct reading of the WBFLC interpretation. The original Law is *not* ambiguous: it says "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established" and that cannot mean that two tricks are given without reference to how many tricks are won by whom and with what card. So I am confident that in the given scenario, one trick is transferred, and a second if and only if declarer wins a later trick with a club. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 13 16:21:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:21:28 +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 QAA18139 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:21:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.8] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11QPUB-0003Ty-00; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 07:21:07 +0100 Message-ID: <001601befdb0$2785bca0$085208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Last Words Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 07:19:53 +0100 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: 12 September 1999 22:33 Subject: Last Words >>>The source is respected. ~ G ~ +=+ >> > >I expect we all know who your mysterious Source is, although I am not quite >sure he is as universally respected > +=+ 'he'? I doubt you are aware of this contact. +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 13 22:20:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 22:20:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19155 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 22:19:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveigo.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.24]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA28184 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990913081623.013e01e8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:16:23 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Last Words In-Reply-To: <001601befdb0$2785bca0$085208c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:19 AM 9/13/99 +0100, you wrote: > >Grattan------------------------------------------------------------ >"The meaning doesn't matter >If it's only idle chatter >Of a transcendental kind. " - W.S.G. I must say, I much preferred your previous quotation. A Mysterious Source (mine, this time) has correctly pointed out that our tiresome discussion of whether absence of dis-authorization is or is not authorization is entirely moot in the present case. In fact, "knowledge of partner's previous psychic bids" is very "actively authorized". In contrast to some of your references, this one is neither vague nor indirect, and it is specific to the context of AI/UI distinctions. You have requested that I cite the Laws more liberally, and I am happy to do so: L16: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays..." How did we miss this one??? Anyway, I'm glad we finally have that out of the way, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Thanks, and a tip of the mouse to you-know-who-you-are. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 13 23:53:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 23:53:50 +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 XAA19578 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 23:53:33 +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 OAA17924; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 14:53:09 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA21078; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 14:52:02 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 13:52:01 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA05529; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 14:51:58 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA24029; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 14:51:32 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 14:51:32 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909131351.OAA24029@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Cc: cookbury@purplenet.co.uk X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David wrote: > > magda.thain wrote: > >Thank you this is helpful. Mother says she was called to the table with > >the question Is this allowed? she thought that weak twos should > >be shown on the front of the score card. We had not thought about > >whether the system was allowed. The club is mostly retired people. > >One pair say they play Culbertson and we do not really know if they > >do, but it is not a problem with most bids being strong > > > Perhaps the time has come to review what you allow and do not. Clubs > have a right to decide what to allow. Most English clubs use one of the > EBU's five Levels, though you do not have to. What you want to avoid is > having to make a decision after the problem has arrived. > I think David is slightly missing the point. The basis of Magda Thain's mother's ruling was that the words "Weak twos" did not appear in an appropriate place on the score card. The sponsoring organisation (the club) is allowed to regulate conventions, and regulate the use of convention cards (including score cards where part of it is used as a convention card). So the club can require that unusual conventions (e.g. weak twos) are written on the front of the score card. If this is the expectation of most of the club players then (perhaps) it is de facto a regulation. There is a duty of players to properly disclose their methods, there is a duty of opponents to ascertain opponents basic methods, and there is a duty of sponsoring organisations to make clear their expectations in filling out convention cards. On the hand in question, (perhaps) all three parties have not done their duty. It is not wrong for the TD to find the pair playing weak twos to be at fault in making the board unplayable, and ruling 60/40. I would have tried another approach, as a matter of courtesy to the visitors, and tried to find a way for the board to be played. I would suggest to the players unfamiliar with weak twos to defend as it were an opening one bid only a level higher (or as it were an opening three bid only a lever lower). I hope this is helpful (re-reading it, I doubt it!) Robin From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 00:18:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:18:28 +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 AAA19681 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:18:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11QWvn-000IQf-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 14:18:07 +0000 Message-ID: <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:15:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: A big one MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Perhaps this is easy - but it is a big one The scene is a preliminary trial for the England team in our annual series of matches against Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Eire The scoring method is cross-imps (11 tables in play) Board 12 N/S vul S 965 H J943 D Q2 C 10943 S KQJ S 7 H NONE H KQ1086 D KJ7653 D A1084 C KQJ6 C A85 S A108432 H A753 D 9 C 72 The auction is not really relevant - except perhaps that South doubled the final contract W N E S 1D 2H 3C 3D 3S(a) 4C 4D 4S 5C(a) 6D 7D P P * ** P P P (I may have missed the odd alert - but no matter) Contract 7D** by West North leads a Cx - won by K. West draws two rounds of trumps and claims 13 tricks showing hand and saying "I can discard dummy's Spade on the fourth round of Clubs" North - South agree, (this probably isn't their best option :)), the board is scored and written on the Table-card - NS -1960 Halfway through Board 14 - South says "Hang on a minute - you've only got 12 tricks" - TD is called - all facts are agreed - everyone is friendly and courteous 7D**= NS -1960 scores -151imps 7D**-1 NS +200 scores +139imps hence the title Over to you :) Mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 00:36:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:36:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (Salamix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19758 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:36:32 +1000 (EST) From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05658 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:36:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA172333382; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:36:23 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA184553381; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:36:21 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:36:03 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Procedural penalty by AC 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 AAA19759 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, At the last CNTC (Canadian National Team) this incident occurs (ACBL land): N E S W 1C! P 1H P 2H! X 2N! P 3N 1C alerted as forcing and possibily short (not necess. strong) 2H alerted as unbalanced min hand with C and H or 15-17 balanced hand (see below) 2N alerted as short in S Before lead, N informed oppns that S should have alerted the 2H call only as "unbalanced minimum hand with C and H" (a standard 2H call) at this vulnerability (vul vs non-vul). E called TD and argued he could have bid instead on X if S gave correct explanation. The final contract could have been different. TD let hand play, consult chief TD and ruled "the score stand". E appealed TD ruling and added N-S should have a procedural penalty because, at this level of competition, a pair should know his system and more if it is away from standard methods. The AC let score stand but reacted positively to the procedural penalty request. May be I missed some points but the above information is sufficient to answer my questions. 1- Do you think this offence (forgetting to alert 2H as standard at this vulnerability) deserts a procedural penalty when it is the first such offence reported for this pair ? 2- Can AC give itself a procedural penalty when TD and chief TD did not ? Law 93 B3 reads: the AC may exercice all powers assigned by these Laws to TD, except that the AC may not overrule the TD on a point of laws... The AC may recommended to the TD that he change his ruling. 3- Can National Authorithy give to AC the power of overruling the TD in such competitions enacting that AC acts as NA at this moment? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 01:33:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 01:04:20 +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 BAA19869 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 01:03:57 +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 QAA20578; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:03:38 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA01006; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:02:32 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:02:31 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA06081; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:02:28 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA24059; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:02:02 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:02:02 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909131502.QAA24059@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, mike@mamos.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: A big one X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Perhaps this is easy - but it is a big one Perhaps. > Board 12 N/S vul > > > S 965 > H J943 > D Q2 > C 10943 > > S KQJ S 7 > H NONE H KQ1086 > D KJ7653 D A1084 > C KQJ6 C A85 > > S A108432 > H A753 > D 9 > C 72 [auction snip] > Contract 7D** by West > > North leads a Cx - won by K. West draws two rounds of trumps and claims > 13 tricks showing hand and saying "I can discard dummy's Spade on the > fourth round of Clubs" > > North - South agree, (this probably isn't their best option :)), > the board is scored and written on the Table-card - NS -1960 > > Halfway through Board 14 - South says "Hang on a minute - you've only > got 12 tricks" - > > TD is called - all facts are agreed - everyone is friendly and courteous > > 7D**= NS -1960 scores -151imps > 7D**-1 NS +200 scores +139imps hence the title > > Over to you :) According to my reading of L69B, we only have to find one normal line to make 13 tricks (onus is now on defenders to show that any normal play will lose a trick). So at the point declarer claims, a normal line is: clubs throwing a spade, spade ruff, run HK covered and ruffed, ruff a spade, cash HQ throwing the last spade. 7DXX=. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 01:56:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 01:56:31 +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 BAA20067 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 01:56:24 +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 IAA20172; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:55:41 -0700 Message-Id: <199909131555.IAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A big one In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:15:58 PDT." <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:55:41 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Amos wrote: > Board 12 N/S vul > > > S 965 > H J943 > D Q2 > C 10943 > > S KQJ S 7 > H NONE H KQ1086 > D KJ7653 D A1084 > C KQJ6 C A85 > > S A108432 > H A753 > D 9 > C 72 > . . . > Contract 7D** by West > > North leads a Cx - won by K. West draws two rounds of trumps and claims > 13 tricks showing hand and saying "I can discard dummy's Spade on the > fourth round of Clubs" > > North - South agree, (this probably isn't their best option :)), > the board is scored and written on the Table-card - NS -1960 > > Halfway through Board 14 - South says "Hang on a minute - you've only > got 12 tricks" - > > TD is called - all facts are agreed - everyone is friendly and courteous > > 7D**= NS -1960 scores -151imps > 7D**-1 NS +200 scores +139imps hence the title I agree with Robin's answer, but I have another question. In a disputed claim case, is it ever right to award a split score? I didn't think this was possible. Law 12C2 allows a split score, but it seems to me that: (1) 12C2 only allows a split score in the case of an irregularity, and it's not clear to me that a disputed claim is defined by the Laws as an irregularity. (2) None of the claim laws (68-71) give TD the power to award an adjusted score. L70 says "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer". It seems to me, reading the way it's worded, that this is a fundamentally different thing from assigning an adjusted score. -- thanks, Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 02:49:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 02:49:36 +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 CAA20403 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 02:49:30 +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 11QZI8-000Niv-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:49:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 17:01:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: A big one In-Reply-To: <199909131502.QAA24059@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199909131502.QAA24059@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >> Perhaps this is easy - but it is a big one > >Perhaps. > snip hand > >> Contract 7D** by West >> snip facts > >According to my reading of L69B, we only have to find one normal line to >make 13 tricks (onus is now on defenders to show that any normal play will >lose a trick). > >So at the point declarer claims, a normal line is: clubs throwing a spade, >spade ruff, run HK covered and ruffed, ruff a spade, cash HQ throwing the >last spade. 7DXX=. > Agree 100%. "Sorry Guys, L69B applies, you needed to call me before you started the next hand and I'd have used L70E. Ruffing finesse is good enough for me." > >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 Tue Sep 14 03:36:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 03:24:28 +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 DAA20513 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 03:24:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-011.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.203]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA63642 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 18:23:34 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <001301befe0e$924141a0$cb307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Clarification on 43B2b Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 18:36:51 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks for your helpful answers; David Stephenson replied: >An impatient dummy looks at his partner's curtain card. An infraction under L43A2A. I know certain people will argue about the language of this Law, but it clearly means this, so let's get on. > Subsequently >declarer calls for a high Club from dummy but revokes in his hand. Dummy >asks declarer about the possible revoke and declarer admits to having a >small club. According to L43B2B: If dummy, after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceding: {Asks Declarer about Possible Irregularity} is the first to ask declarer if a play from declarer's hand constitutes a revoke, declarer must substitute a correct card if his play was illegal, and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. So, is there a problem? Yes! I quote from the EBL TD guide 43.6 [ii]: A ruling of the WBF Laws Committee states: "The reference in Law 43B2C to the penalty in Law 64 is interpreted to mean the two trick penalty in this law". The WBFLC in Lille 1998 confirmed: No change is to be made in the interpretation of Law that the reference in Law 43B2b to the penalty in Law 64 means the two trick penalty. The trouble with these decisions is that they are ambiguous. My sympathies usually lie with the Laws Committee because I understand how difficult it is to get right, but in view of the fact that people have read this in two different ways I do think they might have used unambiguous wording the second time. Some people read this as saying that two tricks are to be transferred so long as there are two tricks to be transferred, without reference to who wins the remaining tricks. This is a perfectly valid way to read this decision. It does rather disagree with a logical reading of the Law, and people that think this Law is not ambiguous [as I do] do not come to this conclusion. It also seems a strange way to read this Law: why should there be a two trick penalty when the laws do not suggest it? Other people read this as merely reminding the reader that two tricks may be at stake, and he should read L64 to find out whether two are to transferred. The trouble with this reading is that it is not very clear why the WBFLC should bother to comment on this ruling which seems somewhat obvious. In my view, the latter is the only possibly correct reading of the WBFLC interpretation. The original Law is *not* ambiguous: it says "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established" and that cannot mean that two tricks are given without reference to how many tricks are won by whom and with what card. So I am confident that in the given scenario, one trick is transferred, and a second if and only if declarer wins a later trick with a club. As usual DWS has spotted the area of confusion. I can follow the logic of going via 64A2 in this case but I can equally well understand the logic that suggests we go via 64A1. Suppose in revoking from hand that declarer had played a trump. Now when he corrects the revoke he wins in dummy and faces a 1 trick penalty. However if we interpret the wording to mean we treat the situation like an established revoke (i.e. card not corrected) he would be winning in hand and facing a possible 2 trick penalty. Best regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 04:06:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 04:06:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (mta@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA20646 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 04:06:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.177]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 11:05:57 -0700 Message-ID: <025b01befe12$729b4f40$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: x Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 11:04:28 -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 who bridge-laws From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 06:25:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 06:25:35 +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 GAA21059 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 06:25:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveiaf.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.79]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA14062 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:25:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990913162304.013eb230@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:23:04 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Procedural penalty by AC In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:36 AM 9/13/99 -0400, Laval wrote: >1- Do you think this offence (forgetting to alert 2H as standard > at this vulnerability) deserts a procedural penalty when it is > the first such offence reported for this pair ? No, not at all. More to the point, I have some problem with the standing of opponents to request a PP. They are certainly entitled to a review of the matters relevant to possible score adjustment, but the PP is (or should be) strictly between the officials and the OS. >2- Can AC give itself a procedural penalty when TD and chief > TD did not ? > Law 93 B3 reads: the AC may exercice all powers assigned > by these Laws to TD, except that the AC may not overrule > the TD on a point of laws... The AC may recommended to > the TD that he change his ruling. Yes, but. There has been considerable debate about the merits of awarding PP's when the appropriate score adjustment is deemed insufficiently punitive, and several of us have judged this to be an abuse of authority. Under a more restrictive reading of the intent of PP's, the AC's power to award them should be used very sparingly, primarily for offenses against the appeals process itself. At-the-table conduct of a sufficiently egregious nature should probably be handled either by the TD or by C & E committees. >3- Can National Authorithy give to AC the power of overruling > the TD in such competitions enacting that AC acts as NA > at this moment? I can't think why the NA should want to go this route, but in practice, nobody's gonna stop 'em. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 07:13:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 07:13:38 +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 HAA21263 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 07:13:31 +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 11QdPc-000Mdb-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 21:13:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:12:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: Last Words References: <001601befdb0$2785bca0$085208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <001601befdb0$2785bca0$085208c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001601befdb0$2785bca0$085208c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott >>>>The source is respected. ~ G ~ +=+ >>I expect we all know who your mysterious Source is, although I am not quite >>sure he is as universally respected >+=+ 'he'? I doubt you are aware of this contact. +=+ Meeaaoouuwwwwwwww !!!!!! No clues now, Grattan. Mrow *QU* -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 11:24:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:24:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21923 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:24:34 +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 11QhKb-000Ofv-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 01:24:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 18:32:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > Most English clubs allow Level 3, which includes some strange items >such as Strong Diamond, Romex and the Multi. Quite a few allow Level 4, >which includes strange two openings, Either/Or clubs, transfers in many >situations and lots of relays! As for Level 5, leave that to the Young >Chelsea! Monday Level 4 Tuesday Level 1, plus Intermed JO's and UNT, not Michaels Wed'day as Monday Thu'day as Tuesday Friday Pretty much anything except HUM's (unless you've given notice and the opponents can request you not to play them). Normally level 4 + a few odds and ends. eg We'd allow 1S 2N overcall as any 2 suits, and more or less any opening bid structure that's not entirely destructive. 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 Sep 14 11:33:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:33:16 +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 LAA21976 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:33:03 +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 11QhSi-0006my-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 01:32:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 23:04:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Procedural penalty by AC References: <3.0.1.32.19990913162304.013eb230@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990913162304.013eb230@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 10:36 AM 9/13/99 -0400, Laval wrote: >>1- Do you think this offence (forgetting to alert 2H as standard >> at this vulnerability) deserts a procedural penalty when it is >> the first such offence reported for this pair ? > >No, not at all. More to the point, I have some problem with the standing of >opponents to request a PP. They are certainly entitled to a review of the >matters relevant to possible score adjustment, but the PP is (or should be) >strictly between the officials and the OS. The oppos probably have a right to ask for such things. I would not want them as my team-mates. >>2- Can AC give itself a procedural penalty when TD and chief >> TD did not ? >> Law 93 B3 reads: the AC may exercice all powers assigned >> by these Laws to TD, except that the AC may not overrule >> the TD on a point of laws... The AC may recommended to >> the TD that he change his ruling. For an AC to give a PP is not considered over-ruling the TD but an additional penalty, and thus legal. >Yes, but. There has been considerable debate about the merits of awarding >PP's when the appropriate score adjustment is deemed insufficiently >punitive, and several of us have judged this to be an abuse of authority. >Under a more restrictive reading of the intent of PP's, the AC's power to >award them should be used very sparingly, primarily for offenses against >the appeals process itself. At-the-table conduct of a sufficiently >egregious nature should probably be handled either by the TD or by C & E >committees. The other side of this is that some of us do not have the same worries about occasional PPs from ACs. To control abuses you need occasional punishments, not every single occurrence to be punished. >>3- Can National Authorithy give to AC the power of overruling >> the TD in such competitions enacting that AC acts as NA >> at this moment? No. >I can't think why the NA should want to go this route, but in practice, >nobody's gonna stop 'em. That is not true. The majority of NAs will not do things they perceive as illegal, so they will stop themselves. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 14 11:33:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:33:16 +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 LAA21978 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:33:03 +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 11QhSi-0007bL-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 01:32:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 23:05:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: x References: <025b01befe12$729b4f40$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <025b01befe12$729b4f40$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >who bridge-laws > This should be sent to . -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 12:45:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:33:16 +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 LAA21977 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:33:03 +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 11QhSi-0006mx-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 01:32:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 22:55:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A big one References: <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> <199909131555.IAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199909131555.IAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Michael Amos wrote: >> 7D**= NS -1960 scores -151imps >> 7D**-1 NS +200 scores +139imps hence the title >I agree with Robin's answer, but I have another question. In a >disputed claim case, is it ever right to award a split score? I >didn't think this was possible. Law 12C2 allows a split score, but it >seems to me that: (1) 12C2 only allows a split score in the case of an >irregularity, and it's not clear to me that a disputed claim is >defined by the Laws as an irregularity. (2) None of the claim laws >(68-71) give TD the power to award an adjusted score. L70 says "the >Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible >to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the >claimer". It seems to me, reading the way it's worded, that this is a >fundamentally different thing from assigning an adjusted score. I do not believe we can give a split score. However, I do not believe Mike was suggesting we do, merely giving you for interest the effects of the two possible rulings. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 16:19:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:19:41 +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 QAA23062 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:19:35 +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 QAA04971; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:19:27 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990914161937.01062520@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:19:38 +1000 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: x Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:05 13/09/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote: >>who bridge-laws >> > This should be sent to . and it would have been automagically redirected, except somebody hacked the majordomo source to stop that kind of behaviour getting in the way of postings.... You can't win, no matter -> who tries to help..... :-) Markus From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 21:51:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 21:51:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23948 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 21:50:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-214.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.214]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA19458 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:50:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37DE30AF.A6756160@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:25:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A big one References: <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: > > Perhaps this is easy - but it is a big one > Indeed a very big one. In such cases, I often think it helps to disregard the importance and rule the case if the contract had been lower. > Board 12 N/S vul > > S 965 > H J943 > D Q2 > C 10943 > > S KQJ S 7 > H NONE H KQ1086 > D KJ7653 D A1084 > C KQJ6 C A85 > > S A108432 > H A753 > D 9 > C 72 > > > Contract 7D** by West > let's assume that the contract is 5D. > North leads a Cx - won by K. West draws two rounds of trumps and claims > 13 tricks showing hand and saying "I can discard dummy's Spade on the > fourth round of Clubs" > The same story can happen. NS start shouting at each other for not cashing the spade ace and meanwhile allow the contract to be scored at -440. > North - South agree, (this probably isn't their best option :)), > the board is scored and written on the Table-card - NS -1960 > > Halfway through Board 14 - South says "Hang on a minute - you've only > got 12 tricks" - > > TD is called - all facts are agreed - everyone is friendly and courteous > If the contract is 5D, I have no doubt that they will agree on -420. -- OK, I have read some replies, and the main point centers around L69B. "a contestant may withdraw acquiescence if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the cards". First question : does this include unstated lines ? Answer : no it does not. I am not willing to demonstrate this at this precise moment, and I don't believe a case can be constructed in which a trick can be lost in an unstated line but not in any of the stated ones, so let's pass on this. Conclusion : we need only look at stated lines. Do we include in this those lines that are unstated, but need to be incorporated because the stated lines become abnormal ? You seem to think we must continue to act as if the claim was contested before the next deal had begun. OK, so we have a few possible lines : All lines start with declarer taking the first club trick and playing two rounds of trumps (not irrational, and not obvious to declarer that this is wrong). Now declarer plays three more rounds of clubs, throwing the spade from dummy (stated, not irrational, and still not obviously non-working). Now the stated line breaks down, IMO. Declarer will not play on before noticing he lacks enough trumps in dummy to ruff all his spade losers. That means that from this point onward, all "normal" lines must be taken into account. Let's enumerate. hand repeated for comfort : (after 6 tricks) > S 965 > H J943 > D - > C - > > S KQJ S - > H - H KQ1086 > D J765 D 108 > C - C - > > S A108??? > H A??? a total of three discards in the majors > D - > C - 1) Ruff two spades and one heart, hoping for the ace of spades doubleton. 2) expasse (how is that in English? - I forgot) in spades 3) ruff a spade and expasse in hearts. As we see, just one of these lines works. So of course the claim is invalid if contested in time. But now. I can't believe it is the intention of the Lawmakers to allow this contract to make. If the stated line would be a normal one, there would be no doubt that there is only one line that we would be considering. We would then not be saying to south "if west chooses to expasse in hearts, you don't make your ace, so by L69B, there is a normal line in which you don't win your ace, so we don't give it" No way. Only by the invention that "when the stated line breaks down, we go to all normal lines", do we find a line in which the ace of spades disappears. So I would propose the following scenario : -There was only one stated line (ruff three spades). -That line was not contested in time, so L69B applies on that line. -That line was contested later, and there is no normal play by which the ace of spades can disappear (if it had been in North, there could be). -So L69B says that the line shall be deemed to fail. -Now West proposes a new line of play, as is his right, I believe. -So the Director rules that indeed the stated line is an irrational one, and he declares the claim open once again, with three possible normal lines. -At least one of these lines is not succesfull. I rule down one. Not an easy one at all. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 21:55:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 21:55:34 +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 VAA23969 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 21:55:26 +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 11QrAV-000Eek-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:54:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:50:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: x References: <3.0.32.19990914161937.01062520@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990914161937.01062520@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: >At 23:05 13/09/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Marvin L. French wrote: >>>who bridge-laws >>> >> This should be sent to . > >and it would have been automagically redirected, except somebody hacked the >majordomo source to stop that kind of behaviour getting in the way of >postings.... > >You can't win, no matter -> >who >tries to help..... :-) You do your best Markus, I appreciate that, and I hope and trust the rest of BLML does. When I am ruling I have a tendency to be slightly more sympathetic for people who follow the laid-down rules. OK, I approach rulings sympathetically anyway, but if I have to decide which way to be sympathetic, then I go for the people who follow the rules. Certainly, it may be only ignorance that people don't, and I just inform such people. Majordomo issues rules on how to get in touch with the owner, hoe to subscribe and unsubscribe, how to find a list of everyone who subscribes, and so on. My sympathies, however, would be for someone who issues an ordinary post in an ordinary way and has an expectation of it being treated ordinarily, rather than someone who errs by sending something to the list rather than to the address that the rules say. In the latter case, someone will tell him, and he can always try again: that is much better than people losing posts in the former 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 Tue Sep 14 23:32:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA24310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:32:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24304 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:32:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from p33s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.52] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Qsh7-0006H4-00; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:32:26 +0100 Message-ID: <008a01befeb5$8b9228e0$34a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: A big one Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:33:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 14 September 1999 03:57 Subject: Re: A big one > > I do not believe we can give a split score. However, I do not believe >Mike was suggesting we do, merely giving you for interest the effects of >the two possible rulings. > +=+ I would think this right. The case is for ruling the outcome of a claim, not for score adjustment. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 23:33:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA24327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:33:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24319 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:32:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from p33s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.52] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11QshC-0006H4-00; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:32:30 +0100 Message-ID: <008c01befeb5$8e5abec0$34a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Procedural penalty by AC Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:28:58 +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@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 13 September 1999 15:54 Subject: Procedural penalty by AC > >The AC let score stand but reacted positively to the procedural >penalty request. > >May be I missed some points but the above information is >sufficient to answer my questions. > >1- Do you think this offence (forgetting to alert 2H as standard > at this vulnerability) deserts a procedural penalty when it is > the first such offence reported for this pair ? +=+ No. But there may be a policy decision by the NCBO? +=+ > >2- Can AC give itself a procedural penalty when TD and chief > TD did not ? +=+ Yes +=+ > Law 93 B3 reads: the AC may exercise all powers assigned > by these Laws to TD, except that the AC may not overrule > the TD on a point of laws... The AC may recommended to > the TD that he change his ruling. +=+ There is no evidence here that the AC disagreed with the TD as to the Law. No point of law was disputed. It was a matter of judging under the law what action to take.+=+ > >3- Can National Authority give to AC the power of overruling > the TD in such competitions enacting that AC acts as NA > at this moment? +=+ Not relevant. Within my experience no-one has thought of 'can they?' In practice they don't. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 14 23:33:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA24325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:33:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24312 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:32:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from p33s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.52] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Qsh9-0006H4-00; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:32:27 +0100 Message-ID: <008b01befeb5$8c8dee00$34a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" , Cc: Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:46:41 +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: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: cookbury@purplenet.co.uk Date: 13 September 1999 15:18 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. >David wrote: >> >> magda.thain wrote: >> >Thank you this is helpful. >> > >I think David is slightly missing the point. The basis of Magda >Thain's mother's ruling was that the words "Weak twos" did not appear >in an appropriate place on the score card. > >The sponsoring organisation (the club) is allowed to regulate conventions, >and regulate the use of convention cards (including score cards where part >of it is used as a convention card). So the club can require that unusual >conventions (e.g. weak twos) are written on the front of the score card. > +=+ Curses! I left my O.B. at home. Does the EBU consider a weak two to be a convention? I just thought momma was saying it should be listed on the convention card and it wasn't. Not a whisper of the word 'convention'. ~Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 00:13:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:13:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24457 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:13:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA12001 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 09:15:00 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990914091409.0079daf0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 09:14:09 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: A big one Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >michael amos wrote: Herman wrote: >OK, I have read some replies, and the main point centers >around L69B. As it should, I think. But if you prefer it could center around L71C, which has virtually identical wording. >"a contestant may withdraw acquiescence if he has acquiesced >in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any normal >play of the cards". > >First question : does this include unstated lines ? >Answer : no it does not. >I am not willing to demonstrate this at this precise moment, >and I don't believe a case can be constructed in which a >trick can be lost in an unstated line but not in any of the >stated ones, so let's pass on this. I am quite sure I could construct such a case. But, luckily, it is irrelevant, since I agree with you that we are to consider stated lines only. [And you are just about the only one here who agrees with me about how we evaluate the breakdown of stated lines, so we don't have to have that argument. :)] >Conclusion : we need only look at stated lines. > >Do we include in this those lines that are unstated, but >need to be incorporated because the stated lines become >abnormal ? Yes. >You seem to think we must continue to act as if the claim >was contested before the next deal had begun. > >OK, so we have a few possible lines : > >All lines start with declarer taking the first club trick >and playing two rounds of trumps (not irrational, and not >obvious to declarer that this is wrong). >Now declarer plays three more rounds of clubs, throwing the >spade from dummy (stated, not irrational, and still not >obviously non-working). I am not sure, in this case, that this is what the law requires. [I think it is what the law requires for a contested claim, but I am not as certain for a withdrawn concession.] But, again, it turns out it will not matter. >Now the stated line breaks down, IMO. Declarer will not >play on before noticing he lacks enough trumps in dummy to >ruff all his spade losers. Agreed. >That means that from this point onward, all "normal" lines >must be taken into account. Let's enumerate. > >hand repeated for comfort : >(after 6 tricks) > >> S 965 >> H J943 >> D - >> C - >> >> S KQJ S - >> H - H KQ1086 >> D J765 D 108 >> C - C - >> >> S A108??? >> H A??? a total of three discards in the majors >> D - >> C - > >1) Ruff two spades and one heart, hoping for the ace of >spades doubleton. >2) expasse (how is that in English? - I forgot) in spades >3) ruff a spade and expasse in hearts. That would be 'take a ruffing finesse', I believe. >As we see, just one of these lines works. Agreed. >So of course the claim is invalid if contested in time. Agreed. >But now. > >I can't believe it is the intention of the Lawmakers to >allow this contract to make. I can. Indeed, I think the language in L69 and again in L71 virtually hits one over the head with the idea that this is precisely what they intended. And, to top it all off, I'm glad it's what they intended. Once you have acquiesed in a claim, you must meet a heavy burden of proof to get a trick back from me. >If the stated line would be a normal one, there would be no >doubt that there is only one line that we would be >considering. We would then not be saying to south "if west >chooses to expasse in hearts, you don't make your ace, so by >L69B, there is a normal line in which you don't win your >ace, so we don't give it" No way. Way. :) >Only by the invention that "when the stated line breaks >down, we go to all normal lines", do we find a line in which >the ace of spades disappears. No. We could also get there with the idea that we consider all normal lines, even unstated. Or we could get there by noting that the claimer did not actually say what he was doing after he pitched his spade from dummy, although I prefer not to go that route. >So I would propose the following scenario : > >-There was only one stated line (ruff three spades). Again, to be technical, West did not actually say that, IIRC. >-That line was not contested in time, so L69B applies on >that line. >-That line was contested later, and there is no normal play >by which the ace of spades can disappear (if it had been in >North, there could be). Suppose the ace is with N but is not singleton or doubleton? Now it will not fall on the second spade ruff, but it would have been finesseable. Would you have the contract make? By what justification? >-So L69B says that the line shall be deemed to fail. >-Now West proposes a new line of play, as is his right, I >believe. Under L70D? I would not say that it was his right even if we were talking about a contested claim and not a withdrawn acquiescence. Is ruffing two spades and hoping the A will drop [or ruffing two not realizing you need to ruff three and can't] a normal line or isn't it? If it is a normal line, then declarer cannot propose a new line of play even under your interpretation. >-So the Director rules that indeed the stated line is an >irrational one, and he declares the claim open once again, >with three possible normal lines. >-At least one of these lines is not succesfull. > >I rule down one. Um. Herman, there seems to be rather a gap here. Are you suggesting that after West proposes a new line of play we are to evaluate this case as a new claim under L70, transferring the benefit of the doubt to the defenders? Wouldn't almost every withdrawn acquiescence trigger this step? No, Herman, we cannot go this way. I think in this case the law is simply far too clear to allow any other interpretation. If you acquiesce, then you give up the tricks unless you show, basically, that it would have been impossible to lose them. That's what L69 and L71 both say, and that's what IMHO they should say. >Not an easy one at all. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 02:21:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA25129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 02:21:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA25124 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 02:21:39 +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 11QvKg-000AHm-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:21:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:29:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A big one References: <3.0.6.32.19990914091409.0079daf0@eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990914091409.0079daf0@eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: >>michael amos wrote: > Herman wrote: >>OK, I have read some replies, and the main point centers >>around L69B. > > As it should, I think. But if you prefer it could center around L71C, >which has virtually identical wording. Since L71C refers to an attempt to cancel a concession, and since there was no concession, we cannot look at L71C. It is important to get the distinction between all these things clear in one's mind. If I claim all the remaining tricks, the opponents either acquiesce or contest. In effect, they get until the next board is in progress [speaking roughly] to decide. If they contest, then the TD will sort it out, giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-claimers. Once that time-scale is over, the opponents can still withdraw their acquiescence, but the benefit of doubt shifts. The claimer gets the benefit. Once the Correction Period is over the claim stands. Now a concession is different. That is where I say I shall lose tricks. If I say I shall lose all the remaining tricks then only partner can object, and only if he is a defender. Then the concession has not occurred and play continues. Otherwise the concession applies: however, at a later stage, I might realise I had made a mistake: then I could attempt to cancel my concession, and L71 says whether I can 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 Sep 15 03:57:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA25454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 03:57:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe8.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.112]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA25448 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 03:57:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 44018 invoked by uid 65534); 14 Sep 1999 17:56:33 -0000 Message-ID: <19990914175633.44017.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.114.22] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: Attempt to use outlook Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:56:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005F_01BEFEB0.7E869140" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BEFEB0.7E869140 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Apolgies for my misunderstanding of everyone's needs. Quite = unintentional. I have not received email directly from the internet = during this year as my ISP has been unwilling to solve my non connection = problem. My solution has been to an intermediary bbs and QWK packets. = my bbs reader apparently does not interface well with threads. So, I am trying out outlook express via hotmail. feedback is = appreciated. Roger Pewick ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BEFEB0.7E869140 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Apolgies for my misunderstanding of = everyone's=20 needs.  Quite unintentional.  I have not received email = directly from=20 the internet during this year as my ISP has been unwilling to solve my = non=20 connection problem.  My solution has been to an intermediary bbs = and QWK=20 packets.  my bbs reader apparently does not interface well with=20 threads.
 
So, I am trying out outlook express via = hotmail.  feedback is appreciated.
 
Roger Pewick
------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BEFEB0.7E869140-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 04:53:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA25739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 04:53:03 +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 EAA25734 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 04:52:56 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id dXLTa05141 (4264); Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <361c6b7e.250ff351@aol.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:52:01 EDT Subject: Re: Last Words 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 26 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 9/13/99 8:29:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, msd@mindspring.com writes: > How did we miss this one??? Who is "WE?" Maybe the papal use of the word? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 05:30:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 05:30:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from umc-mail01.missouri.edu (umc-mail01.missouri.edu [128.206.10.216]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA25925 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 05:30:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.148.239] (mu-148239.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.148.239]) by umc-mail01.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id SYY52QZR; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:29:53 -0500 X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:37:18 -0500 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: A big one Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (snip) >North - South agree, (this probably isn't their best option :)), >the board is scored and written on the Table-card - NS -1960 > >Halfway through Board 14 - South says "Hang on a minute - you've only >got 12 tricks" - > >TD is called - all facts are agreed - everyone is friendly and courteous > >7D**= NS -1960 scores -151imps >7D**-1 NS +200 scores +139imps hence the title > >Over to you :) >Mike >-- >michael amos Maybe the second sentence of Law 71C really applies here? C. Implausible Concession If a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. R. E. Harris From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 07:06:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 07:06:45 +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 HAA26276 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 07:06:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.188] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11QzmE-000HvG-00; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 22:06:11 +0100 Message-ID: <000601befef4$f6168960$bc5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Procedural penalty by AC Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 09:07:25 +0100 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: 14 September 1999 03:03 Subject: Re: Procedural penalty by AC >> >>No, not at all. More to the point, I have some problem with the standing of >>opponents to request a PP. They are certainly entitled to a review of the >>matters relevant to possible score adjustment, but the PP is (or should be) >>strictly between the officials and the OS. > > The oppos probably have a right to ask for such things. I would not >want them as my team-mates.> +=+ Reminds me of the soccer players who signal the referee to yellow card an opponent when he has committed a foul. They seem to be doing it more and more, and if I were still a soccer referee I would yellow card the one who asks, for 'ungentlemanly conduct'. (Soccer is still a game for gentlemen?) Do we want to go down the hill with soccer? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 07:22:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 07:22:39 +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 HAA26375 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 07:22:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-199-11.s265.tnt4.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.199.11]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA10739; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004a01befef7$293578e0$0bc77ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> <37DE30AF.A6756160@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: A big one Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:21:49 -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: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 7:25 AM Subject: Re: A big one [snip] > > OK, I have read some replies, and the main point centers > around L69B. > > "a contestant may withdraw acquiescence if he has acquiesced > in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any normal > play of the cards". > > First question : does this include unstated lines ? > Answer : no it does not. > I am not willing to demonstrate this at this precise moment, > and I don't believe a case can be constructed in which a > trick can be lost in an unstated line but not in any of the > stated ones, so let's pass on this. > > Conclusion : we need only look at stated lines. > I don't think we can pass on this at all. Exactly where in 69B does it state that "normal play of the remaining cards" includes only stated lines? My read of 69B indicates that once there is acquiescence, and the side that acquiesced has taken a call on the next board or the round has ended, the existence of *any* normal line of play that would lose the trick to which the NOS acquiesced is sufficient to prevent withdrawal of the acquiescence. The stated line is only relevant if the claim is challenged in time to adjudicate it under Law 70, rather than 69B. If the Lawmakers had intended "normal play of the remaining cards" to include stated lines of play only, one would think that this stipulation would have been included in 69B somewhere. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 07:27:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 07:27:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from agomboc (dpg.drotposta.hu [195.228.183.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA26396 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 07:27:06 +1000 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by agomboc with smtp (Exim 1.92 #2) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 11R06I-0005TW-00; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:26:54 +0200 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:26:10 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: hesitation and double Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote > > > Bidding > > West North East South > > P 1 Cl P 1 H > > 1 Sp 2 Cl 3 Sp* Dbl** > > P*** 4 Cl P P > > P > > * Alerted as weak > > ** South hesitated more than 10 sec, no Alert > > ***due to the hesitation West calls TD. > > Now North explains he has forgotten to Alert, the Dbl was not for penalty > > Result: - 1 > > > > Thanks. > > > > Andras Booc > > martaandras@uze.net > > Was there a skip bid warning for 3S? > Was the hesitation much longer than the normal 5 to 10s after a skip bid? > > Robin > > Yes there was a skip bid warning, aplogises for not mentioned in details ( I tried to indicate by ** South hesitated more than 10 sec). As a matter of fact the story happened on the 38-th International Bidge Festival in Pula, Croatia between an Italian pair (NS, middle strength) and a top Hungarian pair (played in Malta). As me, one of the directors, was called to the table I decided West can withdraw the pass (as North did not bid) West passed again. Accoding to the statements of NS it seemed quite clear for me the Dbl was not for penalty therefore I let the result stand. NS appealed, as they believed the hesitation (slow Dbl) could be UI. The AC had a big discussion. They have accepted the possibility of UI but they were far from clear about the play of 3 Sp doubled assuming South made a penalty Dbl (why should declarer play for 2-2 in the trump suit). At the end the deicision was 60% for EW, 40% for NS. Andras Booc martaandra@uze.ne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 10:27:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:27:57 +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 KAA26991 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:27:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.3] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11R2vE-000N55-00; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 01:27:40 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01beff11$1b760980$035208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , Subject: Re: Last Words Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 01:26:14 +0100 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: msd@mindspring.com ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 14 September 1999 20:27 Subject: Re: Last Words >In a message dated 9/13/99 8:29:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >msd@mindspring.com writes: > >> How did we miss this one??? > > >Who is "WE?" Maybe the papal use of the word? > >Kojak > +=+ 'We' are unable to say, but we know that if we draw upon our knowledge of a violation on some other hand as a basis for recognition of partner's violation on the current hand, we have received and understood a message that does not "arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal". Oh, oui. We have a special partnership understanding. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 12:30:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA27475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:30:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27470 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:30:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11R4pZ-0002jF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 04:29:57 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990915042251.00aee300@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 04:22:51 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: A big one In-Reply-To: References: <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 14:37 14-09-99 -0500, you wrote: >>>> (snip) >North - South agree, (this probably isn't their best option :)), >the board is scored and written on the Table-card - NS -1960 > >Halfway through Board 14 - South says "Hang on a minute - you've only >got 12 tricks" - > >TD is called - all facts are agreed - everyone is friendly and courteous > >7D**= NS -1960 scores -151imps >7D**-1 NS +200 scores +139imps hence the title > >Over to you :) >Mike >-- >michael amos Maybe the second sentence of Law 71C really applies here? C. Implausible Concession If a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. <<<<<<<< >>>> Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, <<<<<<<< This sentence is (as far as i understand) removed, we had earlier this year a discussion on this subject. regards, anton >>>> the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. R. E. Harris <<<<<<<< Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 13:38:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:38:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27684 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:38:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehaj.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.83]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA15952 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:38:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990914233617.013f08bc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:36:17 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Last Words In-Reply-To: <000e01beff11$1b760980$035208c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:26 AM 9/15/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ 'We' are unable to say, but we know that >if we draw upon our knowledge of a violation >on some other hand as a basis for recognition >of partner's violation on the current hand, we >have received and understood a message >that does not "arise from the calls, plays >and conditions of the current deal". >Oh, oui. We have a special partnership >understanding. ~ G ~ +=+ > Your use of punctuation suggests that the phrase "arise from the calls, plays, and conditions of the current deal" is a reference to the text of the Laws. I feel foolish, but there it is: I couldn't find that complete phrase. Could you please clarify the reference? Thanks. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 14:07:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA27796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 14:07:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe6.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA27790 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 14:07:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 27287 invoked by uid 65534); 15 Sep 1999 04:06:32 -0000 Message-ID: <19990915040632.27286.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.114.31] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <19990914175633.44017.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:05:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0028_01BEFF05.B1088EC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01BEFF05.B1088EC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Feedback so far is that html is a problem, it was a default setting and = has been changed to txt. I also have changed mime to uuencode. = Apparently my time zone has been off and is back to CDT. thanx. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Roger Pewick=20 To: blml=20 Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 7:56 AM Subject: Attempt to use outlook Apolgies for my misunderstanding of everyone's needs. Quite = unintentional. I have not received email directly from the internet = during this year as my ISP has been unwilling to solve my non connection = problem. My solution has been to an intermediary bbs and QWK packets. = my bbs reader apparently does not interface well with threads. So, I am trying out outlook express via hotmail. feedback is = appreciated. Roger Pewick ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01BEFF05.B1088EC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Feedback so far is that html is a problem,  it = was a=20 default setting and has been changed to txt.  I also have changed = mime to=20 uuencode.  Apparently my time zone has been off and is back to = CDT. =20 thanx.
 
Roger Pewick
Houston, Texas
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Roger=20 Pewick
To: blml
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, = 1999 7:56=20 AM
Subject: Attempt to use = outlook

Apolgies for my misunderstanding of = everyone's=20 needs.  Quite unintentional.  I have not received email = directly=20 from the internet during this year as my ISP has been unwilling to = solve my=20 non connection problem.  My solution has been to an intermediary = bbs and=20 QWK packets.  my bbs reader apparently does not interface well = with=20 threads.
 
So, I am trying out outlook express = via=20 hotmail.  feedback is appreciated.
 
Roger=20 Pewick
------=_NextPart_000_0028_01BEFF05.B1088EC0-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 18:55:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA28695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:55:55 +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 SAA28686 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:55:45 +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 11RAqg-000MaY-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:55:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 01:02:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A big one References: <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robert E. Harris wrote: >Maybe the second sentence of Law 71C really applies here? >C. Implausible Concession > If a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play >of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent >board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a >trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. See my other post. Let me repeat to try to clarify: when a pair acquiesce in an opponents' claim they have not "conceded" anything. If a player concedes tricks then L71 applies if he tries to withdraw it, but a player conceding is an act of itself, and does not occur if opponents claim. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 15 18:55:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA28697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:55:57 +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 SAA28690 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:55:50 +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 11RAqr-000JhZ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:55:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 01:03:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook References: <19990914175633.44017.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19990914175633.44017.qmail@hotmail.com> 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 SAA28692 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > Apolgies for my misunderstanding of everyone's needs.  Quite > unintentional.  I have not received email directly from the > internet during this year as my ISP has been unwilling to solve my > non connection problem.  My solution has been to an intermediary > bbs and QWK packets.  my bbs reader apparently does not interface > well with threads. >   > So, I am trying out outlook express via hotmail.  feedback is > appreciated. Looks better so far. If you go into options you will find an option HTML or text: choose text 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 Wed Sep 15 19:17:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA28766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 19:17:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.pa.home.com [24.2.5.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA28761 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 19:17:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com ([24.1.53.108]) by mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19990915091734.MCUJ10006.mail.rdc1.pa.home.com@cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com> for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 02:17:34 -0700 From: Brian@meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) To: Subject: Re: Last Words Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:17:31 GMT Message-ID: <37df6026.8135613@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> References: <000e01beff11$1b760980$035208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <000e01beff11$1b760980$035208c3@swhki5i6> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 01:26:14 +0100, Grattan and Kojak wrote: >> >> >>Who is "WE?" Maybe the papal use of the word? >> >>Kojak >> >+=+ 'We' are unable to say, Perhaps Mike was aware that other people had more than a little sympathy for his view? I certainly believe that he was arguing a sincerely held point of view, and I was not the person who gave him the pointer to L16 (AFAIR). To be honest, I found Mike's alleged 'sophistry' to be a damned sight less offensive than Grattan's four reasons why someone might hold certain views. I have no experience whatever in either law-writing or financial transactions, before anyone asks, but I do have some modest qualifications as a scientist, and if my Ph.D. supervisors taught me one thing, it was that if you were going to debate something, casting doubt on the other side's motives was seldom either productive or justified. So there you are, Kojak - Mike was perfectly entitled to use 'WE', no papacy involved. Grattan may well be absolutely right on the Laws, I am not disputing that, but I certainly don't like his debating methods, at least as far as the posting I refer to above was concerned - and I thought Grattan's comments were way preferable to yours. If I wanted to read snide comments, there's all of Usenet out there. If you don't wish to get involved in a debate, nobody forces you to write. If you think someone is so way out of line that you can't bear not to respond, then say your piece and then withdraw - but to the best of my knowledge BLML is supposed to be am open mailing list, not a moderated forum for the law-makers (and chief TDs) to dispense their wisdom. Subscribers are entitled to express their opinions. Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 20:34:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 20:34:33 +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 UAA28991 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 20:34:20 +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 LAA03762; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:34:17 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA27218; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:34:06 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:34:06 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21196; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:34:04 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA27431; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:33:35 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:33:35 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909151033.LAA27431@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: gester@globalnet.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > >The sponsoring organisation (the club) is allowed to regulate conventions, > >and regulate the use of convention cards (including score cards where part > >of it is used as a convention card). So the club can require that unusual > >conventions (e.g. weak twos) are written on the front of the score card. Grattan replied: > +=+ Curses! I left my O.B. at home. Does the EBU > consider a weak two to be a convention? > I just thought momma was saying it should be > listed on the convention card and it wasn't. Not a > whisper of the word 'convention'. ~Grattan ~ +=+ > OK, so I should have written: The sponsoring organisation (the club) is allowed to regulate disclosure of partnership understandings [L40B] and regulate the use of convention cards [L40E] (including score cards where part of it is used as a convention card). So the club can require that unusual understandings (e.g. weak twos) are written on the front of the score card. ... and rule in some arbitary fashion on infractions of L40B,E. :-) Surely the EBU has no power whether or not to "consider a weak two to be a convention?", this is defined in law; but of course you can't play weak twos at level one (simple systems). Robin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 21:00:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA29086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:00:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA29076 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:00:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-212.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.212]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25633 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:00:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37DF6EDC.24B9E072@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:03:08 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A big one References: <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> <37DE30AF.A6756160@village.uunet.be> <004a01befef7$293578e0$0bc77ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 7:25 AM > Subject: Re: A big one > > [snip] > > > > OK, I have read some replies, and the main point centers > > around L69B. > > > > "a contestant may withdraw acquiescence if he has acquiesced > > in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any normal > > play of the cards". > > > > > First question : does this include unstated lines ? > > Answer : no it does not. > > I am not willing to demonstrate this at this precise moment, > > and I don't believe a case can be constructed in which a > > trick can be lost in an unstated line but not in any of the > > stated ones, so let's pass on this. > > > > Conclusion : we need only look at stated lines. > > > > I don't think we can pass on this at all. Exactly where in 69B does it > state that "normal play of the remaining cards" includes only stated lines? > My read of 69B indicates that once there is acquiescence, and the side that > acquiesced has taken a call on the next board or the round has ended, the > existence of *any* normal line of play that would lose the trick to which > the NOS acquiesced is sufficient to prevent withdrawal of the acquiescence. > The stated line is only relevant if the claim is challenged in time to > adjudicate it under Law 70, rather than 69B. > > If the Lawmakers had intended "normal play of the remaining cards" to > include stated lines of play only, one would think that this stipulation > would have been included in 69B somewhere. > > Hirsch OK, let's search for an example. Someone claims. He gives a full statement. Which works, or seems to work. Opponents acquiesce. Then start the next board, then withdraw their acquiescence. It turns out that in the stated line, a particular trick cannot dissapear. However, declarer now names another line, and in that line (unstated at the time of the claim), the trick does disappear. Is the claim valid ? I don't think so. But it may be an interesting discussion nevertheless. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 21:00:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA29087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:00:57 +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 VAA29077 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:00:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-212.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.212]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25646 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:00:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37DF6F6B.D5D565AC@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:05:31 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A big one References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Robert E. Harris" wrote: > > Maybe the second sentence of Law 71C really applies here? > C. Implausible Concession > If a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. > > R. E. Harris That second sentence has been deleted from the Laws, IIRC Refresh our memory as to how and when this has been done, David ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 21:23:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA29196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:23:59 +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 VAA29191 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:23:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from p7cs09a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.169.125] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11RD9r-00055J-00; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:23:28 +0100 Message-ID: <000201beff6c$b1683520$7da993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Hirsch Davis" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: A big one Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:52:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws Date: 14 September 1999 22:36 Subject: Re: A big one > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 7:25 AM >Subject: Re: A big one > > >[snip] >> >> Conclusion : we need only look at stated lines. >> > >I don't think we can pass on this at all. Exactly where in 69B does it >state that "normal play of the remaining cards" includes only stated lines? > +=+ It doesn't, Hirsch, as every Tournament Director knows. Like someone said about another matter, there are some things we all know whether they are said clearly or not; this one is crystal clear. ~Grattan~ +=+ ~Grattan~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 15 21:24:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA29209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:24:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA29197 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:24:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from p7cs09a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.169.125] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11RD9u-00055J-00; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:23:34 +0100 Message-ID: <000301beff6c$b4b71200$7da993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brian Meadows" , Subject: Re: Last Words - more of them. Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:20:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 15 September 1999 10:36 Subject: Re: Last Words >On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 01:26:14 +0100, Grattan and Kojak wrote: > > >Grattan may well be absolutely >right on the Laws, I am not disputing that, but I certainly >don't like his debating methods, at least as far as the >posting I refer to above was concerned - and I thought >Grattan's comments were way preferable to yours. If I wanted >to read snide comments, there's all of Usenet out there. > +=+ I am well aware that when I am forthright about what I truly believe to be the case it may give offence to somebody but I normally anticipate in people an adult capacity to accept aggressive statements and respond without intrinsic damage to a relationship. My blunt statement reflected my actual view of some of the contributions. Mike Dennis I simply consider to be someone who likes the cut of debate and who may take an advocate's position to provoke and continue debate. If you have a teeny suspicion that I am a mite angry it is because I see the argument I have been opposing as undermining the accepted ethos of a game for which (you may perhaps grant that) I care deeply. I have no problem at all with your expressing the opinions in your posting; you hold them, and it is your right to do so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 01:58:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 01:58:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00432 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 01:58:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt091nb1.san.rr.com [204.210.47.177]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA15888 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:58:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <011601beff93$0ad10b20$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199909151033.LAA27431@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:50:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > I wrote: > > >The sponsoring organisation (the club) is allowed to regulate conventions, > > >and regulate the use of convention cards (including score cards where part > > >of it is used as a convention card). So the club can require that unusual > > >conventions (e.g. weak twos) are written on the front of the score card. > > Grattan replied: > > +=+ Curses! I left my O.B. at home. Does the EBU > > consider a weak two to be a convention? > > I just thought momma was saying it should be > > listed on the convention card and it wasn't. Not a > > whisper of the word 'convention'. ~Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > OK, so I should have written: > > The sponsoring organisation (the club) is allowed to regulate disclosure of > partnership understandings [L40B] and regulate the use of convention cards > [L40E] (including score cards where part of it is used as a convention card). > So the club can require that unusual understandings (e.g. weak twos) are > written on the front of the score card. > ... and rule in some arbitary fashion on infractions of L40B,E. :-) > > Surely the EBU has no power whether or not to "consider a weak two to > be a convention?", this is defined in law; > but of course you can't play weak twos at level one (simple systems). > Illegal, of course, since (with the exception of ultra-light openings) SOs, even clubs, may not control a partnership understanding unless it constitutes a convention. Reminds me of the illegal HCP restriction that the ACBL once laid on weak two bids. The EBU might do well to use the ACBL ploy for eliminating an unwanted treatment: Forbid the use of any convention in conjuction with it, and then people won't play it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 02:22:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA00675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 02:22:23 +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 CAA00670 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 02:22:16 +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 QAA26250 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:21:37 GMT Message-ID: <37DFC7AF.B1BFBCB4@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:22:07 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A big one References: <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> <37DE30AF.A6756160@village.uunet.be> <004a01befef7$293578e0$0bc77ad1@hdavis> <37DF6EDC.24B9E072@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael a écrit : > OK, let's search for an example. > > Someone claims. > > He gives a full statement. Which works, or seems to work. > > Opponents acquiesce. Then start the next board, then > withdraw their acquiescence. > > It turns out that in the stated line, a particular trick > cannot dissapear. > > However, declarer now names another line, and in that line > (unstated at the time of the claim), the trick does > disappear. > Is the claim valid ? > > I don't think so. > I read so, but maybe we have not the same book: According to 69B (acquiescence lately withdrawn) claimer's line is no more needed, nor is he asked to find another line, nor has he to remind anything about his play of the deal. He only needs a good enough barrister-TD to find a "normal" line allowing him to win the number of tricks pointed in the claim. The "normal" line could even include an inferior defense by non-claimer, as 69B says "lost" (hence by non-claimer) " by any normal play of the remaining cards" and not "won (which would be by claimer, against best defense) by any...". I think that in a situation in which declarer claims the remaining tricks when a defenser, on lead, could give a ruff to his partner, this declarer must be given all these tricks in case of a late withdrawal of acquiescence. JP Rocafort > > But it may be an interesting discussion nevertheless. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 03:41:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 03:41:34 +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 DAA01056 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 03:41:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA28188; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:40:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-189.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.189) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028049; Wed Sep 15 12:38:59 1999 Message-ID: <001801beffa1$736b9340$bd84d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Brian Meadows" , Subject: Re: Last Words Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:40:47 -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 to the best of my knowledge BLML is >supposed to be am open mailing list, not a moderated forum >for the law-makers (and chief TDs) to dispense their wisdom. >Subscribers are entitled to express their opinions. >Brian. (Meadows) Without taking a position on the original argument, I have to heartily endorse this comment. Without input from the half of the members of the list that are not in the higher echelon of expertise, it is quite less valuable a forum. That we should all try to use common courtesy should be a given, but that does not extend to remaining silent when we have opinions. If wrong, we can have our views refuted and learn thereby; if right in some part we may be making a valuable contribution to thought on the subject. Reasoned discourse should be encouraged over fearful lurking. That being said, I suspect the "law-makers (and chief TDs) would probably be the first to agree, even if they do get a little bit crusty sometimes. Perhaps that is a concomitant attribute to their unique genius. :-)) -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 04:11:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 04:11:22 +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 EAA01196 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 04:11:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA05206; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:08:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-189.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.189) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma005132; Wed Sep 15 13:07:38 1999 Message-ID: <003601beffa5$73edbec0$bd84d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Hirsch Davis" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: A big one Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 14:09:25 -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 Both 69B (which applies in this case) and 71C (which does not) refer to "any normal" line, not "any stated" line. The meaning is indeed crystal clear. If there is ANY normal line, stated or unstated, careless, inferior or brilliant by which the trick can not be lost, then the acquiescence cannot be withdrawn. That IS what you meant, isn't it? If not, then the law states plainly what you did not intend in clear English. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Hirsch Davis ; Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 7:23 AM Subject: Re: A big one > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >The man who says to one, go, and he goeth, >and to another, come, and he cometh, has, >in most cases, more sense of restraint and >difficulty than the man who obeys him." (Ruskin) >wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww >-----Original Message----- >From: Hirsch Davis >To: Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws > >Date: 14 September 1999 22:36 >Subject: Re: A big one > > >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Herman De Wael >>To: Bridge Laws >>Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 7:25 AM >>Subject: Re: A big one >> >> >>[snip] >>> >>> Conclusion : we need only look at stated lines. >>> >> >>I don't think we can pass on this at all. Exactly where in 69B does it >>state that "normal play of the remaining cards" includes only stated lines? >> >+=+ It doesn't, Hirsch, as every Tournament Director >knows. Like someone said about another matter, there >are some things we all know whether they are said >clearly or not; this one is crystal clear. ~Grattan~ +=+ > ~Grattan~ +=+ > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 06:27:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 06:27:09 +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 GAA01669 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 06:27:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehch.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.145]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA31322 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:26:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990915162436.013f5070@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:24:36 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. In-Reply-To: <199909151033.LAA27431@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:33 AM 9/15/99 +0100, Robin wrote: >Surely the EBU has no power whether or not to "consider a weak two to >be a convention?", this is defined in law; >but of course you can't play weak twos at level one (simple systems). > Surely they do have that power, though perhaps not the authority. David seem to have faith in the good intentions of the NA's to obey the Laws, and maybe his judgement in this respect is founded in his long experience. While I have no doubt that fidelity to the Laws is valued by all NA's, my own experience on this side of the ocean is that it is only one value, and not necessarily the overriding one, which informs policy-making decisions. Where the ACBL judges the interests of its membership to be contrary to the requirements of the Laws, they will use the thinnest of pretexts, and sometimes none at all, to ignore those requirements. Although many of us are frustrated by specific examples of this behavior, I'm not altogether sure it is a bad thing. What is undeniably appalling, however, is the brazenness with which such violations are perpetrated even as the organization insists on its compliance. Whether these kinds of issues arise in other jurisdictions I cannot say. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 08:04:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:04:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.mail.gxn.net [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA01998 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:04:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from pbcs12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.189] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11RN9g-0000a2-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 23:03:56 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 23:08:37 +0100 Message-ID: <01beffc6$dc3941e0$bd8c93c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: Robin Barker Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 3:17 PM Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Robin Barker >To: gester@globalnet.co.uk ; >bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 11:53 AM >Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. > > >> >>I wrote: >>> >The sponsoring organisation (the club) is allowed to regulate >conventions, >>> >and regulate the use of convention cards (including score cards where >part >>> >of it is used as a convention card). So the club can require that >unusual >>> >conventions (e.g. weak twos) are written on the front of the score card. >> >>Grattan replied: >>> +=+ Curses! I left my O.B. at home. Does the EBU >>> consider a weak two to be a convention? >>> I just thought momma was saying it should be >>> listed on the convention card and it wasn't. Not a >>> whisper of the word 'convention'. ~Grattan ~ +=+ > At the Welsh Foursomes this last weekend I ruled that an insufficient 2S bid by a pair playing Benji (not Lucas) was not a conventional bid and that its correction to 3S would not silence partner. As it happened the insufficient bid was accepted. >>> >> >>OK, so I should have written: >> >>The sponsoring organisation (the club) is allowed to regulate disclosure of >>partnership understandings [L40B] and regulate the use of convention cards >>[L40E] (including score cards where part of it is used as a convention >card). >>So the club can require that unusual understandings (e.g. weak twos) are >>written on the front of the score card. >> ... and rule in some arbitary fashion on infractions of L40B,E. :-) >> >>Surely the EBU has no power whether or not to "consider a weak two to >>be a convention?", this is defined in law; >>but of course you can't play weak twos at level one (simple systems). > As I recall mamma said that the CC said Benji Acol in the system box. I suspect that inside against Range for 2's it might have said 6-10. Is the problem that it did not have the actual words "Weak Twos" written on the outside? Maybe mamma does not know that Benjaminised Acol is a system which incorporates weak twos. Maybe there are others who do not know this? If this is so, and until now I would not have thought so, then yes, there is an error in adequate disclosure Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 08:03:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:03:48 +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 IAA01986 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:03:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-253-225.s225.tnt8.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.253.225]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14101 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:03:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008301beffc6$14ac5b80$e1fd7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> <37DE30AF.A6756160@village.uunet.be> <004a01befef7$293578e0$0bc77ad1@hdavis> <37DF6EDC.24B9E072@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: A big one Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:03:01 -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, September 15, 1999 6:03 AM Subject: Re: A big one [snip] > > OK, let's search for an example. > > Someone claims. > > He gives a full statement. Which works, or seems to work. > > Opponents acquiesce. Then start the next board, then > withdraw their acquiescence. > > It turns out that in the stated line, a particular trick > cannot dissapear. > > However, declarer now names another line, and in that line > (unstated at the time of the claim), the trick does > disappear. > Is the claim valid ? > The original claim was not valid, but it was not challenged in time for it to be adjusted, so that's unimportant. Why would the TD be asking about the original line of claim, or asking declarer to name another line? Once acquiescence occurs, that's over. All that is relevant is the cards in each hand at the time of the claim, and the number of tricks claimed. If the opponents wish to withdraw their acquiescence to the claim after the start of the next board, they tell the TD who then looks at the hand, in particular the position at the time of the claim. If there is any normal line of play that the TD can spot that allows the claimer to make the tricks claimed, stated or not, then the acquiescence cannot be withdrawn. It's that simple. > I don't think so. > > But it may be an interesting discussion nevertheless. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 09:51:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:51:14 +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 JAA02326 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:51:06 +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 11ROpE-0002xs-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 23:50:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:41:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A big one References: <000201beff6c$b1683520$7da993c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000201beff6c$b1683520$7da993c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >>[snip] >>> >>> Conclusion : we need only look at stated lines. >>> >> >>I don't think we can pass on this at all. Exactly where in 69B does it >>state that "normal play of the remaining cards" includes only stated lines? >> >+=+ It doesn't, Hirsch, as every Tournament Director >knows. Like someone said about another matter, there >are some things we all know whether they are said >clearly or not; this one is crystal clear. What? Of course, it does not apply. The reason it is not in the Laws is that it is not true. When looking at things of this sort you do *not* only consider stated lines. In many cases the only stated line becomes impossible: if you did not consider unstated lines then you could not rule. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 10:41:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:41:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.mail.gxn.net [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02479 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:41:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from p5as07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.91] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11RPcC-0001wY-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 01:41:33 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 01:45:51 +0100 Message-ID: <01beffdc$d3104760$bd8c93c3@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 North KQxx x KJ10xxxx K South Jxxxxx Kxxx Q10 A South opens 1S North bids 3C (GF in Spades) South bids 3S North bids 4C (asking) South bids 4H West passes North passes East taps his Pass card North says he has inadvertantly passed and wishes to change his call. Believe it or not, at this stage I was called to the table. North suggests that East's tapping was "sporting". Everyone at the table knew what had happened. I ruled that his was true. East's passing tap was an error in correct procedure and I ruled that East had not called. Right. Now North wants to change his call. Fine. Is it Law 25A or 25B? North says he has considered whether to go on, or sign off, and in doing so he decided to sign off, so passed rather than bid 4S. Yes we understand this. However, North insists that his error was "inadvertent" and insists on a law 25A ruling. He was given a Law 25B ruling. How would you have ruled? I ruled Law 25B. Call changed to 4S at penalty of max -3imps(Swiss Teams) E/W to keep table result. N/S appealed at cost of 20ukp. AC decision later. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 11:24:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:24:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02610 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:24:40 +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 11RQHo-000L0X-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 01:24:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 02:22:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 In-Reply-To: <01beffdc$d3104760$bd8c93c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01beffdc$d3104760$bd8c93c3@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes S N 1S - 3C - 3S - 4C - 4H - Pass! Tap pass card >North says he has inadvertantly passed and wishes to change his call. > >Believe it or not, at this stage I was called to the table. >North suggests that East's tapping was "sporting". Everyone at the table >knew what had happened. >I ruled that his was true. East's passing tap was an error in correct >procedure >and I ruled that East had not called. I don't think I would. I'd rule he'd indicated a pass. > >Right. Now North wants to change his call. Fine. Is it Law 25A or 25B? If we're going to rule 25A we can remove the 'tapped' pass. If we're going to rule 25B we can't >North says he has considered whether to go on, or sign off, and in doing >so he decided to sign off, so passed rather than bid 4S. >Yes we understand this. >However, North insists that his error was "inadvertent" and insists on a >law 25A ruling. >He was given a Law 25B ruling. This sort of situation was why 25B was promulgated. The guy went to sleep and passed. We should have ruled "play this in 4H" >How would you have ruled? >I ruled Law 25B. Call changed to 4S at penalty of max -3imps(Swiss Teams) >E/W to keep table result. >N/S appealed at cost of 20ukp. >AC decision later. AC Ruled back to 4H. Return deposit as the result has been changed!! (Personally I'd have kept it.) If we'd ruled 4H, I'd have some sympathy with an appeal tho' >Anne > 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 Sep 16 11:51:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:51:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (mta@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02676 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:51:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.177]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:51:02 -0700 Message-ID: <002b01beffe5$e2187580$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:46:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The late Brian Moran answered the following question in his Ruling the Game column, *The Bridge Bulletin*, September 1999. It is an issue that arises over and over again, one that should be settled once and for all, at least in ACBL-land and perhaps elsewhere. Question (from South Dakota): Some players in our club are opening 1NT with a singleton. I was under the impression that if the director is called, then the player is forbidden to do it again during the session. Please set me straight on this. Also, is there a penalty for opening 1NT with a singleton? Answer: Having a partnership agreement that an opening bid of 1NT or 2NT may include a singleton or void is illegal. There is no automatic penalty for making such a bid, but the director may adjust the score if he judges that an illegal agreement was in force. By "illegal," Brian probably meant contrary to ACBL regulations, not to the Laws. Contrast his answer with what Bobby Wolff wrote when he was writing the same column (date unknown, but quoted in ACBL's *Duplicate Decisions*): "We are frequently questioned about the rights and wrongs of opening 1NT or 2NT when the hand contains a singleton. Many players apparently believe such bids are outlawed. NOT TRUE!" (Snip of several examples that include a singleton ace or king) "...It is not the intention of the Board of Directors to legislate against bridge logic. The intent is to eliminate 1NT and 2NT openers that have the express purpose of misleading the opponents. This is especially true when the partnership making such bids is familiar with these methods and has agreements EXPRESS OR IMPLIED concerning them. "This is not to say that a bidder must always be able to justify his bid bridge-wise. However, any system, convention, or bid that is expressly designed to mislead the opponents must be handled with utmost care. It is imperative that the users show good faith byi eliminating any possibility of a private understanding from the use of such a bid." The ACBL General Convention Chart says that "an opening notrump bid or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)." Since the GCC uses "not natural" as a euphemism for "convention," we can assume that a partnership understanding permitting unbalanced notrump openings constitutes a convention in the mind(s) of the ACBL. Does such an understanding really constitute a convention? If not, the ACBL cannot legally control it, except by outlawing any convention designed to accommodate such an opening. The ACBL Mid-Chart allows (#7.) "any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid," so doesn't this apply to 1NT/2NT openings with a singleton? Or void? Can someone sort out this mess? The subject is of great interest to club players, who never seem to get a straight answer. Rick? Kojak? Ron? How do you rule in ACBL-land? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 11:51:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:51:45 +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 LAA02685 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:51:36 +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 11RQhq-0008uL-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 01:51:27 +0000 Message-ID: <04YGqpBkvE43EwBg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 02:46:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 References: <01beffdc$d3104760$bd8c93c3@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <01beffdc$d3104760$bd8c93c3@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones > writes > >S N >1S - 3C - >3S - 4C - >4H - Pass! Tap pass card > >>North says he has inadvertantly passed and wishes to change his call. >> >>Believe it or not, at this stage I was called to the table. >>North suggests that East's tapping was "sporting". Everyone at the table >>knew what had happened. >>I ruled that his was true. East's passing tap was an error in correct >>procedure >>and I ruled that East had not called. > >I don't think I would. I'd rule he'd indicated a pass. Look, John, we all tap passes. I have myself tapped a final pass about four times tonight. *But* when you are asked for a ruling as a TD it is not up to you to ignore the Laws and Regulations of the game just because players like myself [and probably you as well, John] are idle! OB 7.3.2 .... A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but the Director may apply Law 25). .... Has the final pass been removed from the box? No? Well, the call is not made. If you are going to be casual as a player and not follow the rules then you must expect to be ruled against when something goes wrong, and as a Director you must rule per the Regulations. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 11:51:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:51:45 +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 LAA02684 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:51:36 +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 11RQhq-000Kov-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 01:51:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 02:38:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 References: <01beffdc$d3104760$bd8c93c3@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01beffdc$d3104760$bd8c93c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > >North >KQxx >x >KJ10xxxx >K > >South >Jxxxxx >Kxxx >Q10 >A > >South opens 1S >North bids 3C (GF in Spades) >South bids 3S >North bids 4C (asking) >South bids 4H >West passes >North passes >East taps his Pass card >North says he has inadvertantly passed and wishes to change his call. > >Believe it or not, at this stage I was called to the table. >North suggests that East's tapping was "sporting". Everyone at the table >knew what had happened. >I ruled that his was true. East's passing tap was an error in correct >procedure >and I ruled that East had not called. > >Right. Now North wants to change his call. Fine. Is it Law 25A or 25B? >North says he has considered whether to go on, or sign off, and in doing >so he decided to sign off, so passed rather than bid 4S. >Yes we understand this. >However, North insists that his error was "inadvertent" and insists on a >law 25A ruling. Insists? Give him a PP [and no, I am not joking]. >He was given a Law 25B ruling. >How would you have ruled? Routine L25B: exactly the situation it was envisaged for. However ... Well, we do have to ask what he intended to pull out of his bidding box at the time he passed. If he reached for the 4S bid and accidentally pulled a green pass card then it is L25A. But while it is correct to make sure by asking a few questions, I doubt that he will convince me. >I ruled Law 25B. Call changed to 4S at penalty of max -3imps(Swiss Teams) >E/W to keep table result. Table result? You mean 4S, and its actual result, I trust. >N/S appealed at cost of 20ukp. >AC decision later. Did he talk a convincing case? If so, give him his 20ukp back. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 12:08:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:08:05 +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 MAA02760 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:07:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11RQxg-000610-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 04:07:49 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990916040344.00837660@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 04:03:44 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: A big one In-Reply-To: <008301beffc6$14ac5b80$e1fd7ad1@hdavis> References: <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> <37DE30AF.A6756160@village.uunet.be> <004a01befef7$293578e0$0bc77ad1@hdavis> <37DF6EDC.24B9E072@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 18:03 15-09-99 -0400, you wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 6:03 AM >Subject: Re: A big one > > >[snip] >> >> OK, let's search for an example. >> >> Someone claims. >> >> He gives a full statement. Which works, or seems to work. >> >> Opponents acquiesce. Then start the next board, then >> withdraw their acquiescence. >> >> It turns out that in the stated line, a particular trick >> cannot dissapear. >> >> However, declarer now names another line, and in that line >> (unstated at the time of the claim), the trick does >> disappear. ???? we agreed that the time limit was gone in the new interpration of this law i hope But, as david explained, now there is a havier burden on the side that agreed in the loss of the tricks. In that I agree. Herman explained why the retraction of the claim wasnt valid enough for the TD to revert the socre, so whats the problem. >> Is the claim valid ? >> > >The original claim was not valid, but it was not challenged in time for it >to be adjusted, so that's unimportant. > nonsense >Why would the TD be asking about the original line of claim, or asking >declarer to name another line? Once acquiescence occurs, that's over. All >that is relevant is the cards in each hand at the time of the claim, and the >number of tricks claimed. If the opponents wish to withdraw their >acquiescence to the claim after the start of the next board, they tell the >TD who then looks at the hand, in particular the position at the time of the >claim. If there is any normal line of play that the TD can spot that allows >the claimer to make the tricks claimed, stated or not, then the acquiescence >cannot be withdrawn. It's that simple. > come on, read the laws. >> I don't think so. >> >> But it may be an interesting discussion nevertheless. >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> > > >Hirsch > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 12:19:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:19:07 +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 MAA02799 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:18:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11RR8I-0006bX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 04:18:46 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990916041441.00b1d2b0@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 04:14:41 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 In-Reply-To: <01beffdc$d3104760$bd8c93c3@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:45 16-09-99 +0100, you wrote: > >North >KQxx >x >KJ10xxxx >K > >South >Jxxxxx >Kxxx >Q10 >A > >South opens 1S >North bids 3C (GF in Spades) >South bids 3S >North bids 4C (asking) >South bids 4H >West passes >North passes >East taps his Pass card >North says he has inadvertantly passed and wishes to change his call. > >Believe it or not, at this stage I was called to the table. >North suggests that East's tapping was "sporting". ??? that is?, did he double perhaps, that is sporting. Everyone at the table >knew what had happened. did you ask E???? here in holland we nearly alwasy either tap or retract our bidding cards in 4th position. Even our PK (the NA level) once decided that retracting the cards simply means a pass. >I ruled that his was true. East's passing tap was an error in correct >procedure well, but whats wong with that. Do i have to give penalties each time playesr error in regarding the rules (writing the wrong contracts in the wrong line and the wrong pair number?????? >and I ruled that East had not called. > I wouldnt. >Right. Now North wants to change his call. Fine. Is it Law 25A or 25B? >North says he has considered whether to go on, or sign off, and in doing >so he decided to sign off, so passed rather than bid 4S. >Yes we understand this. >However, North insists that his error was "inadvertent" and insists on a >law 25A ruling. >He was given a Law 25B ruling. >How would you have ruled? >I ruled Law 25B. Call changed to 4S at penalty of max -3imps(Swiss Teams) >E/W to keep table result. >N/S appealed at cost of 20ukp. >AC decision later. >Anne > > bidding stands in my opinion. Please give N a PP for not attending the game and a beer fine too. 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 Thu Sep 16 14:16:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:16:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03023 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:16:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegmk.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.212]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA13515 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:16:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990916001342.013fb56c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:13:42 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton In-Reply-To: <002b01beffe5$e2187580$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:46 PM 9/15/99 -0700, Marv wrote: >The ACBL General Convention Chart says that "an opening notrump bid or >overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and >only one or two doubletons)." Since the GCC uses "not natural" as a >euphemism for "convention," we can assume that a partnership understanding >permitting unbalanced notrump openings constitutes a convention in the >mind(s) of the ACBL. Does such an understanding really constitute a >convention? If not, the ACBL cannot legally control it, except by >outlawing any convention designed to accommodate such an opening. But this is precisely the approach they have taken to the super-light no-trumps. Regardless of whether an opening no-trump bid with a singleton can be regarded as a convention, it is subject to effective regulation simply by outlawing any subsequent conventional sequences, such as Stayman or transfers. At the risk of reopening old unresolved debates, my own view is that the use of their power to regulate conventions in order to effectively ban particularly ill-favored natural methods is an abuse of that power. It illustrates precisely the type of disregard for the Laws which I mentioned in response to Robin. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 17:36:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:36:39 +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 RAA03658 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:36:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.216] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11RW5b-0000ST-00; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:36:19 +0100 Message-ID: <005901bf0016$27826240$d85208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:31:45 +0100 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: 16 September 1999 05:47 Subject: Re: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton > >At the risk of reopening old unresolved debates, my own view is that the >use of their power to regulate conventions in order to effectively ban >particularly ill-favored natural methods is an abuse of that power. It >illustrates precisely the type of disregard for the Laws which I mentioned >in response to Robin. > +=+ It is certainly a use of a power for a purpose that was not the intention when it was given. 'Abuse' is the flavour for those who hate the regulation; 'ingenuity' is an alternative opinion. I think it is stupid to think you can use the law to shackle those who should be deciding what is best for the people. The route to be taken is one of seeking a broad consensus - and I do have a hunch that each NA is not far adrift of doing what large numbers of its members think right. Weight of opinion would eventually change it were this not so. The next step is to try to achieve as much integration of ideas around the world as we can - at least in things that seem odd if they differ from nation to nation. (I happen to be a little sad that we see little 'Far Eastern' opinion up to now; it might be interesting to learn about RoC and Japan thinking. It is time these nations were beginning to have more input.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 17:36:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:36:41 +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 RAA03656 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:36:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.216] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11RW5Z-0000ST-00; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:36:18 +0100 Message-ID: <005801bf0016$26e3b140$d85208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Anton Witzen" Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 07:58:07 +0100 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: 16 September 1999 03:52 Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 ----------------------- \x/ ---------------------- >here in holland we nearly alwasy either tap or retract our bidding cards in >4th position. Even our PK (the NA level) once decided that retracting the >cards simply means a pass. > ------------------ \x/ ----------------------- >bidding stands in my opinion. Please give N a PP for not attending the game >and a beer fine too. >regards, >anton > +=+ I do believe things like indication of Pass are influenced by local/regional practice. I would think what Anton does right in Holland, what Anne does right in Wales (DWS - is that 'always right', since she is the boss? :-) - each deciding the facts on the basis of the TD's perception at the table. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 17:36:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:36:40 +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 RAA03657 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:36:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.216] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11RW5W-0000ST-00; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:36:14 +0100 Message-ID: <005501bf0016$24a90380$d85208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" , , Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 07:18:11 +0100 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: gester@globalnet.co.uk ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 15 September 1999 12:01 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. > >OK, so I should have written: > >The sponsoring organisation (the club) is allowed to regulate disclosure of >partnership understandings [L40B] and regulate the use of convention cards >[L40E] (including score cards where part of it is used as a convention card). >So the club can require that unusual understandings (e.g. weak twos) are >written on the front of the score card. > ... and rule in some arbitary fashion on infractions of L40B,E. :-) > >Surely the EBU has no power whether or not to "consider a weak two to >be a convention?", this is defined in law; >but of course you can't play weak twos at level one (simple systems). > +=+ Nor in a club where Momma rules! <:-)) +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 17:39:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:39:10 +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 RAA03706 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:39:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.216] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11RW5X-0000ST-00; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:36:15 +0100 Message-ID: <005601bf0016$257b95c0$d85208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 07:29:04 +0100 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: 15 September 1999 17:32 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. ---------------------- \x/ ---------------------------------------- >The EBU might do well to use the ACBL ploy for eliminating an >unwanted treatment: Forbid the use of any convention in conjuction with >it, and then people won't play it. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com +=+ Marv: the EBU thought this one up. My invention actually, a long time back and I put it to Edgar, who agreed the laws allow it - but hated it. I have that in writing from him somewhere. It was part of my 'challenge' to him that it is futile trying to tie the hands of NCBOs. We have had it in EBU regs much longer than the ACBL has. ~Grattan~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 18:53:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA03941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 18:53:51 +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 SAA03936 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 18:53:44 +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 11RXIM-000Lsg-0B; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:53:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 23:35:02 +0100 To: Jean Pierre Rocafort Cc: Bridge Laws From: michael amos Subject: Re: A big one References: <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> <37DE30AF.A6756160@village.uunet.be> <004a01befef7$293578e0$0bc77ad1@hdavis> <37DF6EDC.24B9E072@village.uunet.be> <37DFC7AF.B1BFBCB4@meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <37DFC7AF.B1BFBCB4@meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <37DFC7AF.B1BFBCB4@meteo.fr>, Jean Pierre Rocafort writes > snip (Herman and Jean Pierre > I think that in a situation in which declarer claims the remaining tricks when >a >defenser, on lead, could give a ruff to his partner, this declarer must be given >all these tricks in case of a late withdrawal of acquiescence. > >JP Rocafort > more snip OK guys very good - we ruled this way at the time - i.e. there was a line for 13 tricks therefore acquiescence stood No I wasn't suggesting a split score - it was just for comparison (although a sneaky deepdown part of me feels both sides deserve minus for this one 7D** -1 for a bum claim - 7D**= for a bum acquiescence ) but the Lawbook is clear - I'd just never really applied this Law in a case like this and I was interested to see what you all thought --- But now take a look at Malta Appeal No.27 ...... mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 19:34:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 19:34:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04057 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 19:34:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-234.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.234]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA13704 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:34:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37E0B651.B3A196A7@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:20:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 References: <01beffdc$d3104760$bd8c93c3@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > I ruled Law 25B. Call changed to 4S at penalty of max -3imps(Swiss Teams) > E/W to keep table result. > N/S appealed at cost of 20ukp. > AC decision later. > Anne WBU + 20GBP, I guess. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 19:34:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 19:34:28 +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 TAA04055 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 19:34:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-234.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.234]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA13686 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:34:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37E0B594.EB2B7AA5@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:17:08 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A big one References: <3N9IEHAecQ33EwbN@mamos.demon.co.uk> <37DE30AF.A6756160@village.uunet.be> <004a01befef7$293578e0$0bc77ad1@hdavis> <37DF6EDC.24B9E072@village.uunet.be> <3.0.2.32.19990916040344.00837660@mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply to several posts. It seems to be the general consensus that for L69B purposes, any normal line - stated or unstated, easy to find by declarer or not, mentioned by declarer or not - that leads to the claimed number of tricks, makes the claim valid ? OK, if no-one else finds this a strange Law, I will incline and agree with the general consensus. Which may well be a novelty on blml : we've agreed on something ! Or have I spoken to soon ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 19:55:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 19:55:28 +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 TAA04146 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 19:55:20 +1000 (EST) From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from amrhm1103.ac.com (AMRHM1103.ac.com [10.2.102.51]) by mpcmr1001.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id EAA04414 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 04:54:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: by amrhm1103.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.4 hotfix 2 (865.3 5-24-1999)) id 862567EE.00362FE3 ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 04:51:52 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ANDERSEN CONSULTING To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <862567EE.00362D62.00@amrhm1103.ac.com> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:54:21 +0100 Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> Look, John, we all tap passes. I have myself tapped a final pass about four times tonight. *But* when you are asked for a ruling as a TD it is not up to you to ignore the Laws and Regulations of the game just because players like myself [and probably you as well, John] are idle!<< David, I see your point, but I do not believe that this view is practical. Either a tap for a final pass is accepted practice - acting as a valid subsitution for the drawn out bidding card - or you have to forbid it totally. Especially as long the opponents have not been denied any rights by the tapping. Yours, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 20:10:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 20:10:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04184 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 20:09:59 +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 11RYU9-000EZW-0A; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:09:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:19:24 +0100 To: Grattan Endicott Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Anton Witzen From: michael amos Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 References: <005801bf0016$26e3b140$d85208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <005801bf0016$26e3b140$d85208c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <005801bf0016$26e3b140$d85208c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott writes > > >Grattan------------------------------------------------------------ >"Surprised by unjust force, but not enthralled." > - Milton. >------------------------------------------------------------ >-----Original Message----- >From: Anton Witzen >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 16 September 1999 03:52 >Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 > > >----------------------- \x/ ---------------------- > >>here in holland we nearly alwasy either tap or retract our bidding cards in >>4th position. Even our PK (the NA level) once decided that retracting the >>cards simply means a pass. >> >------------------ \x/ ----------------------- >>bidding stands in my opinion. Please give N a PP for not attending the game >>and a beer fine too. >>regards, >>anton > >> >+=+ I do believe things like indication of Pass >are influenced by local/regional practice. I >would think what Anton does right in Holland, >what Anne does right in Wales (DWS - is that >'always right', since she is the boss? :-) - each >deciding the facts on the basis of the TD's >perception at the table. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I'm with Anton and John Probst here and against DWS. Because of conversations here in BLML, I as a player have been making a real effort to follow correct procedure and employ the final pass card in an auction rather than "tapping" or waving my hand in a dismissive fashion or perhaps even worse picking up my cards (EBU regs are that the cards should remain on the table until the opening lead is faced) However we all know that these practices are common and i think that to suggest that player who waves his hand or taps has not passed flies in the face of reason and common-sense and opens the door to more problems than it solves - in my opinion the player in Anne's original problem had passed and I would so rule. Clearly some improved Bidding Box regulations to cover this situation would be helpful. I do agree with Anne's judgement that the player who "signed-off" in 4H had not done so inadvertently mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 21:22:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:22:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA04533 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:22:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from p00s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.1] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11RZcQ-0001BU-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:22:27 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:26:50 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0036$5ebde340$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: christian.farwig@ac.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, September 16, 1999 11:13 AM Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 >>> Look, John, we all tap passes. I have myself tapped a final pass >about four times tonight. *But* when you are asked for a ruling as a TD >it is not up to you to ignore the Laws and Regulations of the game just >because players like myself [and probably you as well, John] are idle!<< > >David, > >I see your point, but I do not believe that this view is practical. Either a tap >for a final pass is accepted practice - acting as a valid subsitution for the >drawn out bidding card - or you have to forbid it totally. Especially as long >the opponents have not been denied any rights by the tapping. But this is the point. If the tapping is considered to be a Pass, then it is too late for North to change his call under L25B. I was never going to allow the change under 25A. If the "tapper" was obliged to observe the regulation and remove a pass card from the box, then it is not inconceivable that North would have had time to stop him. The AC did in fact uphold my ruling. The deposit was returned. I understand there was sympathy for the interpretation of the word inadvertent as not only meaning accidental as in mechanical error, but accidental as in action caused by confused thinking. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 21:41:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:41:46 +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 VAA04676 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:41:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA32543; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:41:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JG1GDCOK3Y002YST@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:40:29 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:40:29 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:40:27 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C272@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 not ruling in ACBL-land, but I permit myself an answer. These kind of problems arise quite frequently in my country, and in all others as well I assume. In my country we look for a consistent approach, demanding full disclosure. People do invent some agreement and being proud of it give it a name. Once in a while such an agreement becomes popular and others are starting using it, by mentioning the same name. Those others are almost as inventive as the inventors, so they start deviating but still use that name. Stayman and Multi-coloured are famous examples in my country. There are two questions to be answered: Does the S.O. allow the agreement regarding the meaning of it? And does the pair disclose this agreement in accordance with laws and regulations? In my opinion when using your 1NT opening only the second question is important. If any 15+ opening call is allowed, then opening with 15+ is allowed. Is there more to say? But if a pair has the agreement to open any 4441 with 15-17 HCP with 1NT, they use the wrong name for their agreement and are therewith misleading their opponents. The problem gets worse if a player does open 1NT with 4441 and a singleton A or K. Now we arrive in the 'bridge is an impossible game to play' category. Among bridge players of reasonable level there is no problem at all, but especially when weak is playing strong this is unsolvable, in my opinion. As are psyches and leading the J from QJ. Or bidding 4D as a splinter with Axxxx x xx AKJxx after partner opened 1S. David Stevenson is probably right from a formal point of view when he says (I remember he does)that players who bid 4D with this hand should explain that splinters sometimes are small doubletons. But it doesn't work like that, that is not bridge anymore. ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 21:44:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:44:40 +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 VAA04704 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:44:32 +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 NAA09358 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:44:17 +0200 (METDST) X-Internal-ID: 37B0459D0005B84E Received: from dedamsg1.merck.de (155.250.248.233) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:48:20 +0200 Received: by dedamsg1.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C12567EE.00407046 ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:43:50 +0200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:43:59 +0200 Subject: PP after UI Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have a question concerning application of the laws when a player has taken action when in receipt of UI. An example from last night's duplicate should suffice: 10 9 8 5 3 2 K 9 8 5 4 A 5 Auction (starting with RHO), teams, vul vs. non-vul: 1NT (10-12) - pass - 2D (transfer) - pass (after asking for an explanation and ca. 5s thinking) 2H this hand came in with 2S. Particularly at this vulnerability, pass is an alternative, so I have no problem with a score adjustment. My question is: *** Is the 2S call illegal / an infraction of law / an offence? Could making such a call ever attract a PP? *** L16A states that the player "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions..." and of course anyone taking this action has to expect it to come under the scrutiny of the TD for a possible adjusted score, but is it actually an offence to make the bid? When he was chair of the EBU L+E Committee, David Burn wrote an article in "English Bridge" (aimed at the less-experienced tournament or club player, admittedly) saying that after partner hesitates or asks a question or otherwise imparts UI, no actions are banned by law, the best advice is simply to bid as you would have done without the UI (but accept any ruling with good grace). This does not tally with the following case lifted from the "Australian Directors' Bulletin" (http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/abda_ap2.htm): 10 9 3 Q J 9 6 5 4 2 Q Q 2 where RHO opened 1C, the above hand bid 3D (transfer pre-empt), heard no alert from partner (UI) and attempted to escape to 3H after two passes and a double. Of the panel of directors asked, around half considered imposing a PP for using UI, suggesting it is a serious breach of propriety. (One cited L90A, which admits to being incomplete, but lists no offences even remotely similar to this one.) I would not consider passing this hand without the UI, and some of the panel agreed with me. So what would you advise (a) club-standard (b) higher standard players to do in this situation, ignore the UI and bid normally, or try to second-guess the TD / appeals committee? James Vickers Darmstadt, Germany From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 22:11:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:11:08 +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 WAA04879 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:11:00 +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 IAA25155 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:12:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990916081300.006e13b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:13:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990915162436.013f5070@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199909151033.LAA27431@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:24 PM 9/15/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >Surely they do have that power, though perhaps not the authority. David >seem to have faith in the good intentions of the NA's to obey the Laws, and >maybe his judgement in this respect is founded in his long experience. >While I have no doubt that fidelity to the Laws is valued by all NA's, my >own experience on this side of the ocean is that it is only one value, and >not necessarily the overriding one, which informs policy-making decisions. >Where the ACBL judges the interests of its membership to be contrary to the >requirements of the Laws, they will use the thinnest of pretexts, and >sometimes none at all, to ignore those requirements. > >Although many of us are frustrated by specific examples of this behavior, >I'm not altogether sure it is a bad thing. What is undeniably appalling, >however, is the brazenness with which such violations are perpetrated even >as the organization insists on its compliance. Whether these kinds of >issues arise in other jurisdictions I cannot say. Unfortunately, the ACBL's policy decisions do not appear to give primacy to the interests of its membership, as Michael suggests, but instead to the interests of its potential future membership, which is a very different kettle of fish. Attracting new members is, by the ACBL's own admission, at the top of its list of priorities, well ahead of best serving its current members. 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 Sep 16 22:46:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:25:14 +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 WAA04940 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:25:07 +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 IAA25939 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990916082708.006e1664@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:27:08 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 In-Reply-To: <01beffdc$d3104760$bd8c93c3@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:45 AM 9/16/99 +0100, Anne wrote: >Right. Now North wants to change his call. Fine. Is it Law 25A or 25B? >North says he has considered whether to go on, or sign off, and in doing >so he decided to sign off, so passed rather than bid 4S. >Yes we understand this. >However, North insists that his error was "inadvertent" and insists on a >law 25A ruling. >He was given a Law 25B ruling. >How would you have ruled? >I ruled Law 25B. Call changed to 4S at penalty of max -3imps(Swiss Teams) >E/W to keep table result. >N/S appealed at cost of 20ukp. >AC decision later. I agree with the ruling. North's pass was a "slip of the brain", not of the tongue or hand. With the auction at 4H, he mistakenly thought it was at 4S, and so passed, thinking that that would allow his side to play in 4S. Misremembering the auction doesn't create an inadvertency of the sort required to bring L25A into play. Recent pronouncements by the WBFLC suggest that this may be about to change (for the worse, IMO), but (at least in North America) these have not yet been translated into any changes in the guidelines for TD rulings. It seems to me that if there is any justification at all for L25B (notwithstanding that some members of this list don't think there is), it must be found in situations of exactly this sort. 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 Sep 16 23:02:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:02:44 +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 XAA05137 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:02:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveiep.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.217]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA11797 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:02:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990916090013.013ef764@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:00:13 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. In-Reply-To: <005601bf0016$257b95c0$d85208c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:29 AM 9/16/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >>The EBU might do well to use the ACBL ploy for eliminating an >>unwanted treatment: Forbid the use of any convention in conjuction with >>it, and then people won't play it. >> >>Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com >+=+ Marv: the EBU thought this one up. My invention >actually, a long time back and I put it to Edgar, who >agreed the laws allow it - but hated it. I have that >in writing from him somewhere. It was part of my >'challenge' to him that it is futile trying to tie the >hands of NCBOs. We have had it in EBU regs much >longer than the ACBL has. ~Grattan~ +=+ > And maybe it is actually best to allow open-ended regulation by NCBO's. But then why not make that an explicit principle in the Laws, rather than writing Laws which _appear_ to protect at least some of the rights of players to define their own methods, while at the same time giving NCBO's essentially unbridled authority to trample on those same rights? Why not just admit that NCBO's are responsible for regulating matters of bidding conventions, methods, and even style, and abandon the legal fiction that such authority is limited to conventions only? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 16 23:21:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:21:03 +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 XAA05248 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:20:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveiep.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.217]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA07992 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:20:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990916091834.013fb310@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:18:34 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: PP after UI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:43 PM 9/16/99 +0200, James wrote: >I have a question concerning application of the laws when a player has taken >action when in receipt of UI. An example from last night's duplicate should >suffice: > >10 9 8 5 3 2 >K 9 >8 5 4 >A 5 > >Auction (starting with RHO), teams, vul vs. non-vul: > >1NT (10-12) - pass - 2D (transfer) - pass (after asking for an explanation and >ca. 5s thinking) >2H > >this hand came in with 2S. Particularly at this vulnerability, pass is an >alternative, so I have no problem with a score adjustment. My question is: > >*** Is the 2S call illegal / an infraction of law / an offence? Could making >such a call ever attract a PP? *** > >L16A states that the player "...may not choose from among logical alternative >actions..." and of course anyone taking this action has to expect it to come >under the scrutiny of the TD for a possible adjusted score, but is it actually >an offence to make the bid? When he was chair of the EBU L+E Committee, David >Burn wrote an article in "English Bridge" (aimed at the less-experienced >tournament or club player, admittedly) saying that after partner hesitates or >asks a question or otherwise imparts UI, no actions are banned by law, the best >advice is simply to bid as you would have done without the UI (but accept any >ruling with good grace). David was mistaken. When the Laws state that a player "may not choose..." and he does so anyway, that is an infraction of the Laws. In most cases it is not done with corrupt intent, but it is a violation nonetheless. The player's responsibility in such cases, contrary to the above advice, is _not_ to "bid as he would have anyway", but to do his best to determine objectively the legal requirements, including the LA's and could-have-been-suggesteds, and act accordingly. This has frequently been described as "bending over backwards" to avoid even the appearance of exploiting the UI. Still, there's a long way between identifying the above 2S bid as an infraction (which it is) and imposing a PP. In my view, a PP for this type of infraction should only be for clear and intentional violations, which this is not. Is 2S a wildly unlikely choice in the absence of UI? I wouldn't bid it (certainly at this scoring/vulnerability), but I don't think it quite meets that standard. Given that I would be a strong favorite to compete favorable at matchpoints with this hand, I cannot assume that others wouldn't make an honest judgement to do so in the actual conditions. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 17 00:00:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:00:20 +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 AAA05427 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:00:07 +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 OAA22992; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:59:52 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA11631; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:59:52 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:59:52 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00522; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:59:49 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA28210; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:59:19 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:59:19 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909161359.OAA28210@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, msd@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > And maybe it is actually best to allow open-ended regulation by NCBO's. But > then why not make that an explicit principle in the Laws, rather than > writing Laws which _appear_ to protect at least some of the rights of > players to define their own methods, while at the same time giving NCBO's > essentially unbridled authority to trample on those same rights? Why not > just admit that NCBO's are responsible for regulating matters of bidding > conventions, methods, and even style, and abandon the legal fiction that > such authority is limited to conventions only? > > Mike Dennis > Or decide on a larger set of agreements which can be regulated, which is acceptable to all NCBOs; and have a meta-regulation that other natural calls can not be constrained by ingenious (Grattan's word) methods. e.g in L40D replace "initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength" by "initial actions with a hand below average strength". Robin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 17 02:03:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 02:03:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06083 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 02:03:49 +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 JAA17351; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:03:12 -0700 Message-Id: <199909161603.JAA17351@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Meaning of "likely" in 12C2 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:03:12 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's a theoretical question: When determining what results are "likely" in order to award an assigned AS, do we take into account decisions made by the NO's that occurred after the infraction but were independent of the infraction? Example: A9xx xxxx xxx -- Kx Qxxx AJxxx xx JT 98xx xxxxxx KJT8x AQJ KQ AKQx xx IMPs, E-W vul. South opens 1S; North bids 3C (Bergen, 4-card limit raise), alerted; East starts asking a lot of pointed questions about the 3C bid. My belief is that it's never wrong to ask about alerted bids, if you have a policy of doing it consistently, but this East goes way too far. He might as well have detached his clubs from his hand and waved them in front of everyone's face. Anyway, East then passes, then South bids 4S and plays it there. Sure enough, West leads a club into East's AQ. Later, South guesses to play spades starting with the king, and goes down when West shows out. The lead, it turns out, is irrelevant; South will always make or go down depending on how he how he guesses spades. Still, either red suit is a logical alternative, so West's club lead was an infraction. Was there damage? Do we adjust? To apply L12C2, we rewind the hand back to the point where the infraction occurred, and then determine the "most favorable result that was likely" had West made a different lead, or, for the offenders, the most favorable result that was at all probable. Well, if we show someone all the hands and ask him to judge "the most favorable (to N-S) result that was likely" after this auction and a red-suit lead, without telling him anything that transpired afterwards, he would of course say 4S making, since South could guess the spades correctly. But given that South actually did misguess the spades, and that this guess was a coin-flip that had nothing to do either with the infraction or with East's improper questions, do we take this misguess into account when judging what the "likely" results are, even though the misguess occurred after the infraction? I'm not sure what the answer should be. The motivation behind the "most favorable result that was likely" clause is, I believe, to ensure that an infraction doesn't deprive the NO's of the opportunity to get the best result possible; but here, the infraction didn't deprive South of anything---only his own bad guess deprived him of this opportunity. So what does the language of 12C2 mean in a case like this? -- thanks, Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 17 02:21:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 02:21:08 +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 CAA06133 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 02:21:01 +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 JAA17611; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:20:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199909161620.JAA17611@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Meaning of "likely" in 12C2 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:03:12 PDT." <199909161603.JAA17351@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:20:25 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > IMPs, E-W vul. South opens 1S; North bids 3C (Bergen, 4-card limit > raise), alerted; Oops, I meant "4-card constructive raise". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 17 02:44:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 02:44:09 +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 CAA06229 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 02:44:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA00874 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:45:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990916114505.00797100@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:45:05 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: A big one Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First off, apologies for my earlier post citing L71 incorrectly--my only excuse is overwork. Thanks to DWS for correcting me. >Reply to several posts. > >It seems to be the general consensus that for L69B purposes, >any normal line - stated or unstated, easy to find by >declarer or not, mentioned by declarer or not - that leads >to the claimed number of tricks, makes the claim valid ? Just to be absolutely clear, take the following example: Declarer in 7S wins the opening lead in hand, and immediately claims all 13 tricks saying "I take out trumps and then run my clubs." E/W acquiesce, and then later withdraw their acquiescence. On the actual layout of the cards, it is impossible for the contract to make if even a single round of trump is drawn after trick 1. I take it that the list consensus is that we still rule the contract making, while Herman and I have only each other's company in thinking otherwise? >OK, if no-one else finds this a strange Law, I will incline >and agree with the general consensus. Well, I agreed with you, Herman, that we should start with the stated line. My only disagreement was with your claim that when the stated line breaks down we then transfer the benefit of the doubt to the other side, so that if any normal line fails the claiming side loses the tricks. I think we should start with the stated line, and when it breaks down look for any normal line that allows the contract to make. But, of course, I too will bow to the consensus, and a very literal reading of the letter of the law. [In ingenious reading of the law would hold that 'remaining cards' includes cards that remain after declarer has embarked on his stated line. :)] >Which may well be a novelty on blml : we've agreed on >something ! > >Or have I spoken to soon ? > >-- >Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 17 02:45:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 02:45:10 +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 CAA06240 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 02:45:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA29534; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:44:54 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA00690; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:44:53 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 16:44:53 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01872; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:44:49 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA28375; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:44:20 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:44:20 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909161644.RAA28375@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Meaning of "likely" in 12C2 Cc: adam@irvine.com X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Here's a theoretical question: When determining what results are > "likely" in order to award an assigned AS, do we take into account > decisions made by the NO's that occurred after the infraction but were > independent of the infraction? Example: > > A9xx > xxxx > xxx > -- Kx Qxxx > AJxxx xx > JT 98xx > xxxxxx KJT8x AQJ > KQ > AKQx > xx > > IMPs, E-W vul. South opens 1S; North bids 3C (Bergen, 4-card limit > raise), alerted; East starts asking a lot of pointed questions about > the 3C bid. My belief is that it's never wrong to ask about alerted > bids, if you have a policy of doing it consistently, but this East > goes way too far. He might as well have detached his clubs from his > hand and waved them in front of everyone's face. Anyway, East then > passes, then South bids 4S and plays it there. > > Sure enough, West leads a club into East's AQ. Later, South guesses > to play spades starting with the king, and goes down when West shows > out. The lead, it turns out, is irrelevant; South will always make or > go down depending on how he how he guesses spades. Still, either red > suit is a logical alternative, so West's club lead was an infraction. > Was there damage? Do we adjust? > [discussion of L12C2 snipped] I think you have answered this yourself. The lead was irrelevant so the infraction has not resulted in damage (L16A2). So we do not assign an adjusted score, so we do not have to consider L12C2. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 17 04:03:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:03:36 +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 EAA06506 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:03:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA02767 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:03:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA20227 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:03:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909161803.OAA20227@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I generally agree, but our dispute has been solely over the legal rights > and obligations of B when he suspects a psych by a partner who has been > known for his aggressive tactics. Is his knowledge of partner's > proclivities UI or not? In fact, this is a more general question than psyching. Suppose I know partner is a chronic overbidder (or underbidder). May I use that information in deciding my own actions, either in bidding or in play? No one has yet answered my earlier question: if one partner is an overbidder and the other an underbidder, are they playing different systems (illegal in most jurisdictions)? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 17 05:57:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 05:57:57 +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 FAA06883 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 05:57:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from ehc.edu (ehc65.ehc.edu [208.27.12.65]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id SCTY0NM2; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 15:59:37 -0400 Message-ID: <37E14C2C.422ADC5B@ehc.edu> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 15:59:40 -0400 From: "John A. Kuchenbrod" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grant Sterling CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A big one References: <3.0.6.32.19990916114505.00797100@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > First off, apologies for my earlier post citing L71 incorrectly--my > only excuse is overwork. Thanks to DWS for correcting me. > > >Reply to several posts. > > > >It seems to be the general consensus that for L69B purposes, > >any normal line - stated or unstated, easy to find by > >declarer or not, mentioned by declarer or not - that leads > >to the claimed number of tricks, makes the claim valid ? > > Just to be absolutely clear, take the following example: > Declarer in 7S wins the opening lead in hand, and immediately claims > all 13 tricks saying "I take out trumps and then run my clubs." E/W > acquiesce, and then later withdraw their acquiescence. On the actual layout > of the cards, it is impossible for the contract to make if even a single > round of trump is drawn after trick 1. I take it that the list consensus > is that we still rule the contract making, while Herman and I have only > each other's company in thinking otherwise? When people look for consensus, I see that as an open invitation for those who lurk more than post to come out and speak. Indeed, every post should be such an invitation, but grading and research do get in the way. As L69B is written, the contract makes. An opponent can *contest* the claim in the short period of time (i.e. before the call on the next board) as per L69A; after that period of time, one *withdraws* *acquiescence*, and only if the loss of that opponent's trick cannot happen. In the instance that you give, if the contract can make given that trumps are not drawn, and drawing trumps can be seen as a normal play, then the withdrawl is not allowed. > >OK, if no-one else finds this a strange Law, I will incline > >and agree with the general consensus. > > > > But, of course, I too will bow to the consensus, and a very literal > reading of the letter of the law. [In ingenious reading of the law would > hold that 'remaining cards' includes cards that remain after declarer has > embarked on his stated line. :)] >From my experience in academic competition, I am trained to forget about a question or a problem once the problem has passed--thinking about the past clouds one's perception of the present. I do this in bridge as well-- OK, I try to do this. Past hands are past hands, even if it was incredibly stupid to follow that impossible line that I did. L69B allows me to use my memory to count and perform other functions for the current hand and not be disadvantaged by those who may be using their memory to review the previous 30 claims, looking for a fault in each claim. That may not be the intent of the writers, but that's how L69B applies to me. If, at the time of claiming, there was a way for my opponent to take as many tricks as stated, but I don't see that the stated claim isn't that way until much later, shame on me. John ObCatNote: We (wife, cats, and I) have relocated, finding a lovely townhouse. This is the cats' first experience with stairs. They are most pleased! -- | Dr. John Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu | lazarus.ehc.edu/~jkuchen | From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 17 12:47:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:47:36 +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 MAA08173 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:47:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Ro3S-000LE4-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 02:47:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:39:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 In-Reply-To: <04YGqpBkvE43EwBg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <04YGqpBkvE43EwBg@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article <01beffdc$d3104760$bd8c93c3@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones >> writes >> >>S N >>1S - 3C - >>3S - 4C - >>4H - Pass! Tap pass card >> I view tapping the previous pass card as using the one that is already on the table, but for a second time. There is no question that that call has been made, using a pass card, albeit the wrong one. It's equivalent to the last player saying "I pass" which also happens a lot. Bidding box regulations define correct procedure for their use, but improper use of a bidding box does not mean that a call has not been made. 7.3.7 Calls made using cards are treated under the Laws in the same way as spoken calls. Thus a spoken call, when boxes are in use, is a violation of procedure but does not invalidate the call. And IMO tapping the pass card from the previous round is equivalent to saying "Pass". When it becomes established custom I think we have to accept it. >>>North says he has inadvertantly passed and wishes to change his call. >>> >>>Believe it or not, at this stage I was called to the table. >>>North suggests that East's tapping was "sporting". Everyone at the table >>>knew what had happened. >>>I ruled that his was true. East's passing tap was an error in correct >>>procedure >>>and I ruled that East had not called. >> >>I don't think I would. I'd rule he'd indicated a pass. > > Look, John, we all tap passes. I have myself tapped a final pass >about four times tonight. *But* when you are asked for a ruling as a TD >it is not up to you to ignore the Laws and Regulations of the game just >because players like myself [and probably you as well, John] are idle! > > >OB 7.3.2 > .... A call is considered to have been > made when the call is removed from the > bidding box with apparent intent (but > the Director may apply Law 25). .... > > > Has the final pass been removed from the box? No? An existing pass card has been re-used. > Well, the call is >not made. If you are going to be casual as a player and not follow the >rules then you must expect to be ruled against when something goes >wrong, and as a Director you must rule per the Regulations. > > -- 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 Sep 17 13:56:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:56:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (mta@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08269 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:56:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.177]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 20:56:24 -0700 Message-ID: <006301bf00c0$934d49e0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005901bf0016$27826240$d85208c3@swhki5i6> Subject: Re: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 20:48:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote:> > > From: Michael S. Dennis > >At the risk of reopening old unresolved debates, my own view is that the > >use of their power to regulate conventions in order to effectively ban > >particularly ill-favored natural methods is an abuse of that power. It > >illustrates precisely the type of disregard for the Laws which I mentioned > >in response to Robin. > > > +=+ It is certainly a use of a power for a > purpose that was not the intention when > it was given. 'Abuse' is the flavour for those > who hate the regulation; 'ingenuity' is an > alternative opinion. I think it is stupid to > think you can use the law to shackle those > who should be deciding what is best for > the people. Why not? That is exactly what laws are for. If the laws are bad, change them. Until then, enforce them. >.The route to be taken is one > of seeking a broad consensus - and I do > have a hunch that each NA is not far adrift > of doing what large numbers of its > members think right. Fairness is not a popularity contest. Putting aside the fact that the ACBL (for instance) is not organized in a very democratic manner, merely "doing what large numbers of its members think right" is abdicating legislative responsibility. "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." -- Edmund Burke > Weight of opinion > would eventually change it were this not > so. The next step is to try to achieve as > much integration of ideas around the > world as we can - at least in things that > seem odd if they differ from nation to > nation. Good idea. Why not form a world bridge organization, include representatives from all over, have them create an international Laws Commission, then appoint a drafting committee for the Laws, get the draft approved by all concerned, and require that the Laws be followed by those who wish to be part of the organization? Local LCs could interpret the Laws when necessary on a tentative basis only, pending approval by the international LC. Anything wrong with that? > (I happen to be a little sad that > we see little 'Far Eastern' opinion up to > now; it might be interesting to learn > about RoC and Japan thinking. It is time > these nations were beginning to have > more input. Have they been made to feel welcome? Do they have representatives on the WBF LC? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 17 18:03:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:03:04 +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 SAA08653 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:02:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.124] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Rsyd-0001Xo-00; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:02:40 +0100 Message-ID: <001401bf00e3$0020f7c0$7c5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" , , Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:53:23 +0100 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 ; msd@mindspring.com Date: 16 September 1999 15:25 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. > >Or decide on a larger set of agreements which can be regulated, which is >acceptable to all NCBOs; and have a meta-regulation that other natural >calls can not be constrained by ingenious (Grattan's word) methods. > >e.g in L40D replace "initial actions at the one level to be made with > a hand of a King or more below average strength" > >by "initial actions with a hand below average strength". > +=+ I am quite taken with a suggestion that DWS put to me a little time ago: that we remove the definition of 'convention' from the laws - and let it return to its dictionary definition if ever used, whilst rewording the laws to express powers of regulation without using the word 'convention' in doing so. ~Grattan~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 17 18:03:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:03:04 +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 SAA08655 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:02:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.124] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Rsyf-0001Xo-00; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:02:41 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bf00e3$00f20360$7c5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , Subject: Re: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:06:31 +0100 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: 'Marvin L. French' ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 16 September 1999 13:10 Subject: RE: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton People do invent some agreement and being proud >of it give it a name> ------------------- \x/ -------------------- >Or bidding 4D as a splinter with Axxxx x xx AKJxx after partner opened 1S. >David Stevenson is probably right from a formal point of view when he says >(I remember he does)that players who bid 4D with this hand should explain >that splinters sometimes are small doubletons. But it doesn't work like >that, that is not bridge anymore. > +=+ If we are talking about a pair who have this agreement, I wonder how much they are entitled to call it a 'splinter'; the name misleads. I do think it right to require them to describe their method accurately. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 17 18:03:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:03:04 +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 SAA08654 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:02:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.124] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Rsyg-0001Xo-00; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:02:42 +0100 Message-ID: <001601bf00e3$01a303e0$7c5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:01:22 +0100 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: 16 September 1999 14:31 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. > >And maybe it is actually best to allow open-ended regulation by NCBO's. But >then why not make that an explicit principle in the Laws, rather than >writing Laws which _appear_ to protect at least some of the rights of >players to define their own methods, while at the same time giving NCBO's >essentially unbridled authority to trample on those same rights? Why not >just admit that NCBO's are responsible for regulating matters of bidding >conventions, methods, and even style, and abandon the legal fiction that >such authority is limited to conventions only? > +=+ This is almost exactly the position I argued with Edgar. I did not include 'style' which I take to mean a player's tendencies in spontaneous decision making, as distinct from habitual actions. Also I did not talk about 'giving NCBOs unbridled authority' but rather of the essential truth that if they are determined to, they will find a way. And I demonstrated as much. [ It is the same with the question of the alleged 'psychic' bid, made with partnership understanding. It is not lawful to make it, there is widespread understanding that Directors simply cannot allow a result obtained through an illegal bid, and no matter what we think the law is, NBOs will require their Directors to disallow the bid and justify their action on whatever basis might meet the objections of the lawmakers. And frankly I think they are sensible to do so. There is always 12A2 to fall back on.] ~Grattan~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 17 18:22:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA08714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:22:31 +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 SAA08709 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:22:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.123] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11RtHc-0002JH-00; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:22:17 +0100 Message-ID: <003501bf00e5$bd8230c0$7c5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:21:07 +0100 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 Discussion List Date: 16 September 1999 13:44 Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. > >Unfortunately, the ACBL's policy decisions do not appear to give primacy to >the interests of its membership, as Michael suggests, but instead to the >interests of its potential future membership, which is a very different >kettle of fish. Attracting new members is, by the ACBL's own admission, at >the top of its list of priorities, well ahead of best serving its current >members. > > >Eric Landau > +=+ It is hardly a surprise that the ACBL has this priority. The ACBL is already somewhat diminished; nobody, surely, wants it to fade into a marginal inconsequentiality? We want to see it thriving, one of the great power- houses of bridge, and we should be wishing them every success with recruitment. ~Grattan~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 17 22:07:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:07:30 +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 WAA09227 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:07:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id OAA05549; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 14:07:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JG2V87SDW8003GM2@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 14:05:55 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:14:30 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:14:29 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C273@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 idea. Why not form a world bridge organization, include > representatives from all over, have them create an international > Laws Commission, then appoint a drafting committee for the Laws, get > the draft approved by all concerned, and require that the Laws be > followed by those who wish to be part of the organization? Local LCs > could interpret the Laws when necessary on a tentative basis only, > pending approval by the international LC. Anything wrong with that? My experience and memory tells me that this description is close to reality. What has to be organized better is the last part. New interpretations should only be made if there isn't one yet and need to be approved by the LC. The LC needs to find a way to effectivily publish its decisions. ton > > (I happen to be a little sad that > > we see little 'Far Eastern' opinion up to > > now; it might be interesting to learn > > about RoC and Japan thinking. It is time > > these nations were beginning to have > > more input. > > Have they been made to feel welcome? Do they have representatives on > the WBF LC? They are more than welcome and never there has been a signal to the contrary. Most of the zones are represented but as in all aspects in the WBF zone 1 and 2 form a majority. Though BLML seems to contradict this, interest in our laws is not an universal habit and has to be built up. I meet opinions from mr. Nakatani from Japan in the Australian TD-bulletin regularly. That is good and it will grow. ton > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 00:07:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 00:07:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (Salamix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA09567 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 00:07:07 +1000 (EST) From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22150 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 10:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA250577217; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 10:06:58 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA233207217; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 10:06:57 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 10:06:41 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Law 25 - an other case 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 AAA09568 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, The auction was: N E S W 1NT P 2H! P P P 2H was alerted (directly announced as "transfer" as ACBL-land regulation requires). Immediately after the final P, N called the TD and said he always intended to bid 2S as S asked for, but inadvertendly put a P card on table. Your ruling ? 1) Trust N and apply Law 25A, allowing N to change his "inadvertent" call without penalty (his partner has not called after the inadvertent P....evidently...). 2) Apply Law 25B, judging the P is "a split of mind" and can not be a mechanical error. E-W will get the table result, but an Avg- will be allowed to N-S. Is this ruling a pure point of law application, not under the power of an AC (Law 93B2 reads: the AC may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations) ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 01:15:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 01:15:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA09778 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 01:15:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from pcbs03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.204] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11RzjL-0000V7-00; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:15:19 +0100 Message-ID: <000801bf011f$68cf6720$cc8393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , Subject: Re: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:29:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Marvin L. French' ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 17 September 1999 13:21 Subject: RE: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton > > --------------- \x/ --------------- > >My experience and memory tells me that this description is close to reality. >What has to be organized better is the last part. New interpretations should >only be made if there isn't one yet and need to be approved by the LC. The >LC needs to find a way to effectivily publish its decisions. > >ton +=+ Very much needed. And prompt ones, responsive to today's speed of communication. Until the current committee makes fresh decisions the old ones hold good. Some of the problem lies in the extent of the consultations that are necessary. In some things it is questionable whether intra-committee consultations alone are sufficient. +=+ > ------------------ \x/ --------------- > > >. I meet >opinions from mr. Nakatani from Japan in the Australian TD-bulletin >regularly. >ton > +=+ I have had internet conversation with Mr Nakatani. ~Grattan~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 01:19:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 01:19:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA09793 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 01:19:33 +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 LAA25510 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:19:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA22121 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:19:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:19:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909171519.LAA22121@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > An existing pass card has been re-used. So tapping a pass card is a call, but tapping the table (before any pass card has been put out) is not? This seems awfully subtle. Will your players understand it? If we need a definite rule, I suppose the SO could adopt explicit regulations about apparent calls that are made in other than recommended form (e.g. tapping or spoken). What if the player says "one spade" and then puts the 1H card on the table? Do you really think we will all agree what to do? I don't much care how we rule, but I would very much like for all of us to rule the same way! Absent an explicit rule, David's approach seems simple and fair: if in doubt, rule in the manner least favorable to the player who failed to follow correct procedure. This is in no sense a penalty, but if it's an incentive to follow correct procedure, is that bad? I think it is something the players will understand and accept. If following the procedure is a nuisance, perhaps the SO should consider changes. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 03:16:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 03:16:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA10279 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 03:16:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA11399; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:59:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-86.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.86) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma009013; Fri Sep 17 11:26:49 1999 Message-ID: <003701bf0129$b020f4e0$5684d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , Subject: Re: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:28:31 -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: Grattan Endicott To: Kooijman, A. ; 'Marvin L. French' ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 11:15 AM Subject: Re: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >The man who says to one, go, and he goeth, >and to another, come, and he cometh, has, >in most cases, more sense of restraint and >difficulty than the man who obeys him." (Ruskin) >wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww >-----Original Message----- >From: Kooijman, A. >To: 'Marvin L. French' ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >Date: 17 September 1999 13:21 >Subject: RE: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton > > >> >> >--------------- \x/ --------------- >> >>My experience and memory tells me that this description is close to reality. >>What has to be organized better is the last part. New interpretations should >>only be made if there isn't one yet and need to be approved by the LC. The >>LC needs to find a way to effectivily publish its decisions. >> >>ton > +=+ Very much needed. And prompt ones, >responsive to today's speed of communication. >Until the current committee makes fresh decisions >the old ones hold good. > Some of the problem lies in the extent >of the consultations that are necessary. In some >things it is questionable whether intra-committee >consultations alone are sufficient. +=+ >> >------------------ \x/ --------------- >> >> >>. I meet >>opinions from mr. Nakatani from Japan in the Australian TD-bulletin >>regularly. > >ton >> > +=+ I have had internet conversation with Mr Nakatani. > ~Grattan~ +=+ > > > > >What can we do to get him and other interested souls to add to this list? We could all benefit from their insights, and perhaps they from ours? -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 03:42:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 03:19:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA10300 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 03:19:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA15612; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:17:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-86.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.86) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008677; Fri Sep 17 11:21:46 1999 Message-ID: <002e01bf0128$fb823f80$5684d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:23:28 -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 Are we saying then that attrition of current members is due solely to mortality, rather than dissatisfaction, and that this shall always be the case? Are we ignoring the tendency of younger potential members to be disaffected by excessive regulation and strangulation of innovation? It is essential to attract new members, but it is no less essential to provide for the needs and desires of the present membership. In fact, the ACBL has often been accused of pandering in excess to its current again population of Susie Kumquats at the expense of opening the game up, at least in some venues, to attract "new blood" of a more recent vintage. As you no doubt know, is is not easy to please everyone. :-)) The provision of substantial opportunities to play at midchart would defuse a lot of the complaints, so long as a large number of GCC games were also made available for those who wanted less innovation and challange. The MABC policies show some merit in letting the more advanced players have more leeway, and they operate within the good graces of the ACBL the last I looked. (MidAtlantic Bridge C....which runs regionals in Washington DC, Maryland and much of the southeast I believe makes all regional gold point events midchart...perhaps Eric can provide more details). I presume in England and Wales games can be found at 2, 3 or 4 without grat difficulty? Perhaps this may be why there is less carping about restrictive policies on bidding systems? We even have some games (for novices at club level) at which psyching is forbidden (illegally I suspect). But at that level how would you ever know a psych from a misbid anyway? :-)) Anyone unhappy with that environment only has to play up to escape it. The same applies to so-called "simple systems" games. Remember, simple is a system I play and understand, highly unusual is what those other people want to foist on me and my partner. :-)) The problem has become aggravated by the prevalence of stratified games, in which the weaker players want the experienced ones to play down to their level. Flighting, or at least strati-flighting can solve much of this. --- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List ; Eric Landau Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 4:22 AM Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. > > >Grattan------------------------------------------------------------ >"Surprised by unjust force, but not enthralled." > - Milton. >------------------------------------------------------------ >-----Original Message----- >From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Date: 16 September 1999 13:44 >Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. > > >> >>Unfortunately, the ACBL's policy decisions do not appear to give primacy to >>the interests of its membership, as Michael suggests, but instead to the >>interests of its potential future membership, which is a very different >>kettle of fish. Attracting new members is, by the ACBL's own admission, at >>the top of its list of priorities, well ahead of best serving its current >>members. >> >> >>Eric Landau >> >+=+ It is hardly a surprise that the ACBL has >this priority. The ACBL is already somewhat >diminished; nobody, surely, wants it to fade >into a marginal inconsequentiality? We want >to see it thriving, one of the great power- >houses of bridge, and we should be wishing >them every success with recruitment. > ~Grattan~ +=+ > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 05:01:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 05:01:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10592 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 05:00:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveiar.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.91]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA20140 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:00:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990917145824.0140401c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 14:58:24 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Law 25 - an other case In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:06 AM 9/17/99 -0400, Laval wrote: >Hi all, > >The auction was: > > N E S W > 1NT P 2H! P > P P > >2H was alerted (directly announced as "transfer" as >ACBL-land regulation requires). Immediately after the >final P, N called the TD and said he always intended >to bid 2S as S asked for, but inadvertendly put a P >card on table. > >Your ruling ? > >1) Trust N and apply Law 25A, allowing N to change his > "inadvertent" call without penalty (his partner has not > called after the inadvertent P....evidently...). > >2) Apply Law 25B, judging the P is "a split of mind" > and can not be a mechanical error. E-W will get the > table result, but an Avg- will be allowed to N-S. > >Is this ruling a pure point of law application, not under >the power of an AC (Law 93B2 reads: the AC may not >overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations) ? > I don't like L25. It seems to me that once you make a bid you should be stuck with it. Too many questions such as the one you have raised (as well as on the previous thread in this vein) turn on judgements of players' thought processes. But it's there, isn't it? So, it seems absurd to argue that a player who has alerted his partner's transfer call might now choose to pass it, unless we happen to find him with 5 hearts and xx in spades. His pass was inadvertent. Does anyone doubt it? Let him change it. I don't think this type of ruling is unappealable. There are matters of fact involved, and determinations which in some cases at least could require bridge judgement, if not necessarily in this example. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 05:31:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 05:31:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10641 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 05:31:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehfh.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.241]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA00158 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:31:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990917152828.0140401c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:28:28 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton In-Reply-To: <005901bf0016$27826240$d85208c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:31 AM 9/16/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ It is certainly a use of a power for a >purpose that was not the intention when >it was given. 'Abuse' is the flavour for those >who hate the regulation; 'ingenuity' is an >alternative opinion. I think it is stupid to >think you can use the law to shackle those >who should be deciding what is best for >the people. This is an interesting perspective, and may well be at the core of many of our disputes. No, Grattan, it is _not_ stupid to view the Laws in such a way; it is a well-respected tradition in countries with legal systems based in written constitutions (which may be why it is not completely obvious to Brits). The Royalist view of laws is that they serve the needs of the government in controlling the actions of the governed. This view generally includes a presumption of the benign intent of the rulers, despite centuries of history calling into question such faith. Constitutional government, in contrast, seeks to protect the rights of the governed by imposing constraints (or "shackles") on the power of the government. Of course the laws in such a system still represent an attempt to control the actions of the governed, but within a context of guaranteed rights and protections from abuses of government authority. This turns out to be a much less efficient system of dispensing justice, but it does work to check the power of a potentially corrupt state. You and David have been among the most consistent exponents of the philosophy that TD's, AC's, and SO's should be empowered to decide "what is best for the people". And as I have said in the past, if all such decisions could be entrusted to individuals with your collective experience and judgement, this might be just dandy. Unfortunately, many of the individuals and institutions involved in officiating our game fall far short of that level. So I rely upon the Laws not merely for instructions concerning my responsibilities as a player, but as a guarantor (of sorts) of my legal rights against the arbitrary decisions of the authorities. Yes, that does "shackle those who should be deciding what is best for the people." But no, it is most assuredly not stupid. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 05:48:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 05:48:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (exim@nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10677 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 05:48:41 +1000 (EST) From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (af06@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.114.243]) by mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11S3ze-0006OJ-00; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:48:26 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA229117691; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:48:11 +0200 Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:48:11 +0200 (CES) In-Reply-To: <01beffdc$d3104760$bd8c93c3@vnmvhhid> from "Anne Jones" at Sep 16, 1999 01:45:51 AM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to Anne Jones: > > >North >KQxx >x >KJ10xxxx >K > >South >Jxxxxx >Kxxx >Q10 >A > >South opens 1S >North bids 3C (GF in Spades) >South bids 3S >North bids 4C (asking) >South bids 4H >West passes >North passes >East taps his Pass card >North says he has inadvertantly passed and wishes to change his call. > >Believe it or not, at this stage I was called to the table. >North suggests that East's tapping was "sporting". Everyone at the table >knew what had happened. I rule that East has passed. Tapping the pass in this situation is standard practise to save some time. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 05:56:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 05:56:11 +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 FAA10696 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 05:56:03 +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 MAA10958; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:55:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199909171955.MAA10958@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Meaning of "likely" in 12C2 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:44:20 PDT." <199909161644.RAA28375@tempest.npl.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:55:26 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > [Adam wrote:] > > Here's a theoretical question: When determining what results are > > "likely" in order to award an assigned AS, do we take into account > > decisions made by the NO's that occurred after the infraction but were > > independent of the infraction? Example: > > > > A9xx > > xxxx > > xxx > > -- Kx Qxxx > > AJxxx xx > > JT 98xx > > xxxxxx KJT8x AQJ > > KQ > > AKQx > > xx > > > > IMPs, E-W vul. South opens 1S; North bids 3C (Bergen, 4-card limit > > raise), alerted; East starts asking a lot of pointed questions about > > the 3C bid. My belief is that it's never wrong to ask about alerted > > bids, if you have a policy of doing it consistently, but this East > > goes way too far. He might as well have detached his clubs from his > > hand and waved them in front of everyone's face. Anyway, East then > > passes, then South bids 4S and plays it there. > > > > Sure enough, West leads a club into East's AQ. Later, South guesses > > to play spades starting with the king, and goes down when West shows > > out. The lead, it turns out, is irrelevant; South will always make or > > go down depending on how he how he guesses spades. Still, either red > > suit is a logical alternative, so West's club lead was an infraction. > > Was there damage? Do we adjust? > > > [discussion of L12C2 snipped] > > I think you have answered this yourself. > > The lead was irrelevant so the infraction has not resulted in damage > (L16A2). So we do not assign an adjusted score, so we do not have > to consider L12C2. Well, maybe *you* don't have to consider it; but DWS (and those who agree with him) would have to, since he told me in a previous thread that the way to determine whether there is "damage" is to see if the NO's would have gotten a better result if we had adjusted according to L12C2. Anyway, I can change the cards a little bit to eliminate the question of whether there was damage: A9xxx xxxx xx -- Kx Qxx Txxx Ax JTxx 98xx xxxxx KJT8x AQJT KQJ AKQ xx It's the next day, and the same two partnerships meet each other in a matchpoint event. Same auction (North didn't raise to 4S because he didn't have a singleton). East, who hasn't learned anything from the director's reprimand on the previous hand, still asks a lot of pointed questions about the 3C bid; and West, who is just as dense as East, commits the same infraction by leading a club. South, who thinks that the queen of spades is more likely to be on his left since it was on his right last time, starts by playing the king, and he goes down again. North has already scratched Bergen raises off his convention card. This time, there was clearly damage. Without a club lead, South pitches a club on the diamonds and makes at least four. So we have to apply 12C2. But we still have to determine the most favorable likely result that would have occurred if West had led a red card. Certainly, the most favorable result is making 5, since South could play spades the other way. But my question still stands: When determining the "most favorable likely result", do we take into account that South misguessed the spades and that this misguess was in no way caused by the infraction? Do we assume South would have misguessed the spades again and give him +620; or do we back up the hand to the point of the infraction, throwing away the information about South's spade play in the process, and make our determination from that point onward? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 06:17:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 06:17:15 +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 GAA10740 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 06:17:04 +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 QAA17188 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:16:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA22537 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:17:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:17:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909172017.QAA22537@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 25 - an other case X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA > N E S W > 1NT P 2H! P > P P > > 2H was alerted (directly announced as "transfer" as > ACBL-land regulation requires). Immediately after the > final P, N called the TD and said he always intended > to bid 2S as S asked for, but inadvertendly put a P > card on table. Let's go through the L25A checklist: 1. Was the pass inadvertent when made? I don't think the ACBL has a clear definition of inadvertent ("inattentive" or "unintentional"), but the announcement suggests that the player did not intend to pass, and it's likely on its face that the pass was inattentive. I would therefore tend to rule the pass as inadvertent, but there's no substitute for being on the scene. 2. Did the player attempt to change his call? Yes, he called the TD. (We are not told the key information of whether he uttered an expletive first. :-) ) 3. Was there a pause for thought between the player's noticing the pass and attempting to change it? We aren't told. It's the TD's duty to find out and make a ruling. (This is the step that was overlooked in the Vancouver case.) 4. Has partner called? No, so a change isn't ruled out. However you rule on the above, L25B cannot apply since LHO has called. Either North gets to change his call under L25A or else South plays 2H. > Is this ruling a pure point of law application, No, of course not. There is hardly any question of law; at most, there might be a question of the meaning of 'inadvertent'. The key issue is determining the facts. If the TD has done a competent job, it would be unwise and improbable to overrule him, but it would be legal. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 06:37:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 06:37:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [195.147.248.109] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA10797 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 06:37:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from p2as04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.43] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11S4lB-0005lC-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:37:34 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 25 - an other case Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:42:17 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf014d$21846ea0$448b93c3@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: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 3:28 PM Subject: Law 25 - an other case >Hi all, > >The auction was: > > N E S W > 1NT P 2H! P > P P > >2H was alerted (directly announced as "transfer" as >ACBL-land regulation requires). Immediately after the >final P, N called the TD and said he always intended >to bid 2S as S asked for, but inadvertendly put a P >card on table. > >Your ruling ? > >1) Trust N and apply Law 25A, allowing N to change his > "inadvertent" call without penalty (his partner has not > called after the inadvertent P....evidently...). > >2) Apply Law 25B, judging the P is "a split of mind" > and can not be a mechanical error. E-W will get the > table result, but an Avg- will be allowed to N-S. Neither. It is not a L25A situation., and it is too late for L25B. I would rule that they play in 2H and the boards will be scored as played. > >Is this ruling a pure point of law application, not under >the power of an AC (Law 93B2 reads: the AC may not >overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations) ? When my last 25B ruling went to AC it was because the player felt that I had interpreted the law incorrectly. That I had made a judgement as to the meaning of the word inadvertent, and this judgement was flawed. I think he was entitled to his appeal. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 07:06:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 07:06:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA10914 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 07:06:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA26916 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:08:24 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990917193436.007a92c0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 19:34:36 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: PP after UI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [snip] >this hand came in with 2S. Particularly at this vulnerability, pass is an >alternative, so I have no problem with a score adjustment. My question is: > >*** Is the 2S call illegal / an infraction of law / an offence? Could making >such a call ever attract a PP? *** Yes, making such a call is an infraction. Yes, making such a call _could_ deserve a PP. It could deserve a PP if the maker of the call should clearly have known that it was suggested by the UI over an alternative call. >L16A states that the player "...may not choose from among logical alternative >actions..." and of course anyone taking this action has to expect it to come >under the scrutiny of the TD for a possible adjusted score, but is it actually >an offence to make the bid? When he was chair of the EBU L+E Committee, David >Burn wrote an article in "English Bridge" (aimed at the less-experienced >tournament or club player, admittedly) saying that after partner hesitates or >asks a question or otherwise imparts UI, no actions are banned by law, the best >advice is simply to bid as you would have done without the UI (but accept any >ruling with good grace). This does not tally with the following case lifted As others have said, I think David is simply incorrect. [snip of different hand] >Of the panel of directors asked, around half considered imposing a PP for using >UI, suggesting it is a serious breach of propriety. (One cited L90A, which >admits to being incomplete, but lists no offences even remotely similar to this >one.) I have no trouble with a PP for cases in which the person clearly should have been able to work out what the UI suggested and what alternatives were available. I would not have given one in this case, since I could very well believe a player who said that he honestly thought that sitting for 3DX with that hand was not a logical alternative. [I'm not saying whether I agree or not, but I am saying I could easily believe the player thought that.] >I would not consider passing this hand without the UI, and some of the panel >agreed with me. So what would you advise (a) club-standard (b) higher standard >players to do in this situation, ignore the UI and bid normally, or try to >second-guess the TD / appeals committee? Neither. I would advise the player to seriously consider what the UI suggested, and honestly evaluate his logical alternatives, trying to take care that his judgement is not warped by the UI. Then do not take the bid suggested by the UI unless there is no logical alternative which is not so suggested. I do not think it is required that you 'try to second-guess the committee'. I do not try to follow the laws to please a committee. There may be cases where one judges that a committee might allow an action, but you know full well an alternative exists--you are still forbidden from making the suggested bid even though you think you could get away with it. OTOH, there may be cases where one has no idea what a committee would consider a LA. So my advice it to try to follow the law, although I agree that one should accept with grace a contrary judgement by TD or AC. >James Vickers >Darmstadt, Germany -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 08:39:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 08:39:56 +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 IAA11195 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 08:39:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from eitan (RAS1-p72.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.182.74]) by mailgw1.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA17153 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 00:39:39 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990918004224.0082f570@netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 00:42:24 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: Law 25 - an other case In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You can not apply 25B - LHO has already called. As for applying 25A: Sure I trust N, I'm sure he intended bidding 2S - but he didn't bid it. And I can't see how he pulled the PASS card inadvertently instead of the 2S. He's made an unintended call but not an inadvertent one. (If he had pulled the 2NT card, next to the 2S card in the bidding box, that's another story ...) Eitan At 10:06 AM 9/17/99 -0400, you wrote: >Hi all, > >The auction was: > > N E S W > 1NT P 2H! P > P P > >2H was alerted (directly announced as "transfer" as >ACBL-land regulation requires). Immediately after the >final P, N called the TD and said he always intended >to bid 2S as S asked for, but inadvertendly put a P >card on table. > >Your ruling ? > >1) Trust N and apply Law 25A, allowing N to change his > "inadvertent" call without penalty (his partner has not > called after the inadvertent P....evidently...). > >2) Apply Law 25B, judging the P is "a split of mind" > and can not be a mechanical error. E-W will get the > table result, but an Avg- will be allowed to N-S. > >Is this ruling a pure point of law application, not under >the power of an AC (Law 93B2 reads: the AC may not >overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations) ? > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 09:13:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:13:20 +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 JAA11294 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:13:09 +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 TAA26083 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 19:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA22673 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 19:13:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 19:13:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909172313.TAA22673@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: PP after UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike has already given a good answer to the general question, but I want to add a comment. > From: James.Vickers@merck.de > 10 9 3 > Q J 9 6 5 4 2 > Q > Q 2 > > where RHO opened 1C, the above hand bid 3D (transfer pre-empt), heard no alert > from partner (UI) and attempted to escape to 3H after two passes and a double. > I would not consider passing this hand without the UI, and some of the panel > agreed with me. Consider playing with screens, where you have no idea if partner alerted or not. You really would not consider passing? You must have little trust in your partner! Suppose you heard partner alert and explain correctly (when asked) and then pass. You still aren't passing? If that's true, you are entitled to your bridge judgment, but please allow me to suggest that you ought to play with better partners. It would never occur to me to bid again unless I had strong reason to believe that partner had forgotten. Either partner has few if any hearts and lots of diamonds or he was making a lead-directing "bid" and will pull to hearts himself. Or perhaps he was playing around to see what the opponents will do. Regardless, I've described my hand, and I have excellent diamond support if that's where he wants to play, and the rest is up to him. If the TD/AC's bridge judgment is the same as mine, and if they judge the player concerned is experienced enough to expect that to be true, then a PP would seem appropriate. If behind screens, the player is free to exercise his judgment. That's the advantage of using screens. Without them, though, bidding is illegal even if the player himself would always bid without the UI. If you are unhappy with that, blame partner for forgetting to alert. If he had alerted (and given a proper explanation if asked), the player would have been free to pull the double if that was his choice. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 09:34:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:34:00 +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 JAA11361 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:33:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA26710 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 19:33:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA22693 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 19:33:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 19:33:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909172333.TAA22693@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Last Words X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Brian@meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) > casting doubt on the other side's motives was seldom either > productive or justified. Well said. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > If you have a teeny suspicion that I am a mite angry > it is because I see the argument I have been opposing > as undermining the accepted ethos of a game for which > (you may perhaps grant that) I care deeply. I expect all of us care deeply about the game or else we wouldn't be posting here. Few if any of us have such long and intensive experience as Grattan, but lack of experience can be an advantage and not a handicap if the question is what the text of the laws, read by an unprejudiced observer, says. It seems to me -- perhaps inadvisedly speculating on motives -- that Grattan _knows_ what the rules are intended to be, perhaps even what they _must_ be. I don't think anyone will disagree with him on the general points that partnership agreements must be disclosed and, if within a certain sphere, can be regulated. Bridge is not a game of secret codes nor "ambush methods," nor would we want it to be. The problem comes when we try to apply the general principles to specific cases. Where is the dividing line between "style and judgment" and "partnership experience?" What information is authorized for use in applying one's judgment? Grattan is sure he knows the answers, and he insists that those answers are contained in the text of the Laws. Unfortunately, some of us are too dense to see that the Laws say what he says they do. In fact, there are parts of the text that seem, on straightforward reading, to say the opposite of what Grattan is telling us. > ... 'style' which I take > to mean a player's tendencies in spontaneous > decision making, as distinct from habitual > actions. Beyond the semantic disagreement, there is a logical question of how to allow judgment in choosing actions within a system while still regulating the system itself and disclosing everything. As partners gain experience with each other, they will almost inevitably find that they take different views of certain situations. Are these subject to regulation? (Surely they are subject to disclosure!) If not, what is the distinction between these and other parts of the system? If so, where is the scope for judgment? For example, one of us opens 1NT, and the other has a flat hand with a four-card major. Must both partners make the same decision about whether or not to use Stayman? If the two find themselves with different habits, is that illegal? What if I consider my partner a chronic overbidder? May I bid a little more conservatively in doubtful situations? One approach is to insist that there is no problem and that TD's and AC's can decide practical cases. I hope Grattan can forgive those of us who find this unsatisfying. Some of us would like to know the logical basis on which TD's and AC's should be deciding and also the basis on which we, as players, may choose our actions. It seems to me that much of the answer is based on oral tradition (which is, I believe, what Vitold means when he says "the legend") and _not_ on the text of the Laws. That may or may not be a good thing, but surely it's worthy of discussion. If the Laws are ambiguous in certain cases or require experience and education to interpret, that _does not_ mean the law writers have done a bad job. We know only a fraction of the difficulties they have faced, but it's clear even so that their job was never an easy one. I have enormous respect for their achievements. > [ It is the same with the question of the > alleged 'psychic' bid, made with partnership > understanding. It is not lawful to make it, ..., > NBOs will require their Directors > to disallow the bid and justify their action on > whatever basis... Yes, I think most of us agree with this. The problem is to find a basis for disallowing the illegal bid that does not also disallow quite a few things most of us think are legal. The further, perhaps rather minor, problem is to find this basis in the Laws. If we do so, we will perhaps be able to tell whether some things that might be questionable are in fact legal or not. I have given several examples, but nobody seems to have addressed them. Whatever you think of my motives, I don't think the logical questions are simple. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 10:30:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:30:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11483 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:29:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (p5-tnt5.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.194.5]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id MAA27079 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:29:48 +1200 Message-ID: <001c01bf016c$d9f570a0$05c26dcb@default> From: "J Atkinson" To: Subject: Minor Penalty Card Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:29:15 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01BF01D1.6BBB68A0" 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_0019_01BF01D1.6BBB68A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, =20 In the process of organising a course, and as always I start reading the = Laws again a bit more carefully. Question: Defender has a minor penalty card e.g 4D, but they play the 9D = when the suit is led. My understanding is that declarer can select which = of these cards is played to the trick. Law 52B. If declarer selects the = 4D, then the 9D is a major penalty card, but if declarer accepts the 9D = then the 4D is still a minor penalty card. Is this right? Julie Atkinson New Zealand ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01BF01D1.6BBB68A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
 
In the process of organising a = course, and as=20 always I start reading the Laws again a bit more carefully.
 
Question: Defender has a minor = penalty card e.g=20 4D, but they play the 9D when the suit is led. My understanding is that = declarer=20 can select which of these cards is played to the trick. Law 52B. If = declarer=20 selects the 4D, then the 9D is a major penalty card, but if declarer = accepts the=20 9D then the 4D is still a minor penalty card. Is this = right?
 
Julie Atkinson
New = Zealand
------=_NextPart_000_0019_01BF01D1.6BBB68A0-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 10:47:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:47:14 +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 KAA11509 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:47:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11S8eX-000Ono-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 00:46:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 01:45:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 In-Reply-To: <199909171519.LAA22121@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199909171519.LAA22121@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> An existing pass card has been re-used. > >So tapping a pass card is a call, but tapping the table (before any >pass card has been put out) is not? This seems awfully subtle. Will >your players understand it? The common practice is to tap the final pass of an auction only, and by tapping an existing pass card. I would not deem any other tap to be anything more than a mannerism or tic. 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 Sep 18 10:47:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:47:16 +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 KAA11510 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:47:07 +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 11S8eX-000Onp-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 00:46:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 01:46:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: claim after psyche by opponents MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I liked this one. Location: The bear pit at the Young Chelsea (Friday night imp pairs game, smoking section) Players : The usual suspects (strong wild and ethical) D: E AKQJ43 S W N E V: NS K7 2H 74 P P 3N Ends 987652 AK5 10 Lead C4 J94 82 KQ A8653 J8 - Q10643 AQ10653 J1092 972 alerted as weak with a 5-card suit Declarer wins the C lead, cashes 4S, the KC and claims "Making 10 unless you've psyched" Ruling please - hehe 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 Sep 18 11:04:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:04:19 +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 LAA11571 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:04:10 +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 SAA16660; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:03:29 -0700 Message-Id: <199909180103.SAA16660@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Definition-Inadvertent Law 25 In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 18 Sep 1999 01:45:15 PDT." Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:03:27 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <199909171519.LAA22121@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >> An existing pass card has been re-used. > > > >So tapping a pass card is a call, but tapping the table (before any > >pass card has been put out) is not? This seems awfully subtle. Will > >your players understand it? > > The common practice is to tap the final pass of an auction only, and by > tapping an existing pass card. I would not deem any other tap to be > anything more than a mannerism or tic. chs john There's one exception to this: your opponents are Grotheim-Aa, having one of their relay auctions like they've been having in _Challenge the Champs_ recently, and by the time they get to asking whether their partner has any 10-9 combinations, you've run out of pass cards. Actually, this seems to happen a fair amount---not that I often play against relayers, but that the opponents are bidding around the mulberry bush, both trying to get partner to make the final decision, and I run out of green cards before they work it out. Maybe they're just too cheap to buy enough green cards in the U.S. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 11:27:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:27:09 +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 LAA11607 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:26:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehg3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.3]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA23260 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:26:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990917212419.014007e8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:24:19 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: PP after UI In-Reply-To: <199909172313.TAA22673@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:13 PM 9/17/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >Consider playing with screens, where you have no idea if partner >alerted or not. You really would not consider passing? You must have >little trust in your partner! Suppose you heard partner alert and >explain correctly (when asked) and then pass. You still aren't >passing? It is not clear to me which of these mental experiments best frames the question which needs to be asked, but it is clear that they are significantly different. In the information-neutral case, the answer is, no, I would not pass. I would consider it, but would judge a) that the likelihood of partner's having forgotten the agreement is at least equal to the probability of his having a valid bridge reason for his action and b) that the downside risk is much greater with the pass than with bidding. I would make this judgement even opposite my favorite partner whom I do trust. He's an excellent player, but not above this kind of lapse (nor am I). It is harder in the second case. Now I know that partner correctly read my meaning, but there is at least enough chance that he simply pulled the pass card by mistake (as in the current L25 thread) that I would have to consider pulling to 3H. Here's where it gets interesting: the (hypothetical) fact that partner alerted and correctly explained my bid is UI, and it suggests passing instead of bidding! So perhaps in this version, too, I would have to bid 3H, though this time by virtue of the Laws rather than bridge logic. I think I come down on the side of the information-neutral experiment. It seems to me closer to the spirit of the Laws. I agree that in the end, passing is a LA and bidding is suggested by the UI, so I would not let 3H stand, but I do think it's pretty close. I have never been comfortable with the presumption that the recipient of UI in these situations would never work out what happened on his own. When partner passes a transfer, bells and whistles go off in my head, and if the opponents are kind enough to double me, it seems extremely unwise to assume that partner really knew what he was doing after all. Shouldn't I be allowed to work that out even with the redundant UI? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 11:55:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:55:12 +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 LAA11654 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:55:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehg3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.3]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA09752 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990917215239.014034ac@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:52:39 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:46 AM 9/18/99 +0100, John wrote: > I liked this one. > >Location: The bear pit at the Young Chelsea > (Friday night imp pairs game, smoking section) >Players : The usual suspects (strong wild and ethical) > >D: E AKQJ43 S W N E >V: NS K7 2H > 74 P P 3N Ends >987652 AK5 10 Lead C4 >J94 82 >KQ A8653 >J8 - Q10643 > AQ10653 > J1092 > 972 > alerted as weak with a 5-card suit >Declarer wins the C lead, cashes 4S, the KC and claims >"Making 10 unless you've psyched" > >Ruling please - hehe Down 2. North has been a bad boy. There was no particular need to cash the 4 spade tricks, and certainly no reason to "unblock" the club K. And then he compounded his carelessness with an incomplete claim. As it happens, he would have been faced with a problem when both players followed to the heart K. Should he assume that East's bid was based on only a 4-card heart suit, or was it more likely to have been constructed from thin air, as it in fact was? He might well decide to cash out, which in fact earns him an excellent score with the heart suit running, but he might reason that with hearts "likely" to be 4-1, he will earn a poor matchpoint score for settling for only 9 tricks at no-trump, and try for the brass ring by finessing the ten. OOPS! That's his last trick. I think it's more likely he would cash out, but not a completely clear thing. It would not be ridiculous to finesse, IMO, and so that's how I would rule. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 12:11:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:11:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (mta@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11684 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:11:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.177]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 19:10:55 -0700 Message-ID: <017401bf017b$04142ee0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199909171955.MAA10958@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Meaning of "likely" in 12C2 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 19:10:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > Anyway, I can change the cards a little bit to eliminate the question > of whether there was damage: > > A9xxx > xxxx > xx > -- Kx Qxx > Txxx Ax > JTxx 98xx > xxxxx KJT8x AQJT > KQJ > AKQ > xx > > It's the next day, and the same two partnerships meet each other in a > matchpoint event. Same auction (North didn't raise to 4S because he > didn't have a singleton). East, who hasn't learned anything from the > director's reprimand on the previous hand, still asks a lot of pointed > questions about the 3C bid; and West, who is just as dense as East, > commits the same infraction by leading a club. South, who thinks that > the queen of spades is more likely to be on his left since it was on > his right last time, starts by playing the king, and he goes down > again. North has already scratched Bergen raises off his convention > card. > > This time, there was clearly damage. Without a club lead, South > pitches a club on the diamonds and makes at least four. So we have to > apply 12C2. But we still have to determine the most favorable likely > result that would have occurred if West had led a red card. > Certainly, the most favorable result is making 5, since South could > play spades the other way. But my question still stands: When > determining the "most favorable likely result", do we take into > account that South misguessed the spades and that this misguess was in > no way caused by the infraction? Do we assume South would have > misguessed the spades again and give him +620; or do we back up the > hand to the point of the infraction, throwing away the information > about South's spade play in the process, and make our determination > from that point onward? > You do not change a declarer's line of play unless the infraction had some effect on it. Since there is nothing to go on when playing the trump suit, infraction or no infraction, we must assume the same misguess in spades when adjusting the score. We are looking for redress, not for maximum compensation. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 13:54:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 13:54:32 +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 NAA11833 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 13:54:24 +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 11SBZn-000HmJ-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 03:54:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:53:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990917215239.014034ac@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19990917215239.014034ac@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >At 01:46 AM 9/18/99 +0100, John wrote: >> I liked this one. >> >>Location: The bear pit at the Young Chelsea >> (Friday night imp pairs game, smoking section) >>Players : The usual suspects (strong wild and ethical) >> >>D: E AKQJ43 S W N E >>V: NS K7 2H >> 74 P P 3N Ends >>987652 AK5 10 Lead C4 >>J94 82 >>KQ A8653 >>J8 - Q10643 >> AQ10653 >> J1092 >> 972 >> alerted as weak with a 5-card suit >>Declarer wins the C lead, cashes 4S, the KC and claims >>"Making 10 unless you've psyched" >> >>Ruling please - hehe > >Down 2. North has been a bad boy. There was no particular need to cash the >4 spade tricks, and certainly no reason to "unblock" the club K. And then >he compounded his carelessness with an incomplete claim. As it happens, he >would have been faced with a problem when both players followed to the >heart K. Should he assume that East's bid was based on only a 4-card heart >suit, or was it more likely to have been constructed from thin air, as it >in fact was? He might well decide to cash out, which in fact earns him an >excellent score with the heart suit running, but he might reason that with >hearts "likely" to be 4-1, he will earn a poor matchpoint score for >settling for only 9 tricks at no-trump, imps Mike, I have no problem with ruling down 2 at pairs >and try for the brass ring by >finessing the ten. OOPS! That's his last trick. > >I think it's more likely he would cash out, but not a completely clear >thing. It would not be ridiculous to finesse, IMO, and so that's how I >would rule. > >Mike Dennis > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 14:51:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA11918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 14:51:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (mta@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11913 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 14:50:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.177]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:50:48 -0700 Message-ID: <019001bf0191$58bf9720$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199909172313.TAA22673@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: PP after UI Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 21:50:31 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > If the TD/AC's bridge judgment is the same as mine, and if they judge > the player concerned is experienced enough to expect that to be true, > then a PP would seem appropriate. The use of PPs for disciplinary purposes, when their purpose is to penalize for procedural infractions, does not seem appropriate. Write a Player Memo or refer the matter to a C&E Committee. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com AKA Cato From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 15:15:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA12031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 15:15:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (mta@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12026 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 15:15:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.177]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:15:22 -0700 Message-ID: <01a501bf0194$c736ace0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001c01bf016c$d9f570a0$05c26dcb@default> Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:15:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Julie Atkinson wrote: Hi all, > In the process of organising a course, and as always I start > reading the Laws again a bit more carefully. > Question: Defender has a minor penalty card e.g 4D, but > they play the 9D when the suit is led. My understanding is that > declarer can select which of these cards is played to the trick. > Law 52B. If declarer selects the 4D, then the 9D is a major > penalty card, but if declarer accepts the 9D then the 4D is > still a minor penalty card. Is this right? Evidently. 52B2 says that if declarer requires the 4D to be played, the 9D becomes a major penalty card. 52B1(c) says that if the 9D is accepted...the unplayed 4D remains a penalty card. It says nothing about changing a minor to a major. We would have let the gurus answer this one, but we wanted to congratulate Julie on the use of "they" with a singular antecedent. This is no bookish schoolmarm, but a woman who knows how to use the English language. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com il Papa (slight cold) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 15:44:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA12084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 15:44:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (mta@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12079 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 15:44:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.177]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:43:59 -0700 Message-ID: <01c001bf0198$c6a4a940$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:42:22 -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 ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst > I liked this one. > > Location: The bear pit at the Young Chelsea > (Friday night imp pairs game, smoking section) > Players : The usual suspects (strong wild and ethical) > > D: E AKQJ43 S W N E > V: NS K7 2H > 74 P P 3N Ends > AK5 > 987652 10 Lead C4 > J94 82 > KQ A8653 > J8 - Q10643 > AQ10653 > J1092 > 972 > alerted as weak with a 5-card suit > Declarer wins the C lead, cashes 4S, the KC and claims > "Making 10 unless you've psyched" > > Ruling please - hehe > Declarer's meaning is clear. If East has not psyched, West will show out on the first round of hearts, so the finesse for 10 tricks will be a proven finesse. Otherwise declarer will cash high hearts ("unless" says this, in effect) and take whatever tricks result, in this case 12, but 9 if East started with J982 hearts. Even though L70E says that the TD cannot accept an unstated line of play whose success depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card (heart jack), failure to cash the high hearts, for a strong declarer, would be irrational. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 17:52:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 17:52:01 +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 RAA12258 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 17:51:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from p23s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.36] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11SFHH-0001LD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 08:51:24 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 08:44:34 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf01a9$a6c6a400$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, September 18, 1999 6:32 AM Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card > >Julie Atkinson wrote: >Hi all, > >> In the process of organising a course, and as always I start >> reading the Laws again a bit more carefully. > >> Question: Defender has a minor penalty card e.g 4D, but >> they play the 9D when the suit is led. My understanding is that >> declarer can select which of these cards is played to the trick. >> Law 52B. If declarer selects the 4D, then the 9D is a major >> penalty card, but if declarer accepts the 9D then the 4D is >> still a minor penalty card. Is this right? > >Evidently. > >52B2 says that if declarer requires the 4D to be played, the 9D becomes a >major penalty card. > >52B1(c) says that if the 9D is accepted...the unplayed 4D remains a >penalty card. It says nothing about changing a minor to a major. L50B says that if there are two penalty cards they both become major. There is no subsequent reference to one of them reverting to minor status if the other disappears. I think Julie is right. Hope your cold is soon better Marv. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 19:00:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 19:00:51 +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 TAA12419 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 19:00:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp213-108.worldonline.nl [195.241.213.108]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA24770; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:54:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003401beff40$e9f3a040$6cd5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 07:51:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, September 18, 1999 7:57 AM Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card > >Julie Atkinson wrote: >Hi all, > >> In the process of organising a course, and as always I start >> reading the Laws again a bit more carefully. > >> Question: Defender has a minor penalty card e.g 4D, but >> they play the 9D when the suit is led. My understanding is that >> declarer can select which of these cards is played to the trick. >> Law 52B. If declarer selects the 4D, then the 9D is a major >> penalty card, but if declarer accepts the 9D then the 4D is >> still a minor penalty card. Is this right? > >Evidently. > >52B2 says that if declarer requires the 4D to be played, the 9D becomes a >major penalty card. > >52B1(c) says that if the 9D is accepted...the unplayed 4D remains a >penalty card. It says nothing about changing a minor to a major. > >We would have let the gurus answer this one, but we wanted to congratulate >Julie on the use of "they" with a singular antecedent. This is no bookish >schoolmarm, but a woman who knows how to use the English language. We consider myself as one of the gurus invited. We have to admit that Marv is a brave man. He starts answering 'evidently' and then allows the gurus to deviate. They don't (after this "they' discussion from now on nobody will ever know who is saying what). D4 remains a small, D9 will be major. A well known test question for TD-candidates in our country. ton From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 19:35:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 19:35:36 +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 TAA12490 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 19:35:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp205-227.worldonline.nl [195.241.205.227]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA09468; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:35:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003f01bf01bb$415eb0a0$6cd5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:48:45 +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 -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: Saturday, September 18, 1999 10:44 AM Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card >>> Question: Defender has a minor penalty card e.g 4D, but >>> they play the 9D when the suit is led. My understanding is that >>> declarer can select which of these cards is played to the trick. >>> Law 52B. If declarer selects the 4D, then the 9D is a major >>> penalty card, but if declarer accepts the 9D then the 4D is >>> still a minor penalty card. Is this right? >> >>Evidently. >> >>52B2 says that if declarer requires the 4D to be played, the 9D becomes a >>major penalty card. >> >>52B1(c) says that if the 9D is accepted...the unplayed 4D remains a >>penalty card. It says nothing about changing a minor to a major. > >L50B says that if there are two penalty cards they both become major. There >is no subsequent reference to one of them reverting to minor status if the >other >disappears. >I think Julie is right. Yes Julie is right, that is what L50B says. But L50B doesn't apply. The play of the D9 doesn't make it a penalty card at that moment. Read the last sentence of 52B2. Declarer may accept it. Only when he doesn't accept, it becomes a (major) penalty card. This is why the question is very instructive as a practise exercise. ton From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 20:50:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:50:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe030.worldonline.dk (fe030.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.197]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA12617 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:50:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 29947 invoked by uid 0); 18 Sep 1999 10:50:16 -0000 Received: from 59.ppp1-2.image.dk (212.54.78.123) by mail020.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 18 Sep 1999 10:50:16 -0000 From: Bertel Lund Hansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: PP after UI Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:50:14 +0200 Message-ID: References: <199909172313.TAA22673@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990917212419.014007e8@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990917212419.014007e8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis skrev: >stand, but I do think it's pretty close. I have never been comfortable with >the presumption that the recipient of UI in these situations would never >work out what happened on his own. It is irrelevant whether or not he does. >what he was doing after all. Shouldn't I be allowed to work that out even >with the redundant UI? Work out anything you like. But if your bid is demonstrably suggested by the UI and there are LA's, then you cannot legally bid it. Law 16A: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, ... [cut] ... the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. There's nothing about trying to guess what would have happened without UI. Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 20:50:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:50:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe030.worldonline.dk (fe030.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.197]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA12618 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:50:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 29954 invoked by uid 0); 18 Sep 1999 10:50:17 -0000 Received: from 59.ppp1-2.image.dk (212.54.78.123) by mail020.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 18 Sep 1999 10:50:17 -0000 From: Bertel Lund Hansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:50:15 +0200 Message-ID: References: <01bf01a9$a6c6a400$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf01a9$a6c6a400$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones skrev: >L50B says that if there are two penalty cards they both become major. If declarer accepts the play of D9, it is not a penalty card. Therefore D4 remains a minor penalty card. >There is no subsequent reference to one of them reverting to minor status if the >other disappears. >I think Julie is right. You confuse me. Your argument suggests that you disagree with her. Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 22:26:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA12815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 22:26:24 +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 WAA12810 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 22:26:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from p4cs07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.77] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11SJZ9-00004H-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 13:26:08 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 13:28:45 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf01d1$59f0a900$158793c3@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: ton kooijman To: Anne Jones ; BLML Date: Saturday, September 18, 1999 10:35 AM Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card > >-----Original Message----- >From: Anne Jones >To: BLML >Date: Saturday, September 18, 1999 10:44 AM >Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card >>>> Question: Defender has a minor penalty card e.g 4D, but >>>> they play the 9D when the suit is led. My understanding is that >>>> declarer can select which of these cards is played to the trick. >>>> Law 52B. If declarer selects the 4D, then the 9D is a major >>>> penalty card, but if declarer accepts the 9D then the 4D is >>>> still a minor penalty card. Is this right? >>> >>>Evidently. >>> >>>52B2 says that if declarer requires the 4D to be played, the 9D becomes a >>>major penalty card. >>> >>>52B1(c) says that if the 9D is accepted...the unplayed 4D remains a >>>penalty card. It says nothing about changing a minor to a major. >> >>L50B says that if there are two penalty cards they both become major. There >>is no subsequent reference to one of them reverting to minor status if the >>other >>disappears. >>I think Julie is right. > >Yes Julie is right, that is what L50B says. But L50B doesn't apply. The play >of the D9 doesn't make it a penalty card at that moment. Read the last >sentence of 52B2. Declarer may accept it. Only when he doesn't accept, it >becomes a (major) penalty card. >This is why the question is very instructive as a practise exercise. Fell for that one didn't I:-) Of course you are right as one might expect. Thanks for explaining so clearly. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 22:55:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA12938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 22:55:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe21.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.125]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA12933 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 22:55:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 3246 invoked by uid 65534); 18 Sep 1999 12:54:49 -0000 Message-ID: <19990918125449.3245.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.118.47] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.6.32.19990916114505.00797100@eiu.edu> Subject: Re: A big one Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 10:40:36 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am of the opinion that the wording of the laws here is strong. The distinct point under scrutiny includes all of the cards unplayed at the time of the claim and does not impose the sequence of play defined by the claim statement. Such a state of affairs offers, if you will, a claimer in a guessing situation an 'Alcatraz Gambit'. The Gambit being that if the opponents acquiesce and there is a way to bring in the tricks, those tricks will hold, and if they don't acquiesce then he will get the worst of it. In and of itself I do not believe that such a state of affairs is detrimental. The opponents could have inspected the cards and ask for an adjudication. After all, how often should players get more than one bite of the apple? However, I do not feel that the matter ought to rest there. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Grant Sterling To: Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 11:45 AM Subject: Re: A big one > First off, apologies for my earlier post citing L71 incorrectly--my > only excuse is overwork. Thanks to DWS for correcting me. > > >Reply to several posts. > > > >It seems to be the general consensus that for L69B purposes, > >any normal line - stated or unstated, easy to find by > >declarer or not, mentioned by declarer or not - that leads > >to the claimed number of tricks, makes the claim valid ? > > Just to be absolutely clear, take the following example: > Declarer in 7S wins the opening lead in hand, and immediately claims > all 13 tricks saying "I take out trumps and then run my clubs." E/W > acquiesce, and then later withdraw their acquiescence. On the actual layout > of the cards, it is impossible for the contract to make if even a single > round of trump is drawn after trick 1. I take it that the list consensus > is that we still rule the contract making, while Herman and I have only > each other's company in thinking otherwise? > > >OK, if no-one else finds this a strange Law, I will incline > >and agree with the general consensus. > > Well, I agreed with you, Herman, that we should start with the stated > line. My only disagreement was with your claim that when the stated line > breaks down we then transfer the benefit of the doubt to the other side, so > that if any normal line fails the claiming side loses the tricks. I think > we should start with the stated line, and when it breaks down look for any > normal line that allows the contract to make. > But, of course, I too will bow to the consensus, and a very literal > reading of the letter of the law. [In ingenious reading of the law would > hold that 'remaining cards' includes cards that remain after declarer has > embarked on his stated line. :)] I do think that your example provides a subject for relevant debate on the subject of fairness. Consider what was the cause of acquiescence to begin with. Was it not the statement of claim/ or the claim itself when no statement was made? Acquiescence was given after certain cards were promised to be played. I find this situation a compelling reason to rework the law. Personally, I am inclined in the situation where I make a bad claim that if my stated line would have resulted in a loss of particular tricks that I will surrender those tricks- with or without a plea from the opponents. Even though the law does not compel me to reveal that i made a bad claim I think that my reasons are sound. My stated line should have the force of played cards . Consider, does not a claim have the force of played cards [this is the premise that makes claiming a legitimate part of the game]? Without the claim there would be no acquiesence. The cards that are unaccounted for in the claim statement are the ones that are doubtful and should be the ones subject adjudication. Of course, the most frequent situation where a claim that is faulty while the cards make it possible to fulfil it is when there was little or no claim statement at all. I am inclined to feel that the adjudication of withdrawal of acquiescence should be written so as to give the claim statement the force of played cards [of course, when no statement is made, claimer has the most tractable position when withdrawal of acquiesce is delayed.] > >Which may well be a novelty on blml : we've agreed on > >something ! > > > >Or have I spoken to soon ? > > > >-- > >Herman DE WAEL > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 18 22:56:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA12955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 22:56:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from abby.skypoint.net (abby.skypoint.net [199.86.32.252]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA12950 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 22:56:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (tc0082.skypoint.net [199.199.158.82]) by abby.skypoint.net (8.8.7/jl 1.3) with SMTP id HAA01079 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 07:56:39 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> From: "Chip" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: A second bid out of turn? Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 07:51:33 -0500 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 Greetings All: The bidding has proceeded N:1d E:p W:x! S:2c! Is South's bid now out of turn or can you rule that West's double was not accepted? South actually didn't see the double and thought it was his turn... I have been enjoying this list for a couple of months and am de-lurking with the above question. Regards, Chip From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 19 00:16:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:16:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe000.worldonline.dk (fe000.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA13108 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:16:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 20294 invoked by uid 0); 18 Sep 1999 14:15:51 -0000 Received: from 11.ppp1-22.image.dk (212.54.67.139) by mail010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 18 Sep 1999 14:15:51 -0000 From: Bertel Lund Hansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:15:49 +0200 Message-ID: References: <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> In-Reply-To: <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chip skrev: >The bidding has proceeded N:1d E:p W:x! S:2c! >Is South's bid now out of turn or can you rule that West's double was not >accepted? South actually didn't see the double and thought it was his >turn... Law 29 tells us that only LHO can accept a (legal) double out of turn. He didn't, so it's cancelled and it's (still) RHO's turn to call. Law 32 deals with doubles out of turn: ... If the illegal call is not accepted, it is canceled, the lead penalties of Law 26B may apply, and: ... The "may" in this and similar sections tricked me for a while. It's simple really: Lead penalties can't apply to declarer. But if the offender becomes defender, they *will* apply - no "may" in that case. Section B: B. Made at RHO's Turn to Call ... 2. RHO Bids If offender's RHO bids, the offender may in turn make any legal call and (penalty) offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). Ruling: The double is cancelled. W can bid as if there was no offence. His partner must pass the first time he has a turn. If EW become defenders, there will be lead penalties (call me back in that case. The instruction is not simple). I'll have to consider whether W could have known that the forced pass was likely to damage NS. In that case L23 applies. I think that the fact that W doubled is AI for E since they have to suffer a penalty, and the law does not say the opposite. Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 19 00:19:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:19:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA13126 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:19:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11SLKP-0000jw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:19:01 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990918161451.00b27d90@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:14:51 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? In-Reply-To: <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:51 18-09-99 -0500, you wrote: >Greetings All: > >The bidding has proceeded N:1d E:p W:x! S:2c! > >Is South's bid now out of turn or can you rule that West's double was not >accepted? South actually didn't see the double and thought it was his >turn... Hi, welcome. The answer is simple. NO, see28B. The D is cancelled and bidding goes on, but E is not allowed to use this information (that W doubled). PS if you have cats, please reprot them to Davids list. regards, anton > >I have been enjoying this list for a couple of months and am de-lurking with >the above question. > >Regards, >Chip > > > > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 19 00:43:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:43:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mplspop4.mpls.uswest.net (mplspop4.mpls.uswest.net [204.147.80.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA13196 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:43:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 38857 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 1999 14:43:13 -0000 Delivered-To: fixup-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au@fixme Received: (qmail 38850 invoked by uid 0); 18 Sep 1999 14:43:13 -0000 Received: from 6401pppa245.mpls.uswest.net (HELO 012533) (63.224.20.245) by mplspop4.mpls.uswest.net with SMTP; 18 Sep 1999 14:43:13 -0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:41:07 -0500 Message-ID: <01BF01B9.EEE732D0.jkryst@uswest.net> From: Jack Kryst To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: A second bid out of turn? Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:41:06 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Saturday, September 18, 1999 9:16 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen [SMTP:blh@nospam.dk] wrote: > > > > ---------- > > From: Bertel Lund Hansen[SMTP:BLH@NOSPAM.DK] > > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 9:15:49 AM > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? > > Auto forwarded by a Rule > > > Chip skrev: > > >The bidding has proceeded N:1d E:p W:x! S:2c! > > >Is South's bid now out of turn or can you rule that West's double was not > >accepted? South actually didn't see the double and thought it was his > >turn... > > Law 29 tells us that only LHO can accept a (legal) double out of > turn. He didn't, so it's cancelled and it's (still) RHO's turn to > call. > > Law 32 deals with doubles out of turn: > > ... If the illegal call is not accepted, it is canceled, > the lead penalties of Law 26B may apply, and: > ... > > The "may" in this and similar sections tricked me for a while. > It's simple really: Lead penalties can't apply to declarer. But > if the offender becomes defender, they *will* apply - no "may" in > that case. > > Section B: > > B. Made at RHO's Turn to Call > ... > 2. RHO Bids > If offender's RHO bids, the offender may in turn make > any legal call and (penalty) offender's partner must pass > whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass > damages the non-offending side). > > Ruling: > The double is cancelled. W can bid as if there was no offence. > His partner must pass the first time he has a turn. Assuming a bid from South isn't East required to pass for the balance of the auction? > > If EW become defenders, there will be lead penalties (call me > back in that case. The instruction is not simple). > > I'll have to consider whether W could have known that the forced > pass was likely to damage NS. In that case L23 applies. > > I think that the fact that W doubled is AI for E since they have > to suffer a penalty, and the law does not say the opposite. > > Bertel > -- > http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 19 01:11:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 01:11:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA13265 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 01:11:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegnj.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.243]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA12262 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990918110921.006a5fcc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:09:21 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: PP after UI In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990917212419.014007e8@pop.mindspring.com> <199909172313.TAA22673@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990917212419.014007e8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:50 PM 9/18/99 +0200, Bertel wrote: >Michael S. Dennis skrev: > >>stand, but I do think it's pretty close. I have never been comfortable with >>the presumption that the recipient of UI in these situations would never >>work out what happened on his own. > >It is irrelevant whether or not he does. > >>what he was doing after all. Shouldn't I be allowed to work that out even >>with the redundant UI? > >Work out anything you like. But if your bid is demonstrably >suggested by the UI and there are LA's, then you cannot legally >bid it. > >Law 16A: >After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >information that may suggest a call or play, ... >[cut] >... the partner may not choose from among logical alternative >actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over >another by the extraneous information. > >There's nothing about trying to guess what would have happened >without UI. Oh, but there is. When we are evaluating LA's, we are doing so in the context of alternatives _absent_ the UI. If, strictly as a matter of AI, it is apparent that partner has forgotten our methods, then it is arguably unreasonable to suppose that I would prefer to go down doubled in a hopeless contract rather than try and scramble to salvage the board. Is passing a LA when I know from AI that it means an almost certain disaster? I think not. Look at it another way. You're playing on OKBridge, or with screens, or in some other situation where you can't know whether partner has alerted or not. You make your 3D bid with the hand in question, and it goes P - P(!) - Dbl. Now this transfer bid is fairly unusual, and doesn't come up with nearly the frequency of ordinary Jacoby transfers. Are you so confident in your partner's memory, or for that matter in your own judgement of whether this transfer really does apply in this situation, that you will risk an 800-1100 point set rather than take your best shot at a better score? I have to say that it would not occur to me to do so. I would cross my fingers and bid 3H, and would expect most others to do so as well. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 19 01:36:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 01:21:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA13294 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 01:21:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegnj.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.243]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA17522 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:21:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990918111910.006a5fcc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:19:10 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? In-Reply-To: <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:51 AM 9/18/99 -0500, Chip wrote: >Greetings All: > >The bidding has proceeded N:1d E:p W:x! S:2c! > >Is South's bid now out of turn or can you rule that West's double was not >accepted? South actually didn't see the double and thought it was his >turn... I think this is an easy one. South's bid is _not_ out of turn. It is his turn to call, and he has no obligation to check to see that LHO has not bid before bidding himself. Presumably, North has not accepted the double, and South is not empowered to make that decision. So the auction reverts to South, who has bid 2C. Per L32B2, West can now make any legal call, but East must pass for the rest of the auction, and there may be UI implications for East. >I have been enjoying this list for a couple of months and am de-lurking with >the above question. Welcome aboard! Any iguanas? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 19 01:49:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 01:49:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe10.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.114]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA13380 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 01:49:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 1702 invoked by uid 65534); 18 Sep 1999 15:49:03 -0000 Message-ID: <19990918154903.1701.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.117.208] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <01c001bf0198$c6a4a940$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:37:40 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do not quite agree with Marvin. If opener has the 5 card suit promised, then the proven finesse results in 10 tricks. what is in doubt is when there was a psych [which will be proven on the HK]. Claimer left in doubt what action was intended when RHO shows up with a heart. A strong player would have recognized the ambiguity of the situation and would therefore have included the alternative in his claim. It is not enough to mention the case of a psych when the action is ambiguous. So, when claimer does not take the pains to specify his intentions in such a case, I can not allow him to receive the benefit of the director finding for him the better of finesse or 'cash out'. Down two. If the players wanted to agree to 10 or 12 tricks they would not have called me. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 12:42 AM Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents > > ----- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > > > I liked this one. > > > > Location: The bear pit at the Young Chelsea > > (Friday night imp pairs game, smoking section) > > Players : The usual suspects (strong wild and ethical) > > > > D: E AKQJ43 S W N E > > V: NS K7 2H > > 74 P P 3N Ends > > AK5 > > 987652 10 Lead C4 > > J94 82 > > KQ A8653 > > J8 - Q10643 > > AQ10653 > > J1092 > > 972 > > alerted as weak with a 5-card suit > > > Declarer wins the C lead, cashes 4S, the KC and claims > > "Making 10 unless you've psyched" > > > > Ruling please - hehe > > > Declarer's meaning is clear. If East has not psyched, West will show out > on the first round of hearts, so the finesse for 10 tricks will be a > proven finesse. Otherwise declarer will cash high hearts ("unless" says > this, in effect) and take whatever tricks result, in this case 12, but 9 > if East started with J982 hearts. > > Even though L70E says that the TD cannot accept an unstated line of play > whose success depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with > a particular card (heart jack), failure to cash the high hearts, for a > strong declarer, would be irrational. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 19 02:09:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 02:09:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (mta@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA13582 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 02:09:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.177]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:09:23 -0700 Message-ID: <01ec01bf01f0$26298fa0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <01bf01a9$a6c6a400$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:09:05 -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 Anne Jones wrote:AM > Marv wrote: > > > >Julie Atkinson wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >> In the process of organising a course, and as always I start > >> reading the Laws again a bit more carefully. > > > >> Question: Defender has a minor penalty card e.g 4D, but > >> they play the 9D when the suit is led. My understanding is that > >> declarer can select which of these cards is played to the trick. > >> Law 52B. If declarer selects the 4D, then the 9D is a major > >> penalty card, but if declarer accepts the 9D then the 4D is > >> still a minor penalty card. Is this right? > > > >Evidently. A cowardly weasel word, admittedly. > > > >52B2 says that if declarer requires the 4D to be played, the 9D becomes a > >major penalty card. > > > >52B1(c) says that if the 9D is accepted...the unplayed 4D remains a > >penalty card. It says nothing about changing a minor to a major. > > L50B says that if there are two penalty cards they both become major. There > is no subsequent reference to one of them reverting to minor status if the > other disappears. In this case there are not two penalty cards existing at the same time, and the minor is remaining minor, not reverting to minor, if the 9D is accepted. If the 9D becomes a penalty card, the 4D simultaneously is no longer a penalty card. If the 9D is accepted, it is never a penalty card. > I think Julie is right. I think you think she is wrong, but you are right, she is right. Evidently. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 19 04:44:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 04:44:19 +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 EAA14018 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 04:44:10 +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 OAA19067 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 14:44:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 14:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199909181843.OAA01295@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> (harrison@skypoint.com) Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chip writes: > Greetings All: > The bidding has proceeded N:1d E:p W:x! S:2c! > Is South's bid now out of turn or can you rule that West's double was not > accepted? South actually didn't see the double and thought it was his > turn... There's a law to cover this case, and it appears to be written for exactly this purpose (player calls before noticing an opponent's call out of turn). Law 28B: A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it was to call, before a penalty has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent; making such a call forfeits the right to penalize the call out of rotation, and the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16C2 applies. Thus South's 2C stands, and West can bid anything he wants, but his double out of turn is UI to East. -- David Grabiner, grabine@bgnet.bgsu.edu (note new Email; math has problems) http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine 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 Sep 19 08:40:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 08:40:38 +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 IAA14574 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 08:40:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegi3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.67]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA19619 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 18:40:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990918183802.01296fb8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 18:38:02 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990918111910.006a5fcc@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I think this is an easy one. South's bid is _not_ out of turn. It is his >turn to call, and he has no obligation to check to see that LHO has not bid >before bidding himself. Presumably, North has not accepted the double, and >South is not empowered to make that decision. >So the auction reverts to South, who has bid 2C. Per L32B2, West can now >make any legal call, but East must pass for the rest of the auction, and >there may be UI implications for East. > I was half-right, anyway. It is an easy one, but I still managed to screw it up. See Anton for the real answer. Sorry. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 19 11:57:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:57:38 +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 LAA14865 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:57:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11SWEE-00026k-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 03:57:22 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990919035306.00b28100@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 03:53:06 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.2.32.19990918161451.00b27d90@mail.a2000.nl> <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> <3.0.2.32.19990918161451.00b27d90@mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:46 18-09-99 +0200, you wrote: >Anton Witzen skrev: > >>The answer is simple. NO, see28B. The D is cancelled and bidding goes on, >>but E is not allowed to use this information (that W doubled). > >You're right, and I overlooked law 28. > >I hope somebody needs to know what to do if RHO has not bid yet, >but chooses to do so after TD's instruction. > If the TD comes to the table while S didnt bid, the TD asks N if he wishes to accept the bid. He IS the first one to choose, So the TD wont instruct S to act before N chooeses. If N doesnt accept the D then we are in another law. (32 i guess). regards, anton >Bertel >-- >http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 19 20:08:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:08:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA15503 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:08:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 06:01:24 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 06:01:45 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bertel Hansen wrote: >B. Made at RHO's Turn to Call > ... > 2. RHO Bids > If offender's RHO bids, the offender may in turn make > any legal call and (penalty) offender's partner must pass > whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass > damages the non-offending side). > >Ruling: >The double is cancelled. W can bid as if there was no offence. >His partner must pass the first time he has a turn. Did I miss something? Your quoted passage says East (offender's partner in this case) must pass _whenever it is his turn to call_, not just the first time. >I think that the fact that W doubled is AI for E since they have >to suffer a penalty, and the law does not say the opposite. 16C2: For the offending side, information from its own withdrawn actions and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. 16C contains no suggestion that the payment of a penalty obviates this section. 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/AwUBN+S2Cr2UW3au93vOEQLgPACfd4OL0vRd9ogxrMEjxZS7U2rjoCMAn1zS nsta5sYyIW0DWLH1/hnvIxnb =fFPl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 19 22:22:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:22:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe030.worldonline.dk (fe030.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.197]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA15731 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:22:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 28441 invoked by uid 0); 19 Sep 1999 12:21:55 -0000 Received: from 16.ppp1-20.image.dk (212.54.67.16) by mail020.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 19 Sep 1999 12:21:55 -0000 From: Bertel Lund Hansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:21:57 +0200 Message-ID: References: <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert skrev: >Did I miss something? Your quoted passage says East (offender's partner in >this case) must pass _whenever it is his turn to call_, not just the first >time. >16C2: For the offending side, information from its own withdrawn actions >and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. 16C You're right both times. Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 06:18:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 06:18:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail1.rb.op.dlr.de (mail1.rb.op.dlr.de [129.247.182.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16617 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 06:18:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from Systems.rb.op.dlr.de ([129.247.182.102]) by mail1.rb.op.dlr.de (Netscape Messaging Server 3.0) with SMTP id AAA7403 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:09:38 -0100 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jaap Herman" Organization: German Space Operations Centre To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:18:27 +0200 Subject: AC case Reply-to: Jaap.Herman@dlr.de Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <19990919230938.AAA7403@Systems.rb.op.dlr.de> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Probably a simple case, but we in the AC had big problems arriving at a conclusion. Maybe you can help with some expert opinions? Mixed-pairs Dealer: East Vuln: EW x A K 10 x x x x A K x x x Q J x x x x x A K x x Q 9 x x J x x x J A x x J x x x 10 x x K Q x x Q x x x x W N E S ============== 1 D p Precision; 11-15; 0+ D 1 S 2 C 2 S 3 C 4 S ......p p 5 C The long hesitation by North is agreed upon. EW reserved their rights, bid on to 5S and went one off. The majority of the field went down in 5H or 5S. One lucky EW wrote 620, and on NS there was one 550, one 400 and one pair was allowed to play 4C. At most tables North showed either a two-suited hand, or bid 5C after getting support. TD ruled that 5C was suggested by the hesitation and changed the score to 4S, just made NS appealed. The AC after long deliberation upheld the TD's decision, because Pass appeared to be a logical alternative with the South hand. After all, North bid in an exposed situation and after NS showed clubs the precision 1D opener had to have some diamonds. Neither N nor S knew about the extreme distribution of West. North's hesitation however was most likely based on extra distribution. Your opinions are appreciated. With frindly greetings Jaap Herman From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 07:05:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 07:05:20 +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 HAA16736 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 07:05:09 +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 RAA15241 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 17:05:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA24047 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 17:04:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 17:04:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909192104.RAA24047@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Meaning of "likely" in 12C2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > do we take into > account that South misguessed the spades and that this misguess was in > no way caused by the infraction? Do we assume South would have > misguessed the spades again and give him +620; or do we back up the > hand to the point of the infraction, throwing away the information > about South's spade play in the process, and make our determination > from that point onward? This question seems closely related to mine of a few months ago. In that case, irrational play by the NOS had deprived them of the benefit of an adjustment, but we still needed to assign a score for the OS. The consensus then -- by no means unanimous! -- seemed to be that the OS should NOT benefit from the irrational play. In other words, most people took the second of Adam's options and backed up the hand to the point of the infraction, then worked out "at all probable" from there. (There was no need to work out "likely," because the NOS kept the at- the-table score. In Adam's scenario, we do need to work out "likely," but it would seem consistent to take the same approach.) Regardless of whether or not you accept the above -- and I am not at all sure myself -- we must be very careful to make sure the misguess was in no way caused or made more attractive by the infraction. That may be hard to determine, so simplicity suggests the second approach as well. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 07:39:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 07:39:12 +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 HAA16820 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 07:39:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-015.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.207]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA58416 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:38:14 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <001301bf02e9$2c928aa0$cf307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: AC case Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:51:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think the TD and AC got it right. Pass is a LA for South absent the UI. I'm wondering about the possible 'Double Shot' actions of E/W though. On the other hand E/W have continued to play bridge and 5S is not an irrational place to land so E/W are due a full adjustment. Regards, Fearghal Original message from Jaap Herman Probably a simple case, but we in the AC had big problems arriving at a conclusion. Maybe you can help with some expert opinions? Mixed-pairs Dealer: East Vuln: EW x A K 10 x x x x A K x x x Q J x x x x x A K x x Q 9 x x J x x x J A x x J x x x 10 x x K Q x x Q x x x x W N E S ============== 1 D p Precision; 11-15; 0+ D 1 S 2 C 2 S 3 C 4 S ......p p 5 C The long hesitation by North is agreed upon. EW reserved their rights, bid on to 5S and went one off. The majority of the field went down in 5H or 5S. One lucky EW wrote 620, and on NS there was one 550, one 400 and one pair was allowed to play 4C. At most tables North showed either a two-suited hand, or bid 5C after getting support. TD ruled that 5C was suggested by the hesitation and changed the score to 4S, just made NS appealed. The AC after long deliberation upheld the TD's decision, because Pass appeared to be a logical alternative with the South hand. After all, North bid in an exposed situation and after NS showed clubs the precision 1D opener had to have some diamonds. Neither N nor S knew about the extreme distribution of West. North's hesitation however was most likely based on extra distribution. Your opinions are appreciated. With frindly greetings Jaap Herman From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 07:52:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 07:52:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (mta@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA16858 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 07:52:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.177]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:52:30 -0700 Message-ID: <019601bf02e9$2f3fa940$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <19990919230938.AAA7403@Systems.rb.op.dlr.de> Subject: Re: AC case Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:50:07 -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: Jaap Herman > Probably a simple case, but we in the AC had big problems arriving at > a conclusion. Not a simple case to me. Wish we knew if this was imps or matchpoints, and the experience of N/S. > Maybe you can help with some expert opinions? I'll venture an amateur opinion. > > Mixed-pairs > Dealer: East > Vuln: EW > > x > A K > 10 x x x x > A K x x x > > Q J x x x x x A K x x > Q 9 x x J x x x > J A x x > J x x > > x > 10 x x > K Q x x > Q x x x x > > W N E S > ============== > 1 D p Precision; 11-15; 0+ D > 1 S 2 C 2 S 3 C > 4 S ......p p 5 C > > The long hesitation by North is agreed upon. EW reserved their > rights, bid on to 5S and went one off. > > The majority of the field went down in 5H or 5S. One lucky EW wrote > 620, and on NS there was one 550, one 400 and one pair was allowed to > play 4C. At most tables North showed either a two-suited hand, or bid > 5C after getting support. What happened at other tables is not pertinent. > > TD ruled that 5C was suggested by the hesitation and > changed the score to 4S, just made > > NS appealed. > > The AC after long deliberation upheld the TD's decision, because Pass > appeared to be a logical alternative with the South hand. After all, > North bid in an exposed situation and after NS showed clubs the > precision 1D opener had to have some diamonds. Neither N nor S knew > about the extreme distribution of West. North's hesitation however > was most likely based on extra distribution. > I don't care for this "based on" line of thinking. What matters is what is suggested by the UI, not what the basis for the UI might have been. Some would say, well, you can't tell whether North was thinking of doubling or bidding 5C, so the slow pass suggests no particular action. This attitude says to me that "demonstratbly suggested" is interpreted by many as pointing to a particular action. However, if UI suggests action of any sort, then whatever action a partner takes is demonstrably suggested. (With "suggest" having so many shades of meaning in the dictionary, it would help if a rewording of L16A could eliminate it.) In this case, North's slow pass clearly shows that he wanted to do something other than pass. It therefore demonstrably suggests that partner do something. But is pass an LA to bidding 5C for this particular South? It's hard to say, after South has made that ****** 3C bid. I would want to ask some searching questions, but South gives me the impression of being a player who would timidly pass 4S without the UI. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 08:12:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:12:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.mail.gxn.net [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16884 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:12:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from peas03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.235] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11SpBk-0002sr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 23:12:05 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: AC case Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 23:16:20 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf02ec$99f57140$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: Jaap Herman To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, September 19, 1999 9:33 PM Subject: AC case >Probably a simple case, but we in the AC had big problems arriving at >a conclusion. Maybe you can help with some expert opinions? > >Mixed-pairs >Dealer: East >Vuln: EW > > x > A K > 10 x x x x > A K x x x > >Q J x x x x x A K x x >Q 9 x x J x x x >J A x x >J x x > > x > 10 x x > K Q x x > Q x x x x > > W N E S > ============== > 1 D p Precision; 11-15; 0+ D > 1 S 2 C 2 S 3 C > 4 S ......p p 5 C > >The long hesitation by North is agreed upon. EW reserved their >rights, bid on to 5S and went one off. > >The majority of the field went down in 5H or 5S. One lucky EW wrote >620, and on NS there was one 550, one 400 and one pair was allowed to >play 4C. At most tables North showed either a two-suited hand, or bid >5C after getting support. > >TD ruled that 5C was suggested by the hesitation and >changed the score to 4S, just made > >NS appealed. They whaaat? > >The AC after long deliberation (I'm amazed) >upheld the TD's decision, because Pass >appeared to be a logical alternative with the South hand. After all, >North bid in an exposed situation and after NS showed clubs the >precision 1D opener had to have some diamonds. Neither N nor S knew >about the extreme distribution of West. North's hesitation however >was most likely based on extra distribution. The only question I'm asking myself is "do we have a Law 23 situation here? What a shame N/S did not find the defence to defeat 4S. That would have given the TD a headache. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 08:24:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:24:11 +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 IAA16916 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:24:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11SpND-0004Zs-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:23:55 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990920001913.00b27ce0@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:19:13 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: AC case In-Reply-To: <001301bf02e9$2c928aa0$cf307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 22:51 19-09-99 +0100, you wrote: >I think the TD and AC got it right. Pass is a LA for South absent the UI. I think N should have bid 5C or pass in tempo. Indeed the thinking suggests that bidding would be appreciated if possible. The slow pass suggests pulling. I agree too. regards, anton >I'm wondering about the possible 'Double Shot' actions of E/W though. >On the other hand E/W have continued to play bridge and 5S is not an >irrational place to land so E/W are due a full adjustment. > > >Regards, >Fearghal > > > >Original message from Jaap Herman > >Probably a simple case, but we in the AC had big problems arriving at >a conclusion. Maybe you can help with some expert opinions? > >Mixed-pairs >Dealer: East >Vuln: EW > > x > A K > 10 x x x x > A K x x x > >Q J x x x x x A K x x >Q 9 x x J x x x >J A x x >J x x > > x > 10 x x > K Q x x > Q x x x x > > W N E S >============== > 1 D p Precision; 11-15; 0+ D > 1 S 2 C 2 S 3 C > 4 S ......p p 5 C > >The long hesitation by North is agreed upon. EW reserved their >rights, bid on to 5S and went one off. > >The majority of the field went down in 5H or 5S. One lucky EW wrote >620, and on NS there was one 550, one 400 and one pair was allowed to >play 4C. At most tables North showed either a two-suited hand, or bid >5C after getting support. > >TD ruled that 5C was suggested by the hesitation and >changed the score to 4S, just made > >NS appealed. > >The AC after long deliberation upheld the TD's decision, because Pass >appeared to be a logical alternative with the South hand. After all, >North bid in an exposed situation and after NS showed clubs the >precision 1D opener had to have some diamonds. Neither N nor S knew >about the extreme distribution of West. North's hesitation however >was most likely based on extra distribution. > >Your opinions are appreciated. > >With frindly greetings > >Jaap Herman > > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 09:50:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:50:43 +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 JAA17119 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:50:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from eitan (RAS1-p108.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.182.110]) by mailgw1.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA19206 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 01:50:23 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990920015328.00826330@netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 01:53:28 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: AC case In-Reply-To: <019601bf02e9$2f3fa940$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <19990919230938.AAA7403@Systems.rb.op.dlr.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 14:50 19/09/99 -0700, you wrote: snip > What matters is what >is suggested by the UI, not what the basis for the UI might have been. Correct >Some would say, well, you can't tell whether North was thinking of >doubling or bidding 5C, so the slow pass suggests no particular action. >This attitude says to me that "demonstratbly suggested" is interpreted >by many as pointing to a particular action. However, if UI suggests >action of any sort, then whatever action a partner takes is demonstrably >suggested. (With "suggest" having so many shades of meaning in the >dictionary, it would help if a rewording of L16A could eliminate it.) > >In this case, North's slow pass clearly shows that he wanted to do >something other than pass. It therefore demonstrably suggests that >partner do something. > Obviously every time partner thinks, hesitates and calls he has considered something other than what he finally did call. What you're saying in effect is: If partner thinks, you are barred from the bidding. This would crtainly facilitate rulings on hesitations, but it's not what Law 16A says. snip >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > Eitan Levy From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 10:34:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:34:56 +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 KAA17195 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:34:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg50.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.160]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA02101 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:34:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990919203219.01296c98@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:32:19 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: AC case In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990920015328.00826330@netvision.net.il> References: <019601bf02e9$2f3fa940$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> <19990919230938.AAA7403@Systems.rb.op.dlr.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:53 AM 9/20/99 +0200, Eitan wrote: >At 14:50 19/09/99 -0700, Marv wrote: >snip >> What matters is what >>is suggested by the UI, not what the basis for the UI might have been. > >Correct > >>Some would say, well, you can't tell whether North was thinking of >>doubling or bidding 5C, so the slow pass suggests no particular action. >>This attitude says to me that "demonstratbly suggested" is interpreted >>by many as pointing to a particular action. However, if UI suggests >>action of any sort, then whatever action a partner takes is demonstrably >>suggested. (With "suggest" having so many shades of meaning in the >>dictionary, it would help if a rewording of L16A could eliminate it.) >> >>In this case, North's slow pass clearly shows that he wanted to do >>something other than pass. It therefore demonstrably suggests that >>partner do something. >> >Obviously every time partner thinks, hesitates and calls he has considered > something other than what he finally did call. What you're saying in >effect is: If partner thinks, you are barred from the bidding. This would >crtainly facilitate rulings on hesitations, but it's not what Law 16A says. No, Marv is not saying that. Clearly it is necessary to establish that passing is a LA to apply this line of reasoning. What we are arguing is that _if_ that standard is met, then when partner's hesitiation clearly suggests action, you must pass. Whether L16A means that, or whether it means that the specific choice must be demonstrably suggested, is in effect the source of our disagreement. Although I share Marv's opinion in this regard, I think the opposing viewpoint has merit. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 13:20:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 13:20:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from eris.iag.net (mailhub.iag.net [204.27.210.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA17657 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 13:20:42 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 13:20:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 1967 invoked by uid 31); 20 Sep 1999 03:20:31 -0000 Received: from pm02-082.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.82) by mailhub.iag.net with SMTP; 20 Sep 1999 03:20:31 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990919231541.43cfad52@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: PP after UI Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:09 AM 9/18/99 -0400, you wrote: >At 12:50 PM 9/18/99 +0200, Bertel wrote: >>Michael S. Dennis skrev: >> >>>stand, but I do think it's pretty close. I have never been comfortable with >>>the presumption that the recipient of UI in these situations would never >>>work out what happened on his own. >> >>It is irrelevant whether or not he does. >> >>>what he was doing after all. Shouldn't I be allowed to work that out even >>>with the redundant UI? >> >>Work out anything you like. But if your bid is demonstrably >>suggested by the UI and there are LA's, then you cannot legally >>bid it. >> >>Law 16A: >>After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >>information that may suggest a call or play, ... >>[cut] >>... the partner may not choose from among logical alternative >>actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over >>another by the extraneous information. >> >>There's nothing about trying to guess what would have happened >>without UI. > >Oh, but there is. When we are evaluating LA's, we are doing so in the >context of alternatives _absent_ the UI. If, strictly as a matter of AI, it >is apparent that partner has forgotten our methods, then it is arguably >unreasonable to suppose that I would prefer to go down doubled in a >hopeless contract rather than try and scramble to salvage the board. Is >passing a LA when I know from AI that it means an almost certain disaster? >I think not. > >Look at it another way. You're playing on OKBridge, or with screens, or in >some other situation where you can't know whether partner has alerted or >not. You make your 3D bid with the hand in question, and it goes P - P(!) - >Dbl. Now this transfer bid is fairly unusual, and doesn't come up with >nearly the frequency of ordinary Jacoby transfers. Are you so confident in >your partner's memory, or for that matter in your own judgement of whether >this transfer really does apply in this situation, that you will risk an >800-1100 point set rather than take your best shot at a better score? I >have to say that it would not occur to me to do so. I would cross my >fingers and bid 3H, and would expect most others to do so as well. > Just do the "TEST" that you have to base your further bidding on the idea that pd actually alerted your 3di bid and also got to explain it as cards for a preempt similar like a normal 3he preempt and still picks out the pass card saying 3he you say and he say NO WAY we are going to play heart. You know pd havnt this hand because of the failure to ALERT the 3di bid. And that meets the criterias for UI IMO. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 13:47:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 13:47:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (mta@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17717 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 13:47:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.177]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:47:31 -0700 Message-ID: <01c401bf031a$c3b1b6a0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <019601bf02e9$2f3fa940$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com><19990919230938.AAA7403@Systems.rb.op.dlr.de> <3.0.1.32.19990919203219.01296c98@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: AC case Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:46:41 -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 Mike Dennis wrote; Eitan wrote: Marv wrote: > >snip > >> What matters is what > >>is suggested by the UI, not what the basis for the UI might have been. > > > >Correct > > > >>Some would say, well, you can't tell whether North was thinking of > >>doubling or bidding 5C, so the slow pass suggests no particular action. > >>This attitude says to me that "demonstratbly suggested" is interpreted > >>by many as pointing to a particular action. However, if UI suggests > >>action of any sort, then whatever action a partner takes is demonstrably > >>suggested. (With "suggest" having so many shades of meaning in the > >>dictionary, it would help if a rewording of L16A could eliminate it.) > >> > >>In this case, North's slow pass clearly shows that he wanted to do > >>something other than pass. It therefore demonstrably suggests that > >>partner do something. > >> > >Obviously every time partner thinks, hesitates and calls he has considered > > something other than what he finally did call. What you're saying in > >effect is: If partner thinks, you are barred from the bidding. This would > >certainly facilitate rulings on hesitations, but it's not what Law 16A says. > > No, Marv is not saying that. Clearly it is necessary to establish that > passing is a LA to apply this line of reasoning. What we are arguing is > that _if_ that standard is met, then when partner's hesitiation clearly > suggests action, you must pass. Whether L16A means that, or whether it > means that the specific choice must be demonstrably suggested, is in effect > the source of our disagreement. Although I share Marv's opinion in this > regard, I think the opposing viewpoint has merit. > No merit, Mike. Partner hesitates over a 4S opening, and I bid 6C with S-Ax H-xx D-KQ C-AKQJxxx. The UI did not demonstrably suggest that I bid specifically 6C, but it demonstrably suggested that any aggressive action by me would be reasonably safe. Since 5C is a logical alternative, adjust the score if the 6C bid results in damage. Marv (Marvin L. French) Away on vacation Sept 21 thru Oct 7 Budapest, Vienna, Prague From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 16:11:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA17900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:11:14 +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 QAA17894 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:11:04 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id QAA08849; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:10:12 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate via smap (V2.1) id xma008812; Mon, 20 Sep 99 16:10:06 +1000 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.40.224]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA25009 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:10:05 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA19654; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:14:56 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19990920160017.0096a8b0@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:05:48 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Computer dealt hands Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, As some of you may be aware the 1998 National Open Teams in Australia was marred when in the quarter finals after 30 boards (of 40) it was noticed that the hands being played were identical to hands from the 1997 VCC (another Australian National championship). We have had some reports that some clubs have accidentally dealt the same hands and so used the same hands in different events. These typically have been club duplicates. This raises a number of issues - for masterpoint purposes should these 'fouled' sessions count? [I can see players screaming very loudly if someone tries to take the masterpoints away]. If it is a multi-session event should the scores from that fouled session apply. Should the results only count if the players haven't played the hands before? Does anybody have regulations to cover this type of situation? I am sure it is not unique to Australia... Cheers, Peter http://www.nswba.com.au From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 19:38:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:38:30 +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 TAA18169 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:38:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-21-160.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.21.160]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA05018 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:38:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37E49B10.FE4A4544@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 10:13:04 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents References: <01c001bf0198$c6a4a940$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> <19990918154903.1701.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger is falling for a common trap. Roger Pewick wrote: > > I do not quite agree with Marvin. If opener has the 5 card suit promised, > then the proven finesse results in 10 tricks. what is in doubt is when > there was a psych [which will be proven on the HK]. Claimer left in doubt > what action was intended when RHO shows up with a heart. > > A strong player would have recognized the ambiguity of the situation and > would therefore have included the alternative in his claim. It is not > enough to mention the case of a psych when the action is ambiguous. Only in the YC would a claimer include the possibility of a psyche in his statement. You should not burden him even more with an explanation of how he will play if he does discover it is a psyche. Take the same case anywhere else in the world, and the claim without a mention of a possible psyche. In handling the claim, you will spell out claim statement (even if not outspoken) to include that since the finesse is proven by the bidding, he is allowed to take it. Then we will rule that (provided the class of player is sufficient) he will notice the -not-showing-out of RHO. He will deduce that there is a psyche. I will rule that he is entitled by L70E to change his line. The combination of knowledge of particular psyching tendencies of LHO (either known or disclosable by partner), and the possibility of a very bad loss, may well lead me to rule 12 tricks even at pairs. We should not put a heavier burden on a declarer who has seen the possibility of a psyche than on one who has not. Rather the reverse. So, > when claimer does not take the pains to specify his intentions in such a > case, I can not allow him to receive the benefit of the director finding for > him the better of finesse or 'cash out'. Down two. > > If the players wanted to agree to 10 or 12 tricks they would not have called > me. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 19:38:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:38:29 +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 TAA18168 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:38:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-21-160.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.21.160]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA05006 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:38:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37E49760.42ED3B3A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 09:57:20 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A big one References: <3.0.6.32.19990916114505.00797100@eiu.edu> <19990918125449.3245.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > I am of the opinion that the wording of the laws here is strong. The distinct > point under scrutiny includes all of the cards unplayed at the time of the claim > and does not impose the sequence of play defined by the claim statement. > We have agreed on this. > Such a state of affairs offers, if you will, a claimer in a guessing situation > an 'Alcatraz Gambit'. The Gambit being that if the opponents acquiesce and > there is a way to bring in the tricks, those tricks will hold, and if they don't > acquiesce then he will get the worst of it. > > In and of itself I do not believe that such a state of affairs is detrimental. You don't ? > The opponents could have inspected the cards and ask for an adjudication. After > all, how often should players get more than one bite of the apple? However, I > do not feel that the matter ought to rest there. > Hear then what happened to me yesterday. Declarer, upon the sight of dummy, complains to partner for not going to slam. He plays two tricks to inspect foul breaks and then puts his cards back in the board and says, "thirteen tricks". I trust him, still do, and I don't want to inspect. I ask him about my club ace and he points to the void in dummy (which does have quite a lot of trumps). My partner has no obvious trick either. Sadly it is barometer scoring, so there is no travelling sheet upon which to check either the layout or what other tables have scored. Also sadly it is not the last board of our round, so that I could leave the table and check without embarrassing him. (besides, he's a far better player than I am) So the first time I can ask a director to see if it is true, I am already in acquiescence withdrawal mode. Do we really want obviously bad claims to go unpunished at that time? I realise there are several solutions in the case I write. If the bad claim is very obvious, we could even take disciplinary measures. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 19:39:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:39:54 +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 TAA18195 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:39:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-21-160.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.21.160]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA05279 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:39:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37E5FF42.A724DDCD@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:32:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: SS Finland - BLML Challenge 1999 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The time is almost upon us to hold the third staging of this event. For those of you who have joined BLML in the past year : This event is a world-wide simultaneous tournament, held once a year on or around the birthday of contract bridge, 31/10/1925, when Harold Vanderbilt and party first played the game as we know it today on board the ss Finland moored at the Panama Canal. We send (by e-mail) a set of deals to every club wishing to join. The hands are duplicated by whatever means and played in your club. The results of all deals are then sent, by e-mail, to me, and I produce world-wide frequencies and ranking. Last year, 680 pairs in 4 continents played in the event. If you wish to join us, mail me. Or visit our web-site at : http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/bridge/ffriday.html -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 20:25:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:25:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from fe000.worldonline.dk (fe000.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA18269 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:25:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 27317 invoked by uid 0); 20 Sep 1999 10:25:13 -0000 Received: from 18.ppp1-29.image.dk (212.54.77.18) by mail010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 20 Sep 1999 10:25:13 -0000 From: Bertel Lund Hansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: AC case Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:57:13 +0200 Message-ID: References: <001301bf02e9$2c928aa0$cf307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <3.0.2.32.19990920001913.00b27ce0@mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990920001913.00b27ce0@mail.a2000.nl> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen skrev: >I think N should have bid 5C or pass in tempo. Indeed the thinking suggests >that bidding would be appreciated if possible. >The slow pass suggests pulling. I agree too. So do I, and Fearghal O'Boyle BTW, but he (? - sorry if I'm wrong) is wondering about a possible double shot, and so was I. I'd like to hear what others think of that. Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 20:48:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:48:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (root@omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18325 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:47:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA23050 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:47:31 +0200 Message-ID: <380EEF65.CBC142F0@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:48:05 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Illegal redouble? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi folks! Here is what does not really look like a true story but what did happen in reality. NS - a good, competent pair WE - complete beginners N-S bid up to 7S. East doubled this for the club lead, clubs being the only suit bid by dummy. West was asked about the meaning of the double - NS were clearly contemplating running to 7NT. West, however, replied: "For penalties". Having heard that East lost his temper and asked "What?" Now NS made a mistake - they did not call the TD. Instead, the redoubled being sure that West "cannot" lead a club right now. Well, West did lead a club, ruffed. West "argued" that it was their opponents' question that woke him up so he saw no reason not to obey his partner's wish expressed by the Lightner's double. OK, we all know that he was wrong, to say the least. As they were novices the TD assumed that the whole incident was caused by their lack of experience and decided only to have a long conversation with them after the tournament and we can only hope they will learn something. My question is: how would you rule in this case? 7Sxx = for both sides? Split score? 7Sxx = for WE and 7Sx= for NS? Or sth else? Would you give a procedural (or other) penalty to NS? The TD ruled 7Sxx= for both sides. ****************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are the most profitable for the poor as there is more money in the budget for social purposes. The other one claims that low taxes are better for the poor as the rich ones can keep more money for investments that give work to the unemployed ones etc. Which side does your party support? - Both of these schools are right but we reject both viewpoints. ( from a TV debate before the elections in a certain European country ) Konrad Ciborowski From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 21:16:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 21:16:15 +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 VAA18412 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 21:16:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from p50s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.81] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11T1QD-0005sR-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:15:49 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:19:45 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf035a$0aeff060$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Monday, September 20, 1999 11:02 AM Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents >Roger is falling for a common trap. > >Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> I do not quite agree with Marvin. If opener has the 5 card suit promised, >> then the proven finesse results in 10 tricks. what is in doubt is when >> there was a psych [which will be proven on the HK]. Claimer left in doubt >> what action was intended when RHO shows up with a heart. All that is proven on the play of the HK is that the 2H opener had at least 1 heart and his partner also had at least one. Declarer will not find out that RHO is going to follow to the second heart until he has committed himself to his play from Dummy. Once he has done so he is going to make 7 or 9 tricks dependant on whether he finesses or overtakes. Remember he has cashed all top black cards. He says "10 tricks, unless you've psyched" I'm interpreting this to mean "I'm playing you for your bid, and finessing" The man has psyched and there is now no way to recover. I'm ruling 3NT-2. Anne >> >> A strong player would have recognized the ambiguity of the situation and >> would therefore have included the alternative in his claim. It is not >> enough to mention the case of a psych when the action is ambiguous. >Only in the YC would a claimer include the possibility of a >psyche in his statement. You should not burden him even >more with an explanation of how he will play if he does >discover it is a psyche. > >Take the same case anywhere else in the world, and the claim >without a mention of a possible psyche. In handling the >claim, you will spell out claim statement (even if not >outspoken) to include that since the finesse is proven by >the bidding, he is allowed to take it. Then we will rule >that (provided the class of player is sufficient) he will >notice the -not-showing-out of RHO. He will deduce that >there is a psyche. I will rule that he is entitled by L70E >to change his line. > >The combination of knowledge of particular psyching >tendencies of LHO (either known or disclosable by partner), >and the possibility of a very bad loss, may well lead me to >rule 12 tricks even at pairs. > >We should not put a heavier burden on a declarer who has >seen the possibility of a psyche than on one who has not. >Rather the reverse. > >So, >> when claimer does not take the pains to specify his intentions in such a >> case, I can not allow him to receive the benefit of the director finding for >> him the better of finesse or 'cash out'. Down two. >> >> If the players wanted to agree to 10 or 12 tricks they would not have called >> me. >> >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 22:48:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 22:48:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18695 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 22:48:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <8769-27997>; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:47:07 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA12291 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:11:33 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Illegal redouble? Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:21:18 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BB@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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589303@XION> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Hi folks! > > Here is what does not really look like a true story but >what did happen in reality. >NS - a good, competent pair >WE - complete beginners > N-S bid up to 7S. East doubled this for the club lead, >clubs being the only suit bid by dummy. West was >asked about the meaning of the double - NS were >clearly contemplating running to 7NT. West, however, >replied: "For penalties". Having heard that East lost his >temper and asked "What?" > Now NS made a mistake - they did not call the TD. >Instead, the redoubled being sure that West "cannot" >lead a club right now. > Well, West did lead a club, ruffed. West "argued" >that it was their opponents' question that woke him up >so he saw no reason not to obey his partner's wish >expressed by the Lightner's double. > OK, we all know that he was wrong, to say the >least. As they were novices the TD assumed that the whole >incident was caused by their lack of experience and >decided only to have a long conversation with them >after the tournament and we can only hope they >will learn something. > My question is: how would you rule in this case? >7Sxx = for both sides? Split score? 7Sxx = for WE >and 7Sx= for NS? Or sth else? Would you give >a procedural (or other) penalty to NS? > The TD ruled 7Sxx= for both sides. First, I would like to know whether West has a logical alternative for his club lead (if he hasn't, story is over - 7Sxx-1). So let's assume he has. Then EW get 7SXX= (if West woke up through NS's question, then why didn't he explain correctly?). But for NS, we are not finished. They are evidently trying to get the maximum through the TD - if West doesn't lead a club, we score extra, and if West does lead a club, TD will adjust. NS will need a very good reason for redoubling other than the above (see cards). Probably they wouldn't have redoubled without East losing his temper. So I probably would rule 7SXX-1 for NS and explain to NS that bad bids are their own responsibility. In Dutch we call this a typical case of "eten van twee walletjes" (roughly translated as: trying to get the best of two sides = anticipating on the TD to adjust a wrong decision). However, this all is a bit speculative without knowing the card distribution; maybe West didn't have a logical alternative to the club lead and maybe NS did have a good reason to redouble. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 22:55:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 22:55:16 +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 WAA18725 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 22:55:09 +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 IAA27728 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:56:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990920085618.006f1f5c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:56:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies to Craig, to whom I accidentally sent this (rather than to the whole list) earlier... At 12:23 PM 9/17/99 -0400, Craig wrote: >The provision of substantial opportunities to play at midchart would defuse >a lot of the complaints, so long as a large number of GCC games were also >made available for those who wanted less innovation and challange. The MABC >policies show some merit in letting the more advanced players have more >leeway, and they operate within the good graces of the ACBL the last I >looked. >(MidAtlantic Bridge C....which runs regionals in Washington DC, Maryland and >much of the southeast I believe makes all regional gold point events >midchart...perhaps Eric can provide more details). The MABC (which, IIRC, covers Maryland, D.C., Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and portions of West Virginia and Tennessee) permits midchart in all red-point games with no upper masterpoint limit. There is an overwhelming consensus on the part of the people who run the MABC tournaments that attendance would decline sharply if these events were to be restricted to GCC methods only. Similarly, midchart is allowed at the Washington Bridge League unit game, which is the most successful game in our area and widely acknowledged as the strongest and best-run unit game in the ACBL, and you will find the same consensus among the people who run the WBL. 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 Sep 20 23:05:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:05:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA18764 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:05:18 +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 JAA28743 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:06:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990920090628.006f1a0c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:06:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law 25 - an other case In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990917145824.0140401c@pop.mindspring.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:58 PM 9/17/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >I don't like L25. It seems to me that once you make a bid you should be >stuck with it. Too many questions such as the one you have raised (as well >as on the previous thread in this vein) turn on judgements of players' >thought processes. > >But it's there, isn't it? So, it seems absurd to argue that a player who >has alerted his partner's transfer call might now choose to pass it, unless >we happen to find him with 5 hearts and xx in spades. His pass was >inadvertent. Does anyone doubt it? Let him change it. I have nothing against L25A, but I would if I thought it was intended to be applied as broadly as Michael suggests. A player alerts his partner's transfer, and then starts thinking about what to bid. He gets confused. For some reason he thinks that the auction, which actually stands at 2H, is at 2S. He wants to play in 2S. He reaches for the pass card, pulls it from the box, and puts it on the table. He was not reaching for the 2S card. He didn't "intend" to bid 2S -- he has already confused himself into thinking that 2S would be insufficient. His pass was a mistake, but it was not inadvertent. L25A does not apply. I'll even go out on a limb and offer the opinion that it should make no difference if his erroneous but not inadvertent pass was followed by an "oh s--t". 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 Sep 20 23:17:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:17:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (Salamix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA18783 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:17:20 +1000 (EST) From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06583 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:17:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA166253423; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:17:04 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA172943422; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:17:02 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:16:51 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Law 25 - an other case 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 XAA18784 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wilner wrote: However you rule on the above, L25B cannot apply since LHO has called. Either North gets to change his call under L25A or else South plays 2H. [Laval Dubreuil] Oh.., I forgot this subtility of Law 25. You have more time to change an inadvertent call according to Law 25A (before partner calls), than changing your mind (and your call) as specified by Law 25B (before LHO calls). Any logic behind this? Laval Du Breuil From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 23:23:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:23:43 +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 XAA18801 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:23:34 +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 JAA00755 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:24:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990920092441.006ece34@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:24:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law 25 - an other case In-Reply-To: <199909172017.QAA22537@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:17 PM 9/17/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >Let's go through the L25A checklist: >1. Was the pass inadvertent when made? I don't think the ACBL has a >clear definition of inadvertent ("inattentive" or "unintentional"), but >the announcement suggests that the player did not intend to pass, and >it's likely on its face that the pass was inattentive. I would >therefore tend to rule the pass as inadvertent, but there's no >substitute for being on the scene. At the moment the player said "transfer", he clearly, in his mind, did not intend to pass 2H. But that is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what was in his mind at the moment he put the pass card on the table. Of course it was inattentive. But I miss difficult declarer plays all the time because I was inattentive; that doesn't make my subsequent inferior play inadvertent. His pass should be considered inadvertent under L25A only if he intended, in his mind, at the moment he passed, to bid 2S, but something other than 2S came out of his mouth or bidding box. IOW, what matters here is only whether, at the moment he took the pass card from the box, he was reaching for the pass card or the 2S card. Only in the latter case do we allow a correction to 2S under L25A. 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 Sep 20 23:46:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:46:20 +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 XAA18861 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:46:10 +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 JAA03059 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990920094717.006e9600@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:47:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:46 AM 9/18/99 +0100, John wrote: >Location: The bear pit at the Young Chelsea > (Friday night imp pairs game, smoking section) >Players : The usual suspects (strong wild and ethical) > >D: E AKQJ43 S W N E >V: NS K7 2H > 74 P P 3N Ends >987652 AK5 10 Lead C4 >J94 82 >KQ A8653 >J8 - Q10643 > AQ10653 > J1092 > 972 > alerted as weak with a 5-card suit >Declarer wins the C lead, cashes 4S, the KC and claims >"Making 10 unless you've psyched" > >Ruling please - hehe N will cash the HK, and, as soon as W follows, will know that E did psych. So he is now off his "stated line", such as it is. I would rule that at IMP pairs it would be irrational to now risk his contract by playing a H to the 10 -- besides which, his intent to cash out (albeit with what he expects will become a marked finesse) before letting E-W gain the lead seems to be sufficiently clear from the statement he did make -- so I let him play a H to the A. 12 tricks. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 20 23:54:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:54:54 +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 XAA18885 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:54:47 +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 JAA03975 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990920095557.006eeaf0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:55:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990917215239.014034ac@pop.mindspring.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:52 PM 9/17/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >At 01:46 AM 9/18/99 +0100, John wrote: >> >>Location: The bear pit at the Young Chelsea >> (Friday night imp pairs game, smoking section) >>Players : The usual suspects (strong wild and ethical) >> >>D: E AKQJ43 S W N E >>V: NS K7 2H >> 74 P P 3N Ends >>987652 AK5 10 Lead C4 >>J94 82 >>KQ A8653 >>J8 - Q10643 >> AQ10653 >> J1092 >> 972 >> alerted as weak with a 5-card suit >>Declarer wins the C lead, cashes 4S, the KC and claims >>"Making 10 unless you've psyched" >> >>Ruling please - hehe > >Down 2. North has been a bad boy. There was no particular need to cash the >4 spade tricks, and certainly no reason to "unblock" the club K. And then >he compounded his carelessness with an incomplete claim. As it happens, he >would have been faced with a problem when both players followed to the >heart K. Should he assume that East's bid was based on only a 4-card heart >suit, or was it more likely to have been constructed from thin air, as it >in fact was? He might well decide to cash out, which in fact earns him an >excellent score with the heart suit running, but he might reason that with >hearts "likely" to be 4-1, he will earn a poor matchpoint score for >settling for only 9 tricks at no-trump, and try for the brass ring by >finessing the ten. OOPS! That's his last trick. > >I think it's more likely he would cash out, but not a completely clear >thing. It would not be ridiculous to finesse, IMO, and so that's how I >would rule. Absolutely correct, except for one small thing: the game was IMP pairs, not matchpoints. At IMPs it would, I think, be ridiculous to finesse. 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 Sep 21 00:12:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:12:54 +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 AAA18957 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:12:45 +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 KAA06128 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990920101353.006e7610@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:13:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card In-Reply-To: <003401beff40$e9f3a040$6cd5f1c3@kooijman> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:51 AM 9/15/99 +0200, ton wrote: >We consider myself as one of the gurus invited. We have to admit that Marv >is a brave man. He starts answering 'evidently' and then allows the gurus to >deviate. They don't (after this "they' discussion from now on nobody will >ever know who is saying what). D4 remains a small, D9 will be major. A well >known test question for TD-candidates in our country. L52B2: "Every card illegally led or played by the defender in the course of committing the irregularity[*] becomes a major penalty card" (* L52A: "a defender fails to lead or play a penalty card as required by Law 50".) So the D9 became a penalty card as soon as it was played. L50B: "...when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards." So the D4 became a major penalty card as soon as the D9 was played. Declarer may choose which card is played to the current trick; whichever he chooses, the other remains as a major penalty card. Not such a good test question IMHO. 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 Sep 21 00:35:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:35:14 +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 AAA19078 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:35:05 +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 KAA08459 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:36:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990920103614.006e7610@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:36:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: PP after UI In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990917212419.014007e8@pop.mindspring.com> <199909172313.TAA22673@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990917212419.014007e8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:50 PM 9/18/99 +0200, Bertel wrote: >Michael S. Dennis skrev: > >>stand, but I do think it's pretty close. I have never been comfortable with >>the presumption that the recipient of UI in these situations would never >>work out what happened on his own. > >It is irrelevant whether or not he does. > >>what he was doing after all. Shouldn't I be allowed to work that out even >>with the redundant UI? > >Work out anything you like. But if your bid is demonstrably >suggested by the UI and there are LA's, then you cannot legally >bid it. > >Law 16A: >After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >information that may suggest a call or play, ... >[cut] >... the partner may not choose from among logical alternative >actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over >another by the extraneous information. > >There's nothing about trying to guess what would have happened >without UI. I'm afraid I share Mike's concern that analyses such as Bertel's, although intuitively appealing, are too simplistic. Let's follow the reasoning: When partner passes 3D, he might have forgotten that it was a transfer, or he might have known it was a transfer and chosen to pass anyhow. The player must decide which is the case, and will presumably choose to either bid 3H or pass depending on his decision. Thus 3H and pass are both LAs. The player, however, has extraneous information from his partner's failure to alert which indicates the former, and thus suggests bidding 3H. So bidding 3H violates L16A, and we should adjust to the likely result in 3D. That sounds right, but what if it were... When partner passes 3D, he might have forgotten that it was a transfer, or he might have known it was a transfer and chosen to pass anyhow. The player must decide which is the case, and will presumably choose to either bid 3H or pass depending on his decision. Thus 3H and pass are both LAs. The player, however, has extraneous information from his partner's alert which indicates the latter, and thus suggests passing. So passing violates L16A, and we should adjust to the likely result in 3H. On what logical basis can we justify accepting the first line of reasoning while rejecting the second -- which, I suspect, is what most if not all of us would like to do? 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 Sep 21 01:08:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:08:37 +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 BAA19181 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:08:28 +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 LAA11994 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990920110936.006e4c58@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:09:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: AC case In-Reply-To: <19990919230938.AAA7403@Systems.rb.op.dlr.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:18 PM 9/19/99 +0200, Japp.Herman wrote: >Mixed-pairs >Dealer: East >Vuln: EW > > x > A K > 10 x x x x > A K x x x > >Q J x x x x x A K x x >Q 9 x x J x x x >J A x x >J x x > > x > 10 x x > K Q x x > Q x x x x > > W N E S > ============== > 1 D p Precision; 11-15; 0+ D > 1 S 2 C 2 S 3 C > 4 S ......p p 5 C > >The long hesitation by North is agreed upon. EW reserved their >rights, bid on to 5S and went one off. > >The majority of the field went down in 5H or 5S. One lucky EW wrote >620, and on NS there was one 550, one 400 and one pair was allowed to >play 4C. At most tables North showed either a two-suited hand, or bid >5C after getting support. > >TD ruled that 5C was suggested by the hesitation and >changed the score to 4S, just made > >NS appealed. > >The AC after long deliberation upheld the TD's decision, because Pass >appeared to be a logical alternative with the South hand. After all, >North bid in an exposed situation and after NS showed clubs the >precision 1D opener had to have some diamonds. Neither N nor S knew >about the extreme distribution of West. North's hesitation however >was most likely based on extra distribution. > >Your opinions are appreciated. We've been here before. The ruling is correct if, indeed, "North's hesitation... was most likely [from South's point of view] based on extra distribution", so that he was presumably thinking of bidding 5C himself, which would make 5C more attractive, relative to pass, to South. But what if North's hesitation was based on extra defense, so that he was presumably thinking of doubling 4S, which would make 5C less attractive, relative to pass, to South? Did North give South any reason to suspect that the former was more likely than the latter? If so, we should adjust. If not, we shouldn't. IOW, the question for the AC is whether the TD was correct when he ruled that "5C was suggested by the hesitation". 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 Sep 21 01:33:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:33:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f324.hotmail.com [207.82.250.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA19271 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:33:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 8892 invoked by uid 0); 20 Sep 1999 15:32:39 -0000 Message-ID: <19990920153239.8891.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.113.139.186 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:32:38 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.113.139.186] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:32:38 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > >Or bidding 4D as a splinter with Axxxx x xx AKJxx after partner opened >1S. > >David Stevenson is probably right from a formal point of view when he >says > >(I remember he does)that players who bid 4D with this hand should explain > >that splinters sometimes are small doubletons. But it doesn't work like > >that, that is not bridge anymore. > > >+=+ If we are talking about a pair who >have this agreement, I wonder how much >they are entitled to call it a 'splinter'; the >name misleads. I do think it right to >require them to describe their method >accurately. ~ G ~ +=+ I have thought of a good way to explain this convention. "Partner has primary spade support, game values, and wishes to create in our collective minds the impression that he has a singleton diamond." Now - would a convention so described be legal? Norman ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 01:38:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:38:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA19291 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:37:55 +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 LAA15269 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990920113904.0068f904@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:39:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: AC case In-Reply-To: <01c401bf031a$c3b1b6a0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <019601bf02e9$2f3fa940$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> <19990919230938.AAA7403@Systems.rb.op.dlr.de> <3.0.1.32.19990919203219.01296c98@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:46 PM 9/19/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >No merit, Mike. Partner hesitates over a 4S opening, and I bid 6C with >S-Ax H-xx D-KQ C-AKQJxxx. The UI did not demonstrably suggest that I bid >specifically 6C, but it demonstrably suggested that any aggressive >action by me would be reasonably safe. Since 5C is a logical >alternative, adjust the score if the 6C bid results in damage. I tend to agree with Marv on this ruling, but only because, IMO, the UI *did* "demonstrably suggest that I bid specifically 6C" relative to the postulated LA of 5C. L16 doesn't require that the UI suggest some one particular bid in isolation, only that it suggest it relative to partner's actual LAs. It is sufficient that the hesitation demonstrably suggest 6C over 5C on the hand I hold. It's ludicrous to believe that Mike, or anyone else, is claiming that it must demonstrably suggest 6C over anything else regardless of what I hold. 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 Sep 21 01:44:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:04:24 +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 BAA19163 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:03:52 +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 QAA19287 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:03:00 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA24016 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:02:58 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 15:02:57 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06209 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:02:54 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA29525 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:02:23 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:02:23 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909201502.QAA29525@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >We consider myself as one of the gurus invited. We have to admit that Marv > >is a brave man. He starts answering 'evidently' and then allows the gurus to > >deviate. They don't (after this "they' discussion from now on nobody will > >ever know who is saying what). D4 remains a small, D9 will be major. A well > >known test question for TD-candidates in our country. > > L52B2: "Every card illegally led or played by the defender in the course of > committing the irregularity[*] becomes a major penalty card" (* L52A: "a > defender fails to lead or play a penalty card as required by Law 50".) So > the D9 became a penalty card as soon as it was played. > > L50B: "...when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards > become major penalty cards." So the D4 became a major penalty card as soon > as the D9 was played. > > Declarer may choose which card is played to the current trick; whichever he > chooses, the other remains as a major penalty card. > > Not such a good test question IMHO. I think you should quote all of L52B2: Declarer may require the defender to substitute the penalty card for the card illegally played or led. Every card illegally led or played by the defender in the course of committing the irregularity becomes a major penalty card. So D9 only becomes a major penalty card one declare has required defender to substitute the D4 for it. If declarer accepts the lead of D9 it never becomes a penalty card. In either case, L52 is clear and does not require recourse to L50. I think it is a good test question: requiring the candidate to find and read the appropriate law without jumping off to other (unreferenced) laws. If the alternative reading of L52B was intended it could simply say: "If a defender has led or played another card when required by law to play a penalty card every such card becomes a major penalty card (and apply Law 50B and Law 50D1)." Robin From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 01:46:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:46:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA19325 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:46:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <2940-27997>; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:45:38 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA14158 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:09:44 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Law 25 - an other case Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:19:26 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BC@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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589305@XION> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval Dubreuil wrote: > Wilner wrote: >> However you rule on the above, L25B cannot apply since LHO has >> called. >> Either North gets to change his call under L25A or else South plays >> 2H. > [Laval Dubreuil] > Oh.., I forgot this subtility of Law 25. You have more time to change > an > inadvertent call according to Law 25A (before partner calls), than > changing > your mind (and your call) as specified by Law 25B (before LHO calls). > > Any logic behind this? > > Laval Du Breuil The Laws allow mechanical errors to be corrected, up to the moment that partner calls (when partner calls, there is too much UI to allow offender to correct). The Laws basically forbid a change of mind, and previous Laws didn't accept a correction attempt at all. This approach can from time to time lead to ridiculous contracts (for example, partner starts cueing 4C, offender thinks to sign off in 4H but passes). For this reason a small concession has been made; offender can replace his pass for the more normal 4H, so that he at least plays a normal contract, but he can score no more than average minus (L25B). It is a small concession; offender must react quickly, before LHO calls, or he is stuck in his ridiculous contract. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 03:56:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 03:56:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe11.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.115]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA19828 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 03:56:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 3203 invoked by uid 65534); 20 Sep 1999 17:55:47 -0000 Message-ID: <19990920175547.3202.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.114.56] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" , "Herman De Wael" References: <01c001bf0198$c6a4a940$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> <19990918154903.1701.qmail@hotmail.com> <37E49B10.FE4A4544@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:48:04 -0500 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: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, September 19, 1999 3:13 AM Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents > Roger is falling for a common trap. > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > > I do not quite agree with Marvin. If opener has the 5 card suit promised, > > then the proven finesse results in 10 tricks. what is in doubt is when > > there was a psych [which will be proven on the HK]. Claimer left in doubt > > what action was intended when RHO shows up with a heart. > > > > A strong player would have recognized the ambiguity of the situation and > > would therefore have included the alternative in his claim. It is not > > enough to mention the case of a psych when the action is ambiguous. > Only in the YC would a claimer include the possibility of a > psyche in his statement. You should not burden him even > more with an explanation of how he will play if he does > discover it is a psyche. But it is no burden at all, it is the rule. Declarer's statement was clear, he claims the obvious 10 tricks if 2H was not a psych. When 2H was a psych then there are possibilities of 7 tricks to 12 tricks that depend on the lie of the cards, the heart suit in particular, and the line taken. Declarer left in doubt what was to be done in the event of a psychic 2H. If claimer does not account for such matters at the time of the claim statement, he does not get the benefit of the director finding the best line for him. Anne Jones concurs. It would be so easy for declarer to play the HK and then make his claim. But he would then probably have played it out, wouldn't he? Of course, I would think at the YC the sporting thing to do is to accept the claim of10 tricks on the line of heart finesse, cash two spades and exit a heart. Declarer gets what they claimed even though he might have gotten 7 tricks or 12 had he played it out. Maybe a more interesting adjudication is where 10 tricks have been agreed and the score recorded. As an after thought declarer asks about the distribution of the hearts and then realizes that 12 tricks could have been had by playing hearts from the top. He wants the 2 tricks because once the psych is uncovered it would be normal to cash out the hearts from the top and it would be irrational to not take 12 tricks. Moral. If you want to break the rules then it is important to not call the director. > Take the same case anywhere else in the world, and the claim > without a mention of a possible psyche. In handling the > claim, you will spell out claim statement (even if not > outspoken) to include that since the finesse is proven by > the bidding, he is allowed to take it. The finesse is proven by the play of the HK, not the bidding. because of entries it is irrational to not start with the HK. Then we will rule > that (provided the class of player is sufficient) he will > notice the -not-showing-out of RHO. He will deduce that > there is a psyche. I will rule that he is entitled by L70E > to change his line. i hope not. but perhaps you are playing the game of gambling instead of bridge? it is not irrational to play an opponent for a length of 4 when he has promised 5 and it is known that he can have a maximum length of 4. L70E is clear here, the losing second round heart finesse is the adjudication. > The combination of knowledge of particular psyching > tendencies of LHO (either known or disclosable by partner), > and the possibility of a very bad loss, may well lead me to > rule 12 tricks even at pairs. > > We should not put a heavier burden on a declarer who has > seen the possibility of a psyche than on one who has not. The laws don't. Declarer put it upon himself. Many disagree with me, but I would like duplicate to be a contest that compares the results of what different players do with the cards. And in this case, a player threw his cards against the wall. the rules provide a mechanism that adjudicates such occurrences. That rule is moderately inflexible and rightly so. > Rather the reverse. pfui. players create their own burdens, not the laws, nor we.. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 04:18:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 04:18:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA19928 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 04:18:19 +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 11T6wA-0008qS-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:09:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 18:07:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Development (illegal) - an end. References: <199909161803.OAA20227@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909161803.OAA20227@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> I generally agree, but our dispute has been solely over the legal rights >> and obligations of B when he suspects a psych by a partner who has been >> known for his aggressive tactics. Is his knowledge of partner's >> proclivities UI or not? > >In fact, this is a more general question than psyching. Suppose I know >partner is a chronic overbidder (or underbidder). May I use that >information in deciding my own actions, either in bidding or in play? > >No one has yet answered my earlier question: if one partner is an >overbidder and the other an underbidder, are they playing different >systems (illegal in most jurisdictions)? No, they are not. That is style. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 21 06:23:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 06:23:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA20293 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 06:23:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11T9y0-000FBM-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:23:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:56:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 25 - an other case References: <3.0.1.32.19990917145824.0140401c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990917145824.0140401c@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 10:06 AM 9/17/99 -0400, Laval wrote: >>Hi all, >> >>The auction was: >> >> N E S W >> 1NT P 2H! P >> P P >> >>2H was alerted (directly announced as "transfer" as >>ACBL-land regulation requires). Immediately after the >>final P, N called the TD and said he always intended >>to bid 2S as S asked for, but inadvertendly put a P >>card on table. >> >>Your ruling ? >> >>1) Trust N and apply Law 25A, allowing N to change his >> "inadvertent" call without penalty (his partner has not >> called after the inadvertent P....evidently...). >> >>2) Apply Law 25B, judging the P is "a split of mind" >> and can not be a mechanical error. E-W will get the >> table result, but an Avg- will be allowed to N-S. I don't like the thinking behind the way these two alternatives are presented, and I suggest that a TD should not be using either approach in his decision-making. The TD asks the questions, and makes a judgement. There is no answer to this question one way or the other: each case is different. >>Is this ruling a pure point of law application, not under >>the power of an AC (Law 93B2 reads: the AC may not >>overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations) ? The exact opposite: this is a pure judgement decision, and perfectly suited to an AC. >I don't like L25. It seems to me that once you make a bid you should be >stuck with it. Too many questions such as the one you have raised (as well >as on the previous thread in this vein) turn on judgements of players' >thought processes. > >But it's there, isn't it? So, it seems absurd to argue that a player who >has alerted his partner's transfer call might now choose to pass it, unless >we happen to find him with 5 hearts and xx in spades. His pass was >inadvertent. Does anyone doubt it? Let him change it. I doubt it. Your logic would mean that no-one would ever revoke. But people do. Let the TD do his job. >I don't think this type of ruling is unappealable. There are matters of >fact involved, and determinations which in some cases at least could >require bridge judgement, if not necessarily in this example. This is also a perfect case for the AC to do theirs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 21 06:23:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 06:23:45 +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 GAA20295 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 06:23:35 +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 11T9y7-0007EZ-0A; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:23:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:46:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Dave Burn From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: PP after UI References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JamesV wrote: >I have a question concerning application of the laws when a player has taken >action when in receipt of UI. An example from last night's duplicate should >suffice: > >10 9 8 5 3 2 >K 9 >8 5 4 >A 5 > >Auction (starting with RHO), teams, vul vs. non-vul: > >1NT (10-12) - pass - 2D (transfer) - pass (after asking for an explanation and >ca. 5s thinking) >2H > >this hand came in with 2S. Particularly at this vulnerability, pass is an >alternative, so I have no problem with a score adjustment. My question is: > >*** Is the 2S call illegal / an infraction of law / an offence? Could making >such a call ever attract a PP? *** The 2S call is illegal, an infraction of Law and an offence insofar as Law 73C is breached. The player has UI and has failed to do his best to avoid taking advantage. Thus the result will be adjusted if the opposition is damaged thereby. Now, the second question is interesting. Could such a call attract a PP? Yes. First of all, PPs are solely within the TD's and AC's judgement. Second, there are precedents in several jurisdictions. Having said that, there are two problems. First, it should be very rare. The case you quote is not even close. For a PP to be issued in my view it must be [a] blatant and [b] a case where a player is experienced enough that is reasonable to presume that he knows better. Second, there are a number of people who have argued here and on RGB that PPs are not suitable because it is not similar to any of the examples in L90B. I can only assume that such people have failed to read [or understand] the words "... include but are not limited to:". The fact that an offence is not similar to the list of examples is no reason whatever not to issue a PP, and I see no reason for the constant repetition of this clearly incorrect approach here. Whether a PP is suitable for this sort of case is dependant on L90A not L90B. While L90B says explicitly that it does not include all the possibilities the wording of L90A is different, and in deciding whether type of offence is suitable for a PP this wording should be studied. What of blatant use of UI? My view is clear: blatant use of UI "inconveniences other contestants" _and_ "violates correct procedure". Thus it is perfectly legal for a PP to be given for blatant use of UI. LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES A. Director's Authority The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these Laws, may also assess penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. B. Offences Subject to Penalty Offences subject to penalty include but are not limited to: >L16A states that the player "...may not choose from among logical alternative >actions..." and of course anyone taking this action has to expect it to come >under the scrutiny of the TD for a possible adjusted score, but is it actually >an offence to make the bid? When he was chair of the EBU L+E Committee, David >Burn wrote an article in "English Bridge" (aimed at the less-experienced >tournament or club player, admittedly) saying that after partner hesitates or >asks a question or otherwise imparts UI, no actions are banned by law, the best >advice is simply to bid as you would have done without the UI (but accept any >ruling with good grace). This advice is wrong. I personally have been burned [*coff*] a number of times when quoting other people: are you sure David said this? L73C requires players to attempt as far as possible to avoid using UI, and simply to bid as though the UI has not occurred is unsatisfactory and may often be illegal. In the above quoted case you might normally always bid 2S because you are a very aggressive player: you must not bid 2S once partner has made UI available that suggests bidding rather than passing. > This does not tally with the following case lifted from >the "Australian Directors' Bulletin" >(http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/abda_ap2.htm): > >10 9 3 >Q J 9 6 5 4 2 >Q >Q 2 > >where RHO opened 1C, the above hand bid 3D (transfer pre-empt), heard no alert >from partner (UI) and attempted to escape to 3H after two passes and a double. >Of the panel of directors asked, around half considered imposing a PP for using >UI, suggesting it is a serious breach of propriety. (One cited L90A, which >admits to being incomplete, but lists no offences even remotely similar to this >one.) > >I would not consider passing this hand without the UI, and some of the panel >agreed with me. So what would you advise (a) club-standard (b) higher standard >players to do in this situation, ignore the UI and bid normally, or try to >second-guess the TD / appeals committee? Neither, of course. The first is illegal, the second impossible. A player is required to do his best to avoid using UI, and that is all he is required to do. If the a TD/AC disagree with him when he has done his best because they disagree with his bridge judgement then he has acted with perfect propriety. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 21 06:23:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 06:23:43 +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 GAA20292 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 06:23:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11T9y0-000FBL-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:23:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:50:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Meaning of "likely" in 12C2 References: <199909161603.JAA17351@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199909161603.JAA17351@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Here's a theoretical question: When determining what results are >"likely" in order to award an assigned AS, do we take into account >decisions made by the NO's that occurred after the infraction but were >independent of the infraction? Example: > > A9xx > xxxx > xxx >-- Kx Qxxx >AJxxx xx >JT 98xx >xxxxxx KJT8x AQJ > KQ > AKQx > xx > >IMPs, E-W vul. South opens 1S; North bids 3C (Bergen, 4-card limit >raise), alerted; East starts asking a lot of pointed questions about >the 3C bid. My belief is that it's never wrong to ask about alerted >bids, if you have a policy of doing it consistently, but this East >goes way too far. He might as well have detached his clubs from his >hand and waved them in front of everyone's face. Anyway, East then >passes, then South bids 4S and plays it there. > >Sure enough, West leads a club into East's AQ. Later, South guesses >to play spades starting with the king, and goes down when West shows >out. The lead, it turns out, is irrelevant; South will always make or >go down depending on how he how he guesses spades. Still, either red >suit is a logical alternative, so West's club lead was an infraction. >Was there damage? Do we adjust? > >To apply L12C2, we rewind the hand back to the point where the >infraction occurred, and then determine the "most favorable result >that was likely" had West made a different lead, or, for the >offenders, the most favorable result that was at all probable. Well, >if we show someone all the hands and ask him to judge "the most >favorable (to N-S) result that was likely" after this auction and a >red-suit lead, without telling him anything that transpired >afterwards, he would of course say 4S making, since South could guess >the spades correctly. But given that South actually did misguess the >spades, and that this guess was a coin-flip that had nothing to do >either with the infraction or with East's improper questions, do we >take this misguess into account when judging what the "likely" results >are, even though the misguess occurred after the infraction? I'm not >sure what the answer should be. The motivation behind the "most >favorable result that was likely" clause is, I believe, to ensure that >an infraction doesn't deprive the NO's of the opportunity to get the >best result possible; but here, the infraction didn't deprive South of >anything---only his own bad guess deprived him of this opportunity. > >So what does the language of 12C2 mean in a case like this? L16A2 says: When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage. What you are saying [and I agree] is that there was no damage. Thus there is no reason to adjust and L12C2 is never reached. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 21 06:40:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 06:40:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.math.uga.edu (alpha.math.uga.edu [128.192.3.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA20366 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 06:40:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from saturn.math.uga.edu (saturn [128.192.3.112]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA05202 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:37:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by saturn.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA12369 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:27:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:27:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199909202027.QAA12369@saturn.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: gAOmbRRv0fWlyzLbQx84Ow== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger wrote: > it is not irrational to play an opponent for a length of 4 when he has > promised 5 and it is known that he can have a maximum length of 4. L70E is > clear here, the losing second round heart finesse is the adjudication. All that is in dispute is whether it is "irrational" to risk going one down by finessing in the hope of gaining three overtricks. I don't think that the wording of L70E helps in deciding this. Everybody agrees that it would not be irrational at pairs. I don't actually think it would be irrational at IMPs either, although it's close. As a specialist in losing IMP matches by 1 IMP (I think I've now been knocked out of all but one of the major British teams competitions in this way, and once lost three out of seven matches in a Swiss Teams event by 1 IMP), I think the "don't worry about overtricks" IMPs philosophy is greatly overstated. In this case, there are *three* overtricks at stake. If hearts are 4-1, we gain 90 points (3 IMPs against each table in 3NT) by taking the finesse. I don't remember the vulnerability, but in the worst case (vulnerable) we lose 790 points (13 IMPs) if the HQ is offside. I don't think it would be "irrational" to decide, on the basis of the 2H opening, that it is more than 13/3 (i.e., just over 4) times as likely that opener has Qxxx than xx or xxx. [OK, the figures are less favourable against tables playing in 4H, but anyway, it would be at most "careless" not to consider this possibility.] Of course, if psyches of weak twos on xx are commonplace at the YC, but 4-card weak twos are unknown, then I might make a different decision. Jeremy. [When I started to write this, I was going to give my thoughts on why it *would* be irrational, but changed my mind ... so at least I've succeeded in convincing at least one person!] From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 07:00:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:00:39 +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 HAA20416 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:00:29 +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 RAA05238 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:00:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA24837 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:00:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:00:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909202100.RAA24837@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jeremy Rickard > Of course, if psyches of weak twos on xx are commonplace at the YC, but > 4-card weak twos are unknown, then I might make a different decision. This is the right approach, but "unknown" is too strong. As Jeremy has said: > I don't think it would be "irrational" to decide, on the basis of the 2H > opening, that it is more than 13/3 (i.e., just over 4) times as likely that > opener has Qxxx than xx or xxx. (It's Jxxx, but that's a detail.) _Given that opener has psyched_ (or at least doesn't have the five cards he is supposed to), is Jxxx _four_ times as likely as xx or xxx ? Is it rational to think it might be? I've not, to my regret, played in the YC game, but from John's descriptions, it seems to me that Jxxx is not the way to bet at even odds, let alone at odds of 4 to 1. I'm willing to believe it's irrational -- we don't in general consider a 20% line rational when there's an 80% line -- but the decision has to be made by someone familiar with the players. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 08:14:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:14:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20620 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:14:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegmr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.219]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA28028 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 18:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990920181024.012975f0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 18:10:24 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: PP after UI In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19990919231541.43cfad52@pop3.iag.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:20 PM 9/20/99 +1000, Robert wrote: >>Oh, but there is. When we are evaluating LA's, we are doing so in the >>context of alternatives _absent_ the UI. If, strictly as a matter of AI, it >>is apparent that partner has forgotten our methods, then it is arguably >>unreasonable to suppose that I would prefer to go down doubled in a >>hopeless contract rather than try and scramble to salvage the board. Is >>passing a LA when I know from AI that it means an almost certain disaster? >>I think not. >> >>Look at it another way. You're playing on OKBridge, or with screens, or in >>some other situation where you can't know whether partner has alerted or >>not. You make your 3D bid with the hand in question, and it goes P - P(!) - >>Dbl. Now this transfer bid is fairly unusual, and doesn't come up with >>nearly the frequency of ordinary Jacoby transfers. Are you so confident in >>your partner's memory, or for that matter in your own judgement of whether >>this transfer really does apply in this situation, that you will risk an >>800-1100 point set rather than take your best shot at a better score? I >>have to say that it would not occur to me to do so. I would cross my >>fingers and bid 3H, and would expect most others to do so as well. >> > >Just do the "TEST" that you have to base your further bidding on the idea >that pd actually alerted your 3di bid and also got to explain it as cards >for a preempt similar like a normal 3he preempt and still picks out the >pass card saying 3he you say and he say NO WAY we are going to play heart. > >You know pd havnt this hand because of the failure to ALERT the 3di bid. Sorry, but no such "TEST" is mandated in the Laws. It is an important question, and one I have seen very few postings on, whether the standard should be, as you insist, what you might have bid had partner correctly alerted and explained, or, as I believe, what you might have bid in the absence of any information about partner's alerts or explanations. I will defend my position, though. When evaluating potential LA's, it should be in the (hypothetical) absence of the UI that occurred. That much I think we can agree on. But the absence of the actual UI does not imply the presence of other UI. It just means absence. To you, the fact that partner either did _or did not_ alert is UI. Thus the correct "TEST" is "what would I have done if I could not have known about partner's behavior?" Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 08:14:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:14:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20631 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:14:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegmr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.219]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA12024 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 18:14:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990920181004.0129b3e8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 18:10:04 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Illegal redouble? In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BB@XION> References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589303@XION> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:21 PM 9/20/99 +0200, Martin wrote: >First, I would like to know whether West has a logical >alternative for his club lead (if he hasn't, story is >over - 7Sxx-1). Agreed. >So let's assume he has. Then EW get >7SXX= (if West woke up through NS's question, then why >didn't he explain correctly?). But for NS, we are not >finished. They are evidently trying to get the maximum >through the TD - if West doesn't lead a club, we score >extra, and if West does lead a club, TD will adjust. >NS will need a very good reason for redoubling other >than the above (see cards). Probably they wouldn't have >redoubled without East losing his temper. So I >probably would rule 7SXX-1 for NS and explain to NS >that bad bids are their own responsibility. In Dutch >we call this a typical case of "eten van twee walletjes" >(roughly translated as: trying to get the best of two >sides = anticipating on the TD to adjust a wrong >decision). And this ruling for NS is based on which Law? Yes, N/S were undoubtedly trying to maximize their score. But that's what they paid their entry fee for! And it is true, also, that N/S based their decision to redouble on their expectation that West would be barred, as a matter of Law, from finding the killing club lead. But (assuming again that West had an LA), that was a correct assumption. The Laws do not allow West to lead clubs in this situation, and the N/S players committed no violation by exploiting that fact, just as a potential declarer is entitled in placing the final contract to consider that LHO has an exposed card. Were N/S damaged by their own redouble? Perhaps a little, but at any form of scoring, the difference was apt to be negligible. The real damage resulted from West's illegal club lead. And in any case, the redouble is not necessarily a mistake, at least if the TD can be relied upon to enforce the Laws rather than his extra-legal prejudice against "double-shots" (in any language). Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 08:14:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:14:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20621 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:14:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegmr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.219]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA19536 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 18:14:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990920174958.0129bd34@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:49:58 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Law 25 - an other case In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990917145824.0140401c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990917145824.0140401c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:56 PM 9/20/99 +0100, David wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>I don't like L25. It seems to me that once you make a bid you should be >>stuck with it. Too many questions such as the one you have raised (as well >>as on the previous thread in this vein) turn on judgements of players' >>thought processes. >> >>But it's there, isn't it? So, it seems absurd to argue that a player who >>has alerted his partner's transfer call might now choose to pass it, unless >>we happen to find him with 5 hearts and xx in spades. His pass was >>inadvertent. Does anyone doubt it? Let him change it. > > I doubt it. Your logic would mean that no-one would ever revoke. No, it just means that revokes are virtually always inadvertent, which I actually believe. However, the Laws make no provision for treating inadvertent revokes differently from intentional ones. They do, however mistakenly, provide for a player to correct an inadvertent misbid. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 09:34:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:34:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (mta@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20946 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:34:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.177]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:34:10 -0700 Message-ID: <02c401bf03c0$79af50c0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199909202027.QAA12369@saturn.math.uga.edu> Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:32:51 -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 Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > > it is not irrational to play an opponent for a length of 4 when he has > > promised 5 and it is known that he can have a maximum length of 4. L70E is > > clear here, the losing second round heart finesse is the adjudication. > > All that is in dispute is whether it is "irrational" to risk going one > down by finessing in the hope of gaining three overtricks. I don't think > that the wording of L70E helps in deciding this. > > Everybody agrees that it would not be irrational at pairs. > > I don't actually think it would be irrational at IMPs either, although > it's close. In your analysis, please consider that the contract will almost certainly be different at the other table. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 10:25:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:25:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21134 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:25:20 +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 11TDk4-000Mvi-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:25:08 +0000 Message-ID: <$R6e4OA8ss53Ewr9@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:03:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-Reply-To: <37E49B10.FE4A4544@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <37E49B10.FE4A4544@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Roger is falling for a common trap. > >Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> I do not quite agree with Marvin. If opener has the 5 card suit promised, >> then the proven finesse results in 10 tricks. what is in doubt is when >> there was a psych [which will be proven on the HK]. Claimer left in doubt >> what action was intended when RHO shows up with a heart. >> >> A strong player would have recognized the ambiguity of the situation and >> would therefore have included the alternative in his claim. The claimer is a Junior World Champion, now in his late 20's. > It is not >> enough to mention the case of a psych when the action is ambiguous. >Only in the YC would a claimer include the possibility of a >psyche in his statement. It certainly amused me. > You should not burden him even >more with an explanation of how he will play if he does >discover it is a psyche. > >Take the same case anywhere else in the world, and the claim >without a mention of a possible psyche. In handling the >claim, you will spell out claim statement (even if not >outspoken) to include that since the finesse is proven by >the bidding, he is allowed to take it. Then we will rule >that (provided the class of player is sufficient) he will >notice the -not-showing-out of RHO. He will deduce that >there is a psyche. I will rule that he is entitled by L70E >to change his line. > The point at issue is: Does he expect that LHO has tried it on Jxxx which is very likely (the strong junior players have recently been trying 4-card weak 2's when their agreement is 5 cards) or is he going to play from the top? I have to decide if it is irrational to continue by taking the H hook after the HK, given that it is imps. >The combination of knowledge of particular psyching >tendencies of LHO Junior, competent but not *very* strong, infrequent psyches, everyone at the table knows this. >(either known or disclosable by partner), >and the possibility of a very bad loss, may well lead me to >rule 12 tricks even at pairs. this I believe is wrong. The hook is very likely to succeed. > >We should not put a heavier burden on a declarer who has >seen the possibility of a psyche than on one who has not. >Rather the reverse. Had he claimed 10 tricks without the comment I would definitely have ruled down 2. He may not notice that RHO follows for example. > >So, >> when claimer does not take the pains to specify his intentions in such a >> case, I can not allow him to receive the benefit of the director finding for >> him the better of finesse or 'cash out'. Down two. >> >> If the players wanted to agree to 10 or 12 tricks they would not have called >> me. >> I ruled "Down 2", even at imps, but I wondered if it was "irrational". 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 Sep 21 10:25:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:25:29 +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 KAA21135 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:25:20 +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 11TDk4-0009Bi-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:25:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:08:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990920101353.006e7610@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19990920101353.006e7610@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 07:51 AM 9/15/99 +0200, ton wrote: > >>We consider myself as one of the gurus invited. We have to admit that Marv >>is a brave man. He starts answering 'evidently' and then allows the gurus to >>deviate. They don't (after this "they' discussion from now on nobody will >>ever know who is saying what). D4 remains a small, D9 will be major. A well >>known test question for TD-candidates in our country. > >L52B2: "Every card illegally led or played by the defender in the course of >committing the irregularity[*] becomes a major penalty card" (* L52A: "a >defender fails to lead or play a penalty card as required by Law 50".) So >the D9 became a penalty card as soon as it was played. > >L50B: "...when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards >become major penalty cards." So the D4 became a major penalty card as soon >as the D9 was played. > >Declarer may choose which card is played to the current trick; whichever he >chooses, the other remains as a major penalty card. I'd assumed that we now had two major penalty cards following your line of reasoning and emailed a private reply to that effect. I am now not so sure. chs john > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 10:43:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:43:32 +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 KAA21188 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:43:25 +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 11TE1d-0008R0-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:43:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:41:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-Reply-To: <02c401bf03c0$79af50c0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <02c401bf03c0$79af50c0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >Jeremy Rickard wrote: >> >> > it is not irrational to play an opponent for a length of 4 when he >has >> > promised 5 and it is known that he can have a maximum length of 4. >L70E is >> > clear here, the losing second round heart finesse is the >adjudication. >> >> All that is in dispute is whether it is "irrational" to risk going one >> down by finessing in the hope of gaining three overtricks. I don't >think >> that the wording of L70E helps in deciding this. >> >> Everybody agrees that it would not be irrational at pairs. >> >> I don't actually think it would be irrational at IMPs either, although >> it's close. > >In your analysis, please consider that the contract will almost >certainly be different at the other table. > The game is Butler Imps (Imp Pairs), so the result at the other table is not relevant. Only the datum is. The room will be in game and the datum will reflect this. The hook if LHO has Jxxx will yield about net 3 imps if it works, and lose about 12 if it fails. 4-card weak 2's are frequent compared with gross psyches. Much of the wildness at the YC stems from deviations rather than gross misrepresentations of one's hand. Perhaps I paint a wilder picture than actually obtains .. but the prettiest problems arise when something strange is afoot. Is it irrational to take the finesse, after proving that RHO has at least 1 Heart in this form of contest? I am concluding that my ruling was ok, as the odds may well favour 4-1 given the psyching frequency of LHO (low) and the Junior tendency to 4-card weak 2's (high). I have doubt about declarer's intention, so I can rule in the non-claimer's favour with a clear conscience. chs john >Marv (Marvin L. French) > > -- 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 Sep 21 14:35:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA21698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:11:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot0-16.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-16.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21693 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:11:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-16.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA03684 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:10:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:10:26 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome Chip. Oddly enough, either everyone else has gotten it wrong or I can't read the FLB. Seems pretty clear to me. First, let's look at Law 35 and 35A. When, after any inadmissible call specified below, the offender's LHO makes a call before a penalty has been assessed, there is no penalty for the inadmissible call (the lead penalties of [132]Law 26 do not apply), and: A. Double or Redouble If the inadmissible call was a double or redouble not permitted by [133]Law 19, that call and all subsequent calls canceled. The auction reverts to the player whose turn it is to call, and proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. So, the 2C bid by South condoned the double. From Law 35 there is no penalty. Since the condoned call was a double not permitted by Law, the double and 2C call are both cancelled by Law 35A. Ruling: No penalty. All calls following 1D are cancelled. It is East's turn to call. Bruce Chip wrote: : Greetings All: : The bidding has proceeded N:1d E:p W:x! S:2c! : Is South's bid now out of turn or can you rule that West's double was not : accepted? South actually didn't see the double and thought it was his : turn... : I have been enjoying this list for a couple of months and am de-lurking with : the above question. : Regards, : Chip From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 17:11:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 17:11:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA22055 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 17:11:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:10:46 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990921091051.007a5a30@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, 21 Sep 1999 09:10:51 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: PP after UI In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There is surely a case for giving PP after using UI. But if I give an adjusted score there is very rarely a case for giving PP in my opinion. That is what David although said. But sometimes there are cases where using UI dont result in an adjusted score. In these cases the PP is more in reach at least in my approach. What do you think of it? Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 18:28:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:28:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.mail.gxn.net [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22173 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:27:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from p04s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.5] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11TLGv-0004eC-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:27:34 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:31:51 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf040b$c0bfa640$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: Bruce J. Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 5:56 AM Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? >Welcome Chip. Hello Chip > >Oddly enough, either everyone else has gotten it wrong or I can't read >the FLB. Well :-)) Seems pretty clear to me. First, let's look at Law 35 and 35A. > > When, after any inadmissible call specified below, the offender's LHO > makes a call before a penalty has been assessed, there is no penalty > for the inadmissible call (the lead penalties of [132]Law 26 do not > apply), and: > > A. Double or Redouble > > If the inadmissible call was a double or redouble not permitted by > [133]Law 19, that call and all subsequent calls canceled. The auction > reverts to the player whose turn it is to call, and proceeds as though > there had been no irregularity. This was not an inadmissible double. Law 19 tells us that the double was legal. L19 1. Legal Double A player may double only the last preceding bid. That bid must have been made by an opponent; calls other than pass must not have intervened. > >So, the 2C bid by South condoned the double. From Law 35 there is no penalty. >Since the condoned call was a double not permitted by Law, the double and >2C call are both cancelled by Law 35A. If it was, they would be, but as it wasn't, they aren't. > >Ruling: No penalty. All calls following 1D are cancelled. Easts pass can not be cancelled for any reason, unless he asks for a Law 25 ruling, and it's too late:-) > It is East's turn to call. No it's Souths turn to call. Anne > >: The bidding has proceeded N:1d E:p W:x! S:2c! > >: Is South's bid now out of turn or can you rule that West's double was not >: accepted? South actually didn't see the double and thought it was his >: turn... > >: I have been enjoying this list for a couple of months and am de-lurking with >: the above question. > >: Regards, >: Chip > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 18:46:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:46:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22228 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:46:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <2888-27138>; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:45:40 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA17572 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:02:20 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: RE: A second bid out of turn? Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:11:47 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BD@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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589321@XION> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce J. Moore >Welcome Chip. > >Oddly enough, either everyone else has gotten it wrong or I can't read >the FLB. Seems pretty clear to me. First, let's look at Law 35 and 35A. > > When, after any inadmissible call specified below, the offender's LHO > makes a call before a penalty has been assessed, there is no penalty > for the inadmissible call (the lead penalties of [132]Law 26 do not > apply), and: > > A. Double or Redouble > > If the inadmissible call was a double or redouble not permitted by > [133]Law 19, that call and all subsequent calls canceled. The auction > reverts to the player whose turn it is to call, and proceeds as though > there had been no irregularity. > >So, the 2C bid by South condoned the double. From Law 35 there is no penalty. >Since the condoned call was a double not permitted by Law, the double and >2C call are both cancelled by Law 35A. > >Ruling: No penalty. All calls following 1D are cancelled. It is East's >turn to call. > >Bruce >Chip wrote: >: Greetings All: > >: The bidding has proceeded N:1d E:p W:x! S:2c! You read the FLB correctly. However, West's double was not inadmissable. West was doubling North's 1D, which is legal (apart from being out of turn) hence L35 does not apply. So the others in this thread were right: West's double is cancelled, South has bid 2C and there is no penalty, but the cancelled double is UI for East. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 20:06:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:06:17 +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 UAA22385 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:06:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-172.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.172]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19658 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:33:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37E64770.F9C71B8D@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:40:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents References: <01bf035a$0aeff060$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > All that is proven on the play of the HK is that the 2H opener had at least > 1 heart > and his partner also had at least one. > Declarer will not find out that RHO is going to follow to the second heart > until > he has committed himself to his play from Dummy. Once he has done so he is > going to make 7 or 9 tricks dependant on whether he finesses or overtakes. > Remember he has cashed all top black cards. > He says "10 tricks, unless you've psyched" I'm interpreting this to mean > "I'm > playing you for your bid, and finessing" The man has psyched and there is > now > no way to recover. > I'm ruling 3NT-2. > Anne > Sorry Anne, but after the first trick (HK) he knows already that opener cannot have his bid any more. I allow him to change his line at that time. Especially since he has included the possibility. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 20:48:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:15 +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 UAA22414 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:19:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11TN1L-0003o0-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:19:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:34:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card References: <001c01bf016c$d9f570a0$05c26dcb@default> <01a501bf0194$c736ace0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01a501bf0194$c736ace0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >We would have let the gurus answer this one, but we wanted to congratulate >Julie on the use of "they" with a singular antecedent. This is no bookish >schoolmarm, but a woman who knows how to use the English language. Who is "we"? They refers to more than one person, and the use of "they" because the person using it does not want to ascribe a gender to the particular person is not English. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 21 21:16:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA22596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:16:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA22591 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:16:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <2363-27138>; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:15:27 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA18069 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:29:14 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Illegal redouble? Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:38:39 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BE@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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883758931A@XION> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis >At 02:21 PM 9/20/99 +0200, Martin wrote: >>First, I would like to know whether West has a logical >>alternative for his club lead (if he hasn't, story is >>over - 7Sxx-1). > >Agreed. >>So let's assume he has. Then EW get >>7SXX= (if West woke up through NS's question, then why >>didn't he explain correctly?). But for NS, we are not >>finished. They are evidently trying to get the maximum >>through the TD - if West doesn't lead a club, we score >>extra, and if West does lead a club, TD will adjust. >>NS will need a very good reason for redoubling other >>than the above (see cards). Probably they wouldn't have >>redoubled without East losing his temper. So I >>probably would rule 7SXX-1 for NS and explain to NS >>that bad bids are their own responsibility. In Dutch >>we call this a typical case of "eten van twee walletjes" >>(roughly translated as: trying to get the best of two >>sides = anticipating on the TD to adjust a wrong >>decision). > >And this ruling for NS is based on which Law? Yes, N/S were undoubtedly >trying to maximize their score. But that's what they paid their entry fee >for! And it is true, also, that N/S based their decision to redouble on >their expectation that West would be barred, as a matter of Law, from >finding the killing club lead. But (assuming again that West had an LA), >that was a correct assumption. The Laws do not allow West to lead clubs in >this situation, and the N/S players committed no violation by exploiting >that fact, just as a potential declarer is entitled in placing the final >contract to consider that LHO has an exposed card. > >Were N/S damaged by their own redouble? Perhaps a little, but at any form >of scoring, the difference was apt to be negligible. The real damage >resulted from West's illegal club lead. And in any case, the redouble is >not necessarily a mistake, at least if the TD can be relied upon to enforce >the Laws rather than his extra-legal prejudice against "double-shots" (in >any language). > >Mike Dennis NS might have a good (bridge) reason to redouble, and then I have no problem ruling 7SXXC. I already said that I need to see the distribution for that. But redoubling just to get the maximum, anticipating on TD to correct, is not allowed. Players must keep bidding normally and should not do abnormal things because the opponents do something illegal. TD corrects damage resulting from infractions of the opponents, but not damage resulting from your own stupidities. But you are right that 7SXX-1 is a bit too much; the down is not related to the redouble. How about dropping the redouble for NS? Indeed, this probably wouldn't make a lot of a difference. Konrad, could you please give us a distribution, so that we can make a decision based on cards instead of speculation? Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 21:30:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA22658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:30:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA22653 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:30:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-19-46.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.19.46]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07939 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:30:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37E75BC8.AA6BFE04@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:19:52 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents References: <$R6e4OA8ss53Ewr9@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was not going to be dragged further into this discussion, and had decided not to reply to Roger's answer to my post (so as not to bore our readers), but John's reply gave some other twists to the tale : "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > It is not > >> enough to mention the case of a psych when the action is ambiguous. > >Only in the YC would a claimer include the possibility of a > >psyche in his statement. > > It certainly amused me. > > > You should not burden him even > >more with an explanation of how he will play if he does > >discover it is a psyche. > > > >Take the same case anywhere else in the world, and the claim > >without a mention of a possible psyche. In handling the > >claim, you will spell out claim statement (even if not > >outspoken) to include that since the finesse is proven by > >the bidding, he is allowed to take it. Then we will rule > >that (provided the class of player is sufficient) he will > >notice the -not-showing-out of RHO. He will deduce that > >there is a psyche. I will rule that he is entitled by L70E > >to change his line. > > > The point at issue is: Does he expect that LHO has tried it on Jxxx > which is very likely (the strong junior players have recently been > trying 4-card weak 2's when their agreement is 5 cards) or is he going > to play from the top? I have to decide if it is irrational to continue > by taking the H hook after the HK, given that it is imps. > That is exactly the point. I was under the (mistaken) impression that it would be unlikely, given that opener does not have the 5 cards he promised, that he would have exactly 4. If John says this is not true, then indeed my ruling is not the correct one. > >The combination of knowledge of particular psyching > >tendencies of LHO > > Junior, competent but not *very* strong, infrequent psyches, everyone at > the table knows this. > > >(either known or disclosable by partner), > >and the possibility of a very bad loss, may well lead me to > >rule 12 tricks even at pairs. > > this I believe is wrong. The hook is very likely to succeed. OK, so you rule down two - it's your tournament. > > > >We should not put a heavier burden on a declarer who has > >seen the possibility of a psyche than on one who has not. > >Rather the reverse. > > Had he claimed 10 tricks without the comment I would definitely have > ruled down 2. He may not notice that RHO follows for example. That is not correct. A claimer is deemed to notice everything. > > > >So, > >> when claimer does not take the pains to specify his intentions in such a > >> case, I can not allow him to receive the benefit of the director finding for > >> him the better of finesse or 'cash out'. Down two. > >> > >> If the players wanted to agree to 10 or 12 tricks they would not have called > >> me. > >> > > I ruled "Down 2", even at imps, but I wondered if it was "irrational". > Your ruling is on the following basis : - the laws only tell about "no following suit", not of "bidding inferences". - therefore the claim statement would only be complete after the cashing of the Heart King, not before - therefore there is no stated line - when noticing that RHO DOES follow suit, it is, in the YC, not uncommon to play LHO for four to the jack. - so there are two normal lines, one of which leads to -2. ergo, -2 it is. Under thowe circumstances, I agree with your ruling. > 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 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 21:35:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:14 +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 UAA22415 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:19:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11TN1G-0003nz-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:19:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:33:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 25 - an other case References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: > > > Wilner wrote: > > However you rule on the above, L25B cannot apply since LHO has > called. > Either North gets to change his call under L25A or else South plays > 2H. > [Laval Dubreuil] > Oh.., I forgot this subtility of Law 25. You have more time to change > an > inadvertent call according to Law 25A (before partner calls), than > changing > your mind (and your call) as specified by Law 25B (before LHO calls). > > Any logic behind this? Don't tempt 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 Tue Sep 21 22:06:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:06:52 +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 WAA22753 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:06:45 +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 IAB22463 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:07:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990921080759.006e48dc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:07:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990920101353.006e7610@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:08 AM 9/21/99 +0100, John wrote: >I'd assumed that we now had two major penalty cards following your line >of reasoning and emailed a private reply to that effect. I am now not so >sure. chs john Ditto. I've always ruled that way, but the list appears to be coming to a near-consensus that we've been getting this one wrong. I'm still listening, but it looks like I'm going to be convinced by the collective wisdom of the group to rule differently in the future. Hey, that's what BLML is all about, isn't it? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 21 23:17:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:15 +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 UAA22417 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:19:52 +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 11TN1F-0003o0-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:19:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:36:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding Notrump With a Singleton References: <003701bf0129$b020f4e0$5684d9ce@host> In-Reply-To: <003701bf0129$b020f4e0$5684d9ce@host> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >>>. I meet >>>opinions from mr. Nakatani from Japan in the Australian TD-bulletin >>>regularly. >> >ton >> +=+ I have had internet conversation with Mr Nakatani. >> ~Grattan~ +=+ >>What can we do to get him and other interested souls to add to this list? >We could all benefit from their insights, and perhaps they from ours? I have been conversing with my friend Mr Nakatini. I think he feels the time has not yet come to join BLML. However, if you have specific questions that you like to send me about how things are done in that part of the world feel free to suggest then to me and I shall seek his opinion and post it 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 Tue Sep 21 23:39:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:39:44 +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 XAA23018 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:39:36 +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 11TQ8i-0009qD-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:39:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:38:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Illegal redouble? References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883758931A@XION> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BE@XION> In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BE@XION> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >Michael S. Dennis > >>At 02:21 PM 9/20/99 +0200, Martin wrote: >>>First, I would like to know whether West has a logical >>>alternative for his club lead (if he hasn't, story is >>>over - 7Sxx-1). >> >>Agreed. >>>So let's assume he has. Then EW get >>>7SXX= (if West woke up through NS's question, then why >>>didn't he explain correctly?). But for NS, we are not >>>finished. They are evidently trying to get the maximum >>>through the TD - if West doesn't lead a club, we score >>>extra, and if West does lead a club, TD will adjust. >>>NS will need a very good reason for redoubling other >>>than the above (see cards). Probably they wouldn't have >>>redoubled without East losing his temper. So I >>>probably would rule 7SXX-1 for NS and explain to NS >>>that bad bids are their own responsibility. In Dutch >>>we call this a typical case of "eten van twee walletjes" >>>(roughly translated as: trying to get the best of two >>>sides = anticipating on the TD to adjust a wrong >>>decision). >> >>And this ruling for NS is based on which Law? Yes, N/S were undoubtedly >>trying to maximize their score. But that's what they paid their entry fee >>for! And it is true, also, that N/S based their decision to redouble on >>their expectation that West would be barred, as a matter of Law, from >>finding the killing club lead. But (assuming again that West had an LA), >>that was a correct assumption. The Laws do not allow West to lead clubs in >>this situation, and the N/S players committed no violation by exploiting >>that fact, just as a potential declarer is entitled in placing the final >>contract to consider that LHO has an exposed card. >> >>Were N/S damaged by their own redouble? Perhaps a little, but at any form >>of scoring, the difference was apt to be negligible. The real damage >>resulted from West's illegal club lead. And in any case, the redouble is >>not necessarily a mistake, at least if the TD can be relied upon to enforce >>the Laws rather than his extra-legal prejudice against "double-shots" (in >>any language). >> >>Mike Dennis > >NS might have a good (bridge) reason to redouble, and then I have no >problem ruling 7SXXC. I already said that I need to see the distribution >for that. But redoubling just to get the maximum, anticipating on TD >to correct, is not allowed. Players must keep bidding normally and should >not do abnormal things because the opponents do something illegal. TD >corrects damage resulting from infractions of the opponents, but not >damage resulting from your own stupidities. >But you are right that 7SXX-1 is a bit too much; the down is not related >to the redouble. How about dropping the redouble for NS? Indeed, this >probably wouldn't make a lot of a difference. Can I ask what Law this is based on? >Konrad, could you please give us a distribution, so that we can make >a decision based on cards instead of speculation? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 22 00:35:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:07:41 +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 AAA23100 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:07:31 +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 KAA21821 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:07:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA26020 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:07:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:07:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909211407.KAA26020@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > (the strong junior players have recently been > trying 4-card weak 2's when their agreement is 5 cards) This is the critical point. If this is common (at least 4:1 in favor, maybe higher if you expect the other table to be in a different contract), it is rational to play for it. > Had he claimed 10 tricks without the comment I would definitely have > ruled down 2. He may not notice that RHO follows for example. Your ruling might be right, but I don't like that last sentence. Failing to notice whether RHO follows would be irrational, and claims should not be judged on the basis of irrational play. Look at L70E again: "...would subsequently fail to follow...." From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 01:36:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:40:01 +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 WAA22845 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:39:43 +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 11TPCg-0004nZ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:39:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:27:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce J. Moore wrote: >Welcome Chip. > >Oddly enough, either everyone else has gotten it wrong or I can't read >the FLB. Seems pretty clear to me. First, let's look at Law 35 and 35A. > > When, after any inadmissible call specified below, the offender's LHO > makes a call before a penalty has been assessed, there is no penalty > for the inadmissible call (the lead penalties of [132]Law 26 do not > apply), What is inadmissible about doubling your opponent's 1D bid? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 22 02:08:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:08:53 +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 CAA23704 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:08:42 +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 MAA27800 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA26096 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:08:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:08:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909211608.MAA26096@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: AC case X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > W N E S > > 1 D p Precision; 11-15; 0+ D > > 1 S 2 C 2 S 3 C > > 4 S ......p p 5 C > From: Eric Landau > But what > if North's hesitation was based on extra defense, so that he was presumably > thinking of doubling 4S, which would make 5C less attractive, relative to > pass, to South? This was my first thought too, but I think 5C is still suggested over pass. Suppose we knew for sure that North was thinking of doubling. What kind of hand would he have? Something with S-QJT9 ? Possibly, but that seems unlikely on the bidding. More likely he has extra strength overall, so he expected to make at least 3C and to have a good chance of beating 4S on power. Knowing partner has extra strength seems to me to make 5C more attractive on the South hand (x Txx KQxx Qxxxx). If North had a minimum overcall, 5C would probably be a good sacrifice against a making 4S, but it might also be a phantom. Why shouldn't you take two diamonds, one club, and one trick in the majors? Or one trick in each suit? And 5C is wildly unlikely to make, so it seems right to take our chances on defense. But if North has extra strength, 5C becomes likely to make, although it certainly doesn't come with any guarantees. So to my mind, the hesitation makes 5C more attractive regardless of what partner was thinking about. No doubt I could be persuaded to change my bridge judgment if NS were to present unexpected information about their style or experience, but that's how it looks to me on the facts presented. On a different hand, I might very well agree with Eric. The principle is certainly correct; it's our bridge judgments that differ. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 02:13:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22409 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:19:48 +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 11TN1G-0003nx-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:19:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:04:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: PP after UI References: <199909172313.TAA22673@cfa183.harvard.edu> <019001bf0191$58bf9720$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <019001bf0191$58bf9720$b12fd2cc@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: >> >> If the TD/AC's bridge judgment is the same as mine, and if they >judge >> the player concerned is experienced enough to expect that to be >true, >> then a PP would seem appropriate. >The use of PPs for disciplinary purposes, when their purpose is to >penalize for procedural infractions, does not seem appropriate. If the player is being penalised for using UI, that is procedural not disciplinary, so a PP is appropriate. May I suggest you re-read L90A? >Write a Player Memo or refer the matter to a C&E Committee. I think that you use these both for procedural matters and disciplinary matters. >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com >AKA Cato Cato? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 22 02:35:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:54:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.math.uga.edu (alpha.math.uga.edu [128.192.3.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23275 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:54:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from pluto.math.uga.edu (pluto [128.192.3.110]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA19747 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:50:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA20314 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:39:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:39:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199909211439.KAA20314@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: FVzY1qW5UVA7CJuHjxQQ9g== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In your analysis, please consider that the contract will almost > certainly be different at the other table. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) Having deleted the earlier messages in this thread, I was relying on my imperfect memory of the hand, so I wasn't able to judge what the likely contract at the other tables would be. Sorry. But against a table where the contract is 4H and declarer cashes the top hearts, the figures are actually the same. Finessing gains 3 IMPs (in a different way: 600 vs. 650 is -2 IMPs, 690 vs 650 is +1 IMP) if hearts are 4-1, and loses 13 IMPs if the jack is offside. If 6H, making if there are no trump losers, is likely, then finessing gains 1 IMP if it's right and loses 5 IMPs if it's wrong (assuming declarer in 6H plays trumps from the top), so the odds are not much worse but the stakes are lower. (Since I don't remember the vulnerability, I'm assuming declarer is vulnerable, since that's the worst case for my argument.) Jeremy. ---------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ ---------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 02:36:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:36:33 +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 CAA23839 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:36:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.10]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA06247 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:36:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37E7A935.A06F0118@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 17:50:13 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card References: <3.0.1.32.19990920101353.006e7610@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990921080759.006e48dc@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 01:08 AM 9/21/99 +0100, John wrote: > > >I'd assumed that we now had two major penalty cards following your line > >of reasoning and emailed a private reply to that effect. I am now not so > >sure. chs john > > Ditto. I've always ruled that way, but the list appears to be coming to a > near-consensus that we've been getting this one wrong. I'm still > listening, but it looks like I'm going to be convinced by the collective > wisdom of the group to rule differently in the future. Hey, that's what > BLML is all about, isn't it? > exactly. Anyway, it's not that important is it ? "declarer, you now have the choice - either you accept the nine, in which case the four remains a minor penalty card, or you doon't accept, in which case he has to play the four to this trick and the nine becomes a major penalty card". I suppose the four shall be played to this trick ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 02:36:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:36:35 +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 CAA23840 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:36:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.10]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA06255 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:36:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37E7AA86.B65C4E86@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 17:55:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Illegal redouble? References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BE@XION> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > > > NS might have a good (bridge) reason to redouble, and then I have no > problem ruling 7SXXC. I already said that I need to see the distribution > for that. But redoubling just to get the maximum, anticipating on TD > to correct, is not allowed. Players must keep bidding normally and should > not do abnormal things because the opponents do something illegal. That is not correct, Martin. Players are allowed to do abnormal things when their opponents have done something illegal _AND_ the TD has ruled against them. It is perfectly legal to base your play on opponents having penalty cards and the like. What is -according to some- not allowed, is to do abnormal things on the presumption that opponents have done something illegal _when this is by no means yet certain_. It may well be completely legal for this player to lead the club, in which case the redoubled undertrick will stand. I am not certain in which camp I belong. If all opponents would be playing according to the laws, there would be no reason to "van twee walletjes eten", now would there ? > TD > corrects damage resulting from infractions of the opponents, but not > damage resulting from your own stupidities. > But you are right that 7SXX-1 is a bit too much; the down is not related > to the redouble. How about dropping the redouble for NS? Indeed, this > probably wouldn't make a lot of a difference. > > Konrad, could you please give us a distribution, so that we can make > a decision based on cards instead of speculation? > > Martin Sinot > martin@spase.nl -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 02:52:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:32 +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 UAA22449 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:16 +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 11TN1V-0003nx-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:19:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:58:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: AC case References: <19990919230938.AAA7403@Systems.rb.op.dlr.de> <019601bf02e9$2f3fa940$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19990920015328.00826330@netvision.net.il> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990920015328.00826330@netvision.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote: >Obviously every time partner thinks, hesitates and calls he has considered > something other than what he finally did call. What you're saying in >effect is: If partner thinks, you are barred from the bidding. This would >crtainly facilitate rulings on hesitations, but it's not what Law 16A says. Not at all. But when partner thinks in situations where he might or might not have minimum values, it is clear he is non-minimum. if pass by you is an LA that means that you are barred in such situations, yes, of course. But when you say every time you are ignoring the times when partner's pass does not affect whether he could be minimum or when there is no LA of pass. So there is no suggestion at all that partner thinking Always bars you from bidding. It is far better to look at each case on its merits. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 22 03:31:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:16:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23138 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:16:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <2125-28225>; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:15:47 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA20626 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:33:26 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Subject: RE: Minor Penalty Card Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:42:48 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BF@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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883758932A@XION> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 01:08 AM 9/21/99 +0100, John wrote: > >>I'd assumed that we now had two major penalty cards following your line >>of reasoning and emailed a private reply to that effect. I am now not so >>sure. chs john > >Ditto. I've always ruled that way, but the list appears to be coming to a >near-consensus that we've been getting this one wrong. I'm still >listening, but it looks like I'm going to be convinced by the collective >wisdom of the group to rule differently in the future. Hey, that's what >BLML is all about, isn't it? Maybe this problem is related to several others. On many occasions in the Laws, in the auction period as wel as the playing period, if an infraction is committed, it can be accepted (i.e. treated as legal), and then nothing changes, except for possible UI (you can, for example, accept an insufficient bid, or an opening lead out of turn). This situation looks rather similar; offender plays D9 while this is not allowed. Declarer may treat this as legal and then nothing changes (i.e. D4 remains a minor penalty card), or he may request D4, but then D9 becomes a major penalty card. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 03:35:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:45:54 +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 CAA23894 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:45:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22751; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:45:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199909211645.JAA22751@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Illegal redouble? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Sep 1999 17:55:50 PDT." <37E7AA86.B65C4E86@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:45:03 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I am not certain in which camp I belong. If all opponents > would be playing according to the laws, there would be no > reason to "van twee walletjes eten", now would there ? "Eat from two wallets?" Sorry, I don't know any Dutch---now I'm curious. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 03:39:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:18:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot0-69.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (root@slot0-69.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA22794 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:18:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-134.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA07320 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:16:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:16:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As a private message has noted I misread the auction. Please disregard. Bruce Bruce J. Moore wrote: : Welcome Chip. : Oddly enough, either everyone else has gotten it wrong or I can't read : the FLB. Seems pretty clear to me. First, let's look at Law 35 and 35A. : When, after any inadmissible call specified below, the offender's LHO : makes a call before a penalty has been assessed, there is no penalty : for the inadmissible call (the lead penalties of [132]Law 26 do not : apply), and: : A. Double or Redouble : If the inadmissible call was a double or redouble not permitted by : [133]Law 19, that call and all subsequent calls canceled. The auction : reverts to the player whose turn it is to call, and proceeds as though : there had been no irregularity. : So, the 2C bid by South condoned the double. From Law 35 there is no penalty. : Since the condoned call was a double not permitted by Law, the double and : 2C call are both cancelled by Law 35A. : Ruling: No penalty. All calls following 1D are cancelled. It is East's : turn to call. : Bruce : Chip wrote: : : Greetings All: : : The bidding has proceeded N:1d E:p W:x! S:2c! : : Is South's bid now out of turn or can you rule that West's double was not : : accepted? South actually didn't see the double and thought it was his : : turn... : : I have been enjoying this list for a couple of months and am de-lurking with : : the above question. : : Regards, : : Chip From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 04:00:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22456 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:22 +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 11TN1S-0003oJ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:19:46 +0000 Message-ID: <+h$UcUC$at53Ew4p@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:52:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? References: <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> <199909181843.OAA01295@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909181843.OAA01295@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: >Chip writes: > >> Greetings All: > >> The bidding has proceeded N:1d E:p W:x! S:2c! > >> Is South's bid now out of turn or can you rule that West's double was not >> accepted? South actually didn't see the double and thought it was his >> turn... > >There's a law to cover this case, and it appears to be written for >exactly this purpose (player calls before noticing an opponent's call out >of turn). > >Law 28B: > >A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn >it was to call, before a penalty has been assessed for a call out of >rotation by an opponent; making such a call forfeits the right to >penalize the call out of rotation, and the auction proceeds as though >the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16C2 applies. > >Thus South's 2C stands, and West can bid anything he wants, but his >double out of turn is UI to East. Just in case anyone missed this post, this is the only correct answer to this question. Please read this Law and remember it. I am afraid everyone else missed this Law. Hi Chip. Nice to see you! Any 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 Wed Sep 22 04:11:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 04:11:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24161 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 04:11:27 +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 11TUNg-000MA0-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:11:09 +0000 Message-ID: <9BZeMqAwn853EwLg@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 19:09:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 25 - an other case In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Laval wrote: >> >> >> Wilner wrote: >> >> However you rule on the above, L25B cannot apply since LHO has >> called. >> Either North gets to change his call under L25A or else South plays >> 2H. >> [Laval Dubreuil] >> Oh.., I forgot this subtility of Law 25. You have more time to change >> an >> inadvertent call according to Law 25A (before partner calls), than >> changing >> your mind (and your call) as specified by Law 25B (before LHO calls). >> >> Any logic behind this? > > Don't tempt me! > Oh! Go on! I love it when you mount your white charger in full armoUr and high dudgeon! 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 Sep 22 04:36:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22410 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:19:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11TN1K-0003nz-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:19:36 +0000 Message-ID: <4AVF0CCVZs53EwLK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:42:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Computer dealt hands References: <4.1.19990920160017.0096a8b0@sercit> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990920160017.0096a8b0@sercit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: >As some of you may be aware the 1998 National Open Teams in Australia was >marred when in the quarter finals after 30 boards (of 40) it was noticed >that the hands being played were identical to hands from the 1997 VCC >(another Australian National championship). > >We have had some reports that some clubs have accidentally dealt the same >hands and so used the same hands in different events. These typically have >been club duplicates. >This raises a number of issues - for masterpoint purposes should these >'fouled' sessions count? [I can see players screaming very loudly if >someone tries to take the masterpoints away]. If it is a multi-session >event should the scores from that fouled session apply. Should the results >only count if the players haven't played the hands before? > >Does anybody have regulations to cover this type of situation? I am sure it >is not unique to Australia... LAW 6 - THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL D. New Shuffle and Redeal 2. No Shuffle, or No Deal No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted pack, or if the deal had previously been played in a different session. It is Law, not Regulation. "No result may stand ..." is final. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 22 05:20:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:39:58 +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 WAA22846 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:39:45 +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 11TPCg-0004nY-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:39:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:25:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents References: <02c401bf03c0$79af50c0$b12fd2cc@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: >In article <02c401bf03c0$79af50c0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. >French" writes >>Jeremy Rickard wrote: >>> >>> > it is not irrational to play an opponent for a length of 4 when he >>has >>> > promised 5 and it is known that he can have a maximum length of 4. >>L70E is >>> > clear here, the losing second round heart finesse is the >>adjudication. >>> >>> All that is in dispute is whether it is "irrational" to risk going one >>> down by finessing in the hope of gaining three overtricks. I don't >>think >>> that the wording of L70E helps in deciding this. >>> >>> Everybody agrees that it would not be irrational at pairs. >>> >>> I don't actually think it would be irrational at IMPs either, although >>> it's close. >> >>In your analysis, please consider that the contract will almost >>certainly be different at the other table. >> >The game is Butler Imps (Imp Pairs), so the result at the other table is >not relevant. Only the datum is. The room will be in game and the datum >will reflect this. The hook if LHO has Jxxx will yield about net 3 imps >if it works, and lose about 12 if it fails. 4-card weak 2's are frequent >compared with gross psyches. Much of the wildness at the YC stems from >deviations rather than gross misrepresentations of one's hand. You say: > Perhaps I >paint a wilder picture than actually obtains ... and yet you are going to rule that at imps YC players are going to risk a game contract for overtricks when there is no reason to suppose the odds are in their favour. The finesse is irrational: the player would not have taken it unless he is a complete burk. In my view the YC players are not idiots and your ruling should reflect that. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 05:21:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:40 +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 UAA22455 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:22 +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 11TN1Z-0003o0-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:19:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 02:10:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents References: <01c001bf0198$c6a4a940$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> <19990918154903.1701.qmail@hotmail.com> <37E49B10.FE4A4544@village.uunet.be> <19990920175547.3202.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19990920175547.3202.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: Please allow me to congratulate you on your software. >From: Herman De Wael >> Roger is falling for a common trap. >Moral. If you want to break the rules then it is important to not call the >director. >> Take the same case anywhere else in the world, and the claim >> without a mention of a possible psyche. In handling the >> claim, you will spell out claim statement (even if not >> outspoken) to include that since the finesse is proven by >> the bidding, he is allowed to take it. >The finesse is proven by the play of the HK, not the bidding. because of >entries it is irrational to not start with the HK. > >Then we will rule >> that (provided the class of player is sufficient) he will >> notice the -not-showing-out of RHO. He will deduce that >> there is a psyche. I will rule that he is entitled by L70E >> to change his line. >i hope not. but perhaps you are playing the game of gambling instead of >bridge? > >it is not irrational to play an opponent for a length of 4 when he has >promised 5 and it is known that he can have a maximum length of 4. L70E is >clear here, the losing second round heart finesse is the adjudication. Sorry, but that is not Bridge. Declarer is playing imps: he is 3NT with nine top tricks. There is no way that to risk his contract is a "normal" play: it is an irrational one. Note that this is what the Laws say: normal, not irrational. --------- Anne Jones wrote: >Remember he has cashed all top black cards. >He says "10 tricks, unless you've psyched" I'm interpreting this to mean >"I'm >playing you for your bid, and finessing" Why not interpret it to mean what he said? > The man has psyched and there is >now >no way to recover. He has nine top tricks at teams, and he knows the player has psyched. He even made that part of his claim, so how can you possibly rule this way? >I'm ruling 3NT-2. That means you are ruling that he does *not* follow his claim. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 22 05:29:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA22993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:33:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (root@omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22987 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:33:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA09785 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:33:25 +0200 Message-ID: <37E7893F.733CB63B@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:33:52 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski 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: Illegal redouble? References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BE@XION> <37E788F0.82FCF9E@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Martin Sinot wrote: > > > > > Konrad, could you please give us a distribution, so that we can make > > a decision based on cards instead of speculation? > > > > Martin Sinot > > martin@spase.nl > > I wish I could. I was told this story in a car when going back from > The Junior World Pairs Championships in Nymburk (no, the whole > thing didn't happen there). > I think that we all agree that there is no problem if > 1) there was no LA to the opening lead > We have to, however, determine that there is no LA to the opening > lead assuming that West is _unaware_ that partner's double was > Lightner (otherwise there is no LA to the club lead, right?). So only > if West held something like: > > xx > xxx > xxx > KQJ109 > > 2) NS have a (bridge) reason to redouble > > The problem remains only when NS decided to redouble as > a "double shot" and West had a LA to leading a club so > I think we may assume both.. > > When I was asked about an opinion on this I "ruled": > 7Sxx= for WE and 7Sx = for NS. However, I still have doubts. > Suppose we decide that a correct ruling is to cancel the redouble for NS. > What does that mean? > Well suppose the West leads sth else than a club. 7Sxx is made. > Now, as we have just decided that NS are not allowed to redouble > without a good reason, West can call now the TD, saying: > - OK, my partner cannot behave correctly at the table and, > being an ethical player, I couldn't lead a club. But they had no > bridge reason to redouble so pls adjust the score: 7Sxx= for us > but 7Sx for our opponents! > > Have I seen in my life a TD reducing the score achieved by the > NOs on request of the offending side? And if he doesn't do that it > means that if we ever find ourselves in the West's position we > have to lead a club because if we don't - they will score 7Sxx= > in a natural fashion (TD won't adjust for the reason above) if > we do they will score 7Sx - the TD will cancel the redouble. > I agree that normal behavior (not leading a club) shouldn't be > rewarded but why punish for this? > Having said that I must admit that I still have a "gut feeling" > that NS shouldn't be allowed to redouble. I may be wrong > about this. > > ************************************************************* > > - One school believes that high taxes are the most profitable for the > poor as there is more money in the budget for social purposes. The > other one claims that low taxes are better for the poor as the rich > ones can keep more money for investments that give work to the > unemployed ones etc. Which side does your party support? > - Both of these schools are right but we reject both viewpoints. > > ( from a TV debate before the elections in a certain European country ) > > Konrad Ciborowski From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 06:04:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:04:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24519 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:04:48 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id NAA01400 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:04:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA19257; 21 Sep 99 13:00:38 -0700 Date: 21 Sep 99 12:56:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199909211300.AA19257@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: claim after psyche by opponents Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Coming from an area where the average club game participant is at least two times (and probably three times) the age of the YC protagonists, I think I would have ruled that the claimer did not know how to phrase this claim correctly: I would interpret "making 10 unless you've psyched" as implying that declarer would take the H finesse if it became proven on the lead of the HK and cash H from the top otherwise. Certainly that would be my ruling in the *non*-smoking section. If I had accepted my down 2 with good grace (as I hope I would; there is some doubt) I doubt that I'd claim again in that game. -- Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 06:11:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22450 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:17 +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 11TN1V-0003nz-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:19:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 02:10:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Illegal redouble? References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589303@XION> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BB@XION> In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BB@XION> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >>Hi folks! >> >> Here is what does not really look like a true story but >>what did happen in reality. >>NS - a good, competent pair >>WE - complete beginners >> N-S bid up to 7S. East doubled this for the club lead, >>clubs being the only suit bid by dummy. West was >>asked about the meaning of the double - NS were >>clearly contemplating running to 7NT. West, however, >>replied: "For penalties". Having heard that East lost his >>temper and asked "What?" >> Now NS made a mistake - they did not call the TD. >>Instead, the redoubled being sure that West "cannot" >>lead a club right now. >> Well, West did lead a club, ruffed. West "argued" >>that it was their opponents' question that woke him up >>so he saw no reason not to obey his partner's wish >>expressed by the Lightner's double. >> OK, we all know that he was wrong, to say the >>least. As they were novices the TD assumed that the whole >>incident was caused by their lack of experience and >>decided only to have a long conversation with them >>after the tournament and we can only hope they >>will learn something. >> My question is: how would you rule in this case? >>7Sxx = for both sides? Split score? 7Sxx = for WE >>and 7Sx= for NS? Or sth else? Would you give >>a procedural (or other) penalty to NS? >> The TD ruled 7Sxx= for both sides. > >First, I would like to know whether West has a logical >alternative for his club lead (if he hasn't, story is >over - 7Sxx-1). So let's assume he has. Then EW get >7SXX= (if West woke up through NS's question, then why >didn't he explain correctly?). But for NS, we are not >finished. They are evidently trying to get the maximum >through the TD - if West doesn't lead a club, we score >extra, and if West does lead a club, TD will adjust. >NS will need a very good reason for redoubling other >than the above (see cards). Excuse me? What is this strange prejudice against the victims of a mugging? Why do some people always shoot the non-offenders? > Probably they wouldn't have >redoubled without East losing his temper. Absolutely correct. Now show me the Law in the Law book that says you are not allowed to take advantage of your opponents' mistakes. > So I >probably would rule 7SXX-1 for NS and explain to NS >that bad bids are their own responsibility. What bad bid? A club lead is barred - see L73C - so the redouble is an excellent call. > In Dutch >we call this a typical case of "eten van twee walletjes" >(roughly translated as: trying to get the best of two >sides = anticipating on the TD to adjust a wrong >decision). The decision was a right decision, since 7NTxx was cold if the laws of the game are followed, so your Dutch saying does not apply. >However, this all is a bit speculative without knowing >the card distribution; maybe West didn't have a logical >alternative to the club lead and maybe NS did have a >good reason to redouble. We know he had a good reason to redouble: the contract was cold once East made UI available to West. --------- In NAmerica, there is an inbuilt prejudice against giving NOs a good board. I think this is unfortunate. No doubt it is the fault of the BLs, who do take their attempts to win via TD or AC too far, but it means that many players who are sinned against get no redress making the game unpleasant and unfair. We should try to reduce this trend in NAmerica, and not take it up in the RoW. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 22 06:21:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:21:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24602 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:21:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegkn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.151]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA06804 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:21:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990921161841.012a31cc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:18:41 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: PP after UI In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990921091051.007a5a30@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.d e> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:10 AM 9/21/99 +0200, Richard wrote: >There is surely a case for giving PP after using UI. But if I give an >adjusted score there is very rarely a case for giving PP in my opinion. >That is what David although said. But sometimes there are cases where using >UI dont result in an adjusted score. In these cases the PP is more in reach >at least in my approach. >What do you think of it? > Not much, I'm afraid. While I agree that a PP may be appropriate for some UI cases, it seems to me that the issues concerning score adjustment and PP's are (or should be) evaluated in entirely distinct terms. To me, the type of case where a PP could be appropriate is a case where we judge that a player has deliberately used UI, especially if he is strong enough to be expected to know the Laws. The case is bolstered considerably if this player has been admonished in the past for similar behavior. But it is (or should be) an entirely separate matter from the score adjustment, because it is intended to serve an entirely different purpose. Score adjustment represents at least a crude attempt to restore equity, protecting the NOs from the effects of an opponents' violation and ensuring that the OS should not profit from their infraction. After equity has been restored, we may find that the nature of the OS action merits a PP because of its particularly offensive quality. But the degree of offensiveness is independent of the magnitude of the effect, and hence independent from the redress given as score adjustment. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 06:21:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:21:24 +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 GAA24596 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:21:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25768; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:20:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199909212020.NAA25768@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Illegal redouble? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:45:03 PDT." <199909211645.JAA22751@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:20:37 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > > I am not certain in which camp I belong. If all opponents > > would be playing according to the laws, there would be no > > reason to "van twee walletjes eten", now would there ? > > "Eat from two wallets?" > > Sorry, I don't know any Dutch---now I'm curious. Oops, I missed the original message where this was explained. Mea culpa. Not that I know Latin any better than I know Dutch. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 06:42:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:20:17 +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 UAA22432 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:19:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11TN1M-0003nw-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:19:41 +0000 Message-ID: <2R6WARCoTt53EwaO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:44:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 25 - an other case References: <3.0.1.32.19990917145824.0140401c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990917145824.0140401c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990920174958.0129bd34@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990920174958.0129bd34@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >David wrote: >>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>>I don't like L25. It seems to me that once you make a bid you should be >>>stuck with it. Too many questions such as the one you have raised (as well >>>as on the previous thread in this vein) turn on judgements of players' >>>thought processes. >>> >>>But it's there, isn't it? So, it seems absurd to argue that a player who >>>has alerted his partner's transfer call might now choose to pass it, unless >>>we happen to find him with 5 hearts and xx in spades. His pass was >>>inadvertent. Does anyone doubt it? Let him change it. >> I doubt it. Your logic would mean that no-one would ever revoke. >No, it just means that revokes are virtually always inadvertent, which I >actually believe. However, the Laws make no provision for treating >inadvertent revokes differently from intentional ones. They do, however >mistakenly, provide for a player to correct an inadvertent misbid. You have missed my point. People make mistakes, pulling cards that mature reflection are completely stupid. Are they inadvertent? Maybe. The test of inadvertence is what the player thought at that moment, not what he thought earlier. Compare these cases. 1 Declarer decides to cash the ace of hearts in dummy, then play a spade. He says "play a spade". He has got ahead of himself: at the point he asked for a spade he meant to play a spade, even though he meant earlier to cash the heart first. His spade is not inadvertent. 2 Declarer decides to cash the ace of hearts in dummy, then play a spade. He says "ace of spades". He has mis-spoken: he means the ace of hearts: at the point he asked for the ace of spades he meant to play the ace of hearts. His spade is inadvertent. 3 A player pulls a Pass card from the box. He has earlier alerted his partner's transfer, and clearly meant to a transfer at the time of the alert. Is his Pass inadvertent? #3 could be similar to #1: it could be similar to #2. Just because he alerted proves nothing one way or the other. A good TD will find out which. --------- Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA >> N E S W >> 1NT P 2H! P >> P P >> >> 2H was alerted (directly announced as "transfer" as >> ACBL-land regulation requires). Immediately after the >> final P, N called the TD and said he always intended >> to bid 2S as S asked for, but inadvertendly put a P >> card on table. > >Let's go through the L25A checklist: >1. Was the pass inadvertent when made? I don't think the ACBL has a >clear definition of inadvertent ("inattentive" or "unintentional"), but >the announcement suggests that the player did not intend to pass, and >it's likely on its face that the pass was inattentive. I would >therefore tend to rule the pass as inadvertent, but there's no >substitute for being on the scene. The interpretation that we use is "unintentional". Even if the pass was inattentive [as so many mistakes are {!!}] it depends what the player intended at the moment of the call. --------- Eitan Levy wrote: >As for applying 25A: Sure I trust N, I'm sure he intended bidding 2S - but >he didn't bid it. And I can't see how he pulled the PASS card inadvertently >instead of the 2S. He's made an unintended call but not an inadvertent one. >(If he had pulled the 2NT card, next to the 2S card in the bidding box, >that's another story ...) When Bidding Boxes were first being used, it was said that inadvertent calls were going to be next to each other. Using them has proved otherwise! Over the weekend RHO alerted with a Pass card, warned of a Stop Bid with a double, and did a few other stupidities! No TD should assume that an inadvertent call is from the same part of the Bidding Box. He should investigate fully without pre-conceived notions. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 22 06:43:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:43:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24701 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:43:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegkn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.151]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA12421 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:42:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990921164028.012a3d34@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:40:28 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Illegal redouble? In-Reply-To: <37E7893F.733CB63B@omicron.comarch.pl> References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BE@XION> <37E788F0.82FCF9E@omicron.comarch.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:33 PM 9/21/99 +0200, Konrad wrote: >> The problem remains only when NS decided to redouble as >> a "double shot" and West had a LA to leading a club so >> I think we may assume both.. >> >> When I was asked about an opinion on this I "ruled": >> 7Sxx= for WE and 7Sx = for NS. However, I still have doubts. >> Suppose we decide that a correct ruling is to cancel the redouble for NS. >> What does that mean? >> Well suppose the West leads sth else than a club. 7Sxx is made. >> Now, as we have just decided that NS are not allowed to redouble >> without a good reason, West can call now the TD, saying: >> - OK, my partner cannot behave correctly at the table and, >> being an ethical player, I couldn't lead a club. But they had no >> bridge reason to redouble so pls adjust the score: 7Sxx= for us >> but 7Sx for our opponents! >> >> Have I seen in my life a TD reducing the score achieved by the >> NOs on request of the offending side? And if he doesn't do that it >> means that if we ever find ourselves in the West's position we >> have to lead a club because if we don't - they will score 7Sxx= >> in a natural fashion (TD won't adjust for the reason above) if >> we do they will score 7Sx - the TD will cancel the redouble. >> I agree that normal behavior (not leading a club) shouldn't be >> rewarded but why punish for this? >> Having said that I must admit that I still have a "gut feeling" >> that NS shouldn't be allowed to redouble. I may be wrong >> about this. I would have more confidence in your "gut feeling" if you could cite a Law to back it up. Absent any concrete legal basis for saying so, it seems unreasonable to claim that N/S can be barred from making a call. And, as you point out, this policy leads to some pretty strange conclusions. Indeed, why should N/S be barred from redoubling? They are exploiting their opponent's mistake, as we all do. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 06:46:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:46:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24729 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:46:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegkn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.151]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA17668 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:46:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990921164402.012a6024@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:44:02 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Illegal redouble? In-Reply-To: <37E7AA86.B65C4E86@village.uunet.be> References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BE@XION> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:55 PM 9/21/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >Martin Sinot wrote: >> >> >> NS might have a good (bridge) reason to redouble, and then I have no >> problem ruling 7SXXC. I already said that I need to see the distribution >> for that. But redoubling just to get the maximum, anticipating on TD >> to correct, is not allowed. Players must keep bidding normally and should >> not do abnormal things because the opponents do something illegal. > >That is not correct, Martin. > >Players are allowed to do abnormal things when their >opponents have done something illegal _AND_ the TD has ruled >against them. >It is perfectly legal to base your play on opponents having >penalty cards and the like. > >What is -according to some- not allowed, is to do abnormal >things on the presumption that opponents have done something >illegal _when this is by no means yet certain_. It may well >be completely legal for this player to lead the club, in >which case the redoubled undertrick will stand. > And all will be right with the world. In that case, N/S have gambled that the redouble would show a profit, and have lost their bet. Why should this gamble be illegal? What law makes it illegal? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 07:22:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 07:22:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.math.uga.edu (alpha.math.uga.edu [128.192.3.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA24891 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 07:22:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from saturn.math.uga.edu (saturn [128.192.3.112]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA03953 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 17:18:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by saturn.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA10058 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 17:08:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 17:08:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199909212108.RAA10058@saturn.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: yoFIxUpqz/jUs6O/lmwvLA== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > >The game is Butler Imps (Imp Pairs), so the result at the other table is > >not relevant. Only the datum is. The room will be in game and the datum > >will reflect this. The hook if LHO has Jxxx will yield about net 3 imps > >if it works, and lose about 12 if it fails. 4-card weak 2's are frequent > >compared with gross psyches. Much of the wildness at the YC stems from > >deviations rather than gross misrepresentations of one's hand. > > You say: > > > Perhaps I > >paint a wilder picture than actually obtains > > ... and yet you are going to rule that at imps YC players are going to > risk a game contract for overtricks when there is no reason to suppose > the odds are in their favour. No, what John was saying was that there may be reason to suppose that the odds *were* in their favour. If weak twos on Jxxx are sufficiently more likely than weak twos on xxx or xx, then the odds *are* in their favour. > The finesse is irrational: the player would not have taken it unless > he is a complete burk. If the player judges that it is, say, ten times more likely that the 2H bidder has Jxxx than that he has xx or xxx, then the finesse is certainly not irrational. Whether this is an irrational judgement depends on the opponent's habits. Jeremy ---------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ ---------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 07:59:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:50:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24772 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:50:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegkn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.151]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA17875 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990921164759.012a5120@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:47:59 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? In-Reply-To: <+h$UcUC$at53Ew4p@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <199909181843.OAA01295@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> <199909181256.HAA01079@abby.skypoint.net> <199909181843.OAA01295@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:52 AM 9/21/99 +0100, David S wrote: > Just in case anyone missed this post, this is the only correct answer >to this question. Please read this Law and remember it. I am afraid >everyone else missed this Law. > Not quite the only right answer. I messed it up, too, but Anton got it right. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 08:49:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:49:30 +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 IAA25101 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:49:22 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id IAA20438; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:48:46 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate via smap (V2.1) id xma020391; Wed, 22 Sep 99 08:48:30 +1000 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.40.224]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA19221 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:48:30 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA22737; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:53:21 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19990922084314.00946d60@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:47:04 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: Computer dealt hands In-Reply-To: <4AVF0CCVZs53EwLK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <4.1.19990920160017.0096a8b0@sercit> <4.1.19990920160017.0096a8b0@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:42 21-09-99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Peter Newman wrote: > >>As some of you may be aware the 1998 National Open Teams in Australia was >>marred when in the quarter finals after 30 boards (of 40) it was noticed >>that the hands being played were identical to hands from the 1997 VCC >>(another Australian National championship). >> >>We have had some reports that some clubs have accidentally dealt the same >>hands and so used the same hands in different events. These typically have >>been club duplicates. >>This raises a number of issues - for masterpoint purposes should these >>'fouled' sessions count? [I can see players screaming very loudly if >>someone tries to take the masterpoints away]. If it is a multi-session >>event should the scores from that fouled session apply. Should the results >>only count if the players haven't played the hands before? >> >>Does anybody have regulations to cover this type of situation? I am sure it >>is not unique to Australia... > >LAW 6 - THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL > >D. New Shuffle and Redeal > 2. No Shuffle, or No Deal > No result may stand if the cards are dealt > without shuffle from a sorted pack, or if the > deal had previously been played in a different > session. > > It is Law, not Regulation. "No result may stand ..." is final. > Thanks for the response David - I don't think I expressed the problem very well. If the problem is discovered within time for correction for that session then I suppose the session must be cancelled (or as many boards as are affected). [Using 6D2 as you point out.] The problems are: 1. What happens if this is determined outside the correction period. [I suppose the result has to stand.] 2. How do other places ensure that there is no duplication - particularly at a club level if using pre-duplicated hands. We have had another problem here in Sydney where 2 *different* clubs have used a hand generator to generate pre-dealt hands - unfortunately the 2 sets of hands were identical and some players play at both clubs... Cheers, Peter -- Peter Newman Fujitsu Australia Limited +61-2-9452-9111 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 08:59:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:53:14 +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 GAA24794 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:53:02 +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 QAA14649 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:52:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA26434 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:52:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:52:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909212052.QAA26434@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 25 - an other case X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SW> I don't think the ACBL has a SW> clear definition of inadvertent ("inattentive" or "unintentional"), > From: David Stevenson > The interpretation that we use is "unintentional". If the original case had been from the EBU/WBU, there wouldn't have been any doubt about the interpretation of "inadvertent." In fact, the case came from Canada. I don't believe there is any clear guidance in the ACBL, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Has anyone seen any? > No TD should assume that an inadvertent call is from the same part of > the Bidding Box. He should investigate fully without pre-conceived > notions. We agree on this. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 09:36:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:36:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA24674 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:36:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegkn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.151]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA27068 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990921163409.012a4eb0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:34:09 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Illegal redouble? In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3BE@XION> References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883758931A@XION> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:38 PM 9/21/99 +0200, Martin wrote: >NS might have a good (bridge) reason to redouble, and then I have no >problem ruling 7SXXC. I already said that I need to see the distribution >for that. But redoubling just to get the maximum, anticipating on TD >to correct, is not allowed. Again, which law are you relying upon in making this claim? >Players must keep bidding normally and should not do abnormal things because the opponents >do something illegal. I was once in an auction where I was prepared to subside in 3C (holding AQTxx in that suit), when LHO accidentally dropped a low club face-up. After the TD's ruling, I judged that the forced lead of the small club would give me a leg-up on 3nt, which I duly bid and made for a top on the board. Now some would disparage the sportsmanship of such an action, but does anybody truly say it is illegal to do this? Likewise, N/S judged that W would be barred from making the killing lead, which increased the odds on the redouble. Whether it was really clever or merely irrelevant to redouble is beside the point. It was certainly legal and not in any way subject to a penalty. If the redouble happened to be ridiculous, and if it somehow had contributed to the failure of the contract, then I would be willing to award a split score, a la the Kaplan doctrine. But nothing in the facts we have suggests either possibility, and indeed this seems like an unlikely parlay. The contract was 7S**, reached by entirely legal (and probably sensible) methods. It failed only after an illegal lead from West, and so N/S are entitled to the score for that contract. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 09:59:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:52:45 +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 GAA24784 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 06:52:29 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA12106 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:51:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-05.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.5) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011801; Tue Sep 21 15:50:07 1999 Message-ID: <000201bf0473$281cf600$0584d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: AC case Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:50:20 -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 Marv French wrote in reply to post >>From: Jaap Herman >> Probably a simple case, but we in the AC had big problems arriving at >> a conclusion. > >Not a simple case to me. Wish we knew if this was imps or matchpoints, >and the experience of N/S. > (J)>> Maybe you can help with some expert opinions? > (M)>I'll venture an amateur opinion. >> >> Mixed-pairs >> Dealer: East >> Vuln: EW >> >> x >> A K >> 10 x x x x >> A K x x x >> >> Q J x x x x x A K x x >> Q 9 x x J x x x >> J A x x >> J x x >> >> x >> 10 x x >> K Q x x >> Q x x x x >> >> W N E S >> ============== >> 1 D p Precision; 11-15; 0+ D >> 1 S 2 C 2 S 3 C >> 4 S ......p p 5 C >> >> The long hesitation by North is agreed upon. EW reserved their >> rights, bid on to 5S and went one off. >> >> The majority of the field went down in 5H or 5S. One lucky EW wrote >> 620, and on NS there was one 550, one 400 and one pair was allowed to >> play 4C. At most tables North showed either a two-suited hand, or bid >> 5C after getting support. > >What happened at other tables is not pertinent. >> >> TD ruled that 5C was suggested by the hesitation and >> changed the score to 4S, just made >> >> NS appealed. >> >> The AC after long deliberation upheld the TD's decision, because Pass >> appeared to be a logical alternative with the South hand. After all, >> North bid in an exposed situation and after NS showed clubs the >> precision 1D opener had to have some diamonds. Neither N nor S knew >> about the extreme distribution of West. North's hesitation however >> was most likely based on extra distribution. >> (M)>I don't care for this "based on" line of thinking. What matters is what >is suggested by the UI, not what the basis for the UI might have been. > >Some would say, well, you can't tell whether North was thinking of >doubling or bidding 5C, so the slow pass suggests no particular action. >This attitude says to me that "demonstratbly suggested" is interpreted >by many as pointing to a particular action. However, if UI suggests >action of any sort, then whatever action a partner takes is demonstrably >suggested. (With "suggest" having so many shades of meaning in the >dictionary, it would help if a rewording of L16A could eliminate it.) > >In this case, North's slow pass clearly shows that he wanted to do >something other than pass. It therefore demonstrably suggests that >partner do something. > >But is pass an LA to bidding 5C for this particular South? (CS)Talk about not pertinent! What matters is what his peers might likely have done, not what his individual tendency might have been. If the requisite 25% or 30% would have passed or in ACBL the requisite some number would have seriously considered pass it is an LA, irrespective of what this person would have done. Even knowing for a fact that he would have bid 5C in a vacuum does not get him off the hook. 1. There was a hesitation. (IF)2. Pass was an LA 3. Bidding on would have been demonstrably suggested over pass. So if 2., adjust back to 4S just making. The fact that this South would always bid on is irrelevant...except that such knowledge, if available, should serve to shield him from any disciplinary penalty since it IS evidence that he intended nothing unethical. (On the facts presented I do not think a penalty should even be considered in the instant case...but for the general case where the situation might be less clear cut that might be a situation where the particular player's normal behaviour might be weighed into the equation.) (M)It's hard to >say, after South has made that ****** 3C bid. I would want to ask some >searching questions, but South gives me the impression of being a player >who would timidly pass 4S without the UI. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > (CS)Then by ACBL standards I presume you infer some of his peers would seriously consider doing so. I think this case originated in a 25% jurisdiction where the matter is much less favourable to a decision that pass constitutes an LA. At this vulnerability at MP I don't see myself ever passing, but that is probably irrelevant as well. == Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 10:06:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:06:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot1-195.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (root@slot1-195.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25220 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:06:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-134.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA12009 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 19:54:29 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 19:54:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: A second bid out of turn? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I misread the auction; I read the auction as if the 1D opener's partner had doubled; in this case the double would be illegal. If fourth hand had now bid 2C, there would be no penalty, all calls beginning with the double would be cancelled, and the doubler would have to find another call. Clearly, the irregularity in the actual auction should be handled with Law 28B as several posters have noted (no immediate penalty; withdrawn actions are UI to OS). My apologies for posting in haste. Bruce bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au wrote: : Bruce J. Moore wrote: :>Welcome Chip. :> :>Oddly enough, either everyone else has gotten it wrong or I can't read :>the FLB. Seems pretty clear to me. First, let's look at Law 35 and 35A. :> :> When, after any inadmissible call specified below, the offender's LHO :> makes a call before a penalty has been assessed, there is no penalty :> for the inadmissible call (the lead penalties of [132]Law 26 do not :> apply), : What is inadmissible about doubling your opponent's 1D bid? : -- : David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ : Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 22 10:09:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:09:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from hummvee.islandia.is (hummvee.islandia.is [194.144.156.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25250 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:09:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from svenni (nas364.islandia.is [194.144.159.124]) by hummvee.islandia.is (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id AAA79720 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:11:39 GMT (envelope-from svenni@islandia.is) Message-ID: <000e01bf0486$545be2e0$7c9f90c2@svenni> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sveinn_R=FAnar_Eir=EDksson?= To: Subject: Problem of score assignment Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:09:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01BF048E.B5600820" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BF048E.B5600820 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all!! My name is Sveinn Runar Eiriksson, I am Tournament Director in Iceland. = I have been following this group for some time and finally I decided to = come out from the closet and introduce myself. One reason is a problem = that just happened here at a local club. I have no dogs or cats so I = unfortunately cannot participate in the pet forum!! The format was Monrad (Swiss) Pairs Barometer. In one round the same = board was played 2 times. So lets say that that they played board 17 = times and the first time it was played it was recorded as board 16. = The 2nd time they played it, the board had rotated 180 degrees (the = board was placed incorrectly on the table, so West sat East with the = East hand), so ofcourse noone noticed it was the same board. The total amount of matchpoints available for one board are 32 and they = got about 26 and 6 for each result. The NS pair got 26 points in the = result when the board was played the first time. I am not sure what is the best way to deal with this inconvenience but I = have a few questions: 1) Should the first time the board was played count as the official = result or should I take both results and divide by 2? 2) What score should the pairs get on the board they didnt play? = 0-0% or 40-40% or any different score? Regards Sveinn R. Eiriksson ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BF048E.B5600820 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all!!
 
My name is Sveinn Runar Eiriksson, I am Tournament = Director in=20 Iceland.  I have been following this group for some time and = finally I=20 decided to come out from the closet and introduce myself.   = One reason=20 is a problem that just happened here at a local club.   I have = no dogs=20 or cats so I unfortunately cannot participate in the pet = forum!!
 
The format was Monrad (Swiss) Pairs = Barometer.   In=20 one round the same board was played 2 times.  So lets say that that = they=20 played board 17 times and the first time it was played it was recorded = as board=20 16.   The 2nd time they played it, the board had rotated 180 = degrees=20 (the board was placed incorrectly on the table, so West sat East with = the East=20 hand), so ofcourse noone noticed it was the same board.
The total amount of matchpoints available for one = board are 32=20 and they got about 26 and 6 for each result.    The NS = pair got=20 26 points in the result when the board was played the first = time.
 
I am not sure what is the best way to deal with this = inconvenience but I have a few questions:
 
1)    Should the first time the board = was=20 played count as the official result or should I take both results and = divide by=20 2?
2)    What score should the pairs get = on the=20 board they didnt play?  0-0% or 40-40% or any different = score?
 
Regards
Sveinn R. Eiriksson
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BF048E.B5600820-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 10:49:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:49:26 +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 KAA25310 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:49:19 +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 11Taas-00031k-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:49:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 01:07:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 25 - an other case References: <199909212052.QAA26434@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909212052.QAA26434@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >SW> I don't think the ACBL has a >SW> clear definition of inadvertent ("inattentive" or "unintentional"), > >> From: David Stevenson >> The interpretation that we use is "unintentional". > >If the original case had been from the EBU/WBU, there wouldn't have >been any doubt about the interpretation of "inadvertent." In fact, the >case came from Canada. I don't believe there is any clear guidance in >the ACBL, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Has anyone seen any? Inadvertency means a slip of the tongue (or with bidding boxes a slip of the fingers - mechanical error) has occurred, not a change of mind. Source: Duplicate Decisions, an ACBL publication. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 22 11:20:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:20:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.mail.gxn.net [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25351 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:20:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from pbas01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.187] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Tb50-0001hg-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:20:18 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:24:29 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0499$379544e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0062_01BF04A1.9959ACE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01BF04A1.9959ACE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes Roger. I echo David's congratulations. Perhaps Adam would like to = consult you! Anne -----Original Message----- From: Roger Pewick To: blml Date: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 7:09 PM Subject: Attempt to use outlook =20 =20 Apolgies for my misunderstanding of everyone's needs. Quite = unintentional. I have not received email directly from the internet = during this year as my ISP has been unwilling to solve my non connection = problem. My solution has been to an intermediary bbs and QWK packets. = my bbs reader apparently does not interface well with threads. =20 So, I am trying out outlook express via hotmail. feedback is = appreciated. =20 Roger Pewick ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01BF04A1.9959ACE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes Roger. I echo David's = congratulations.=20 Perhaps Adam would like to consult you!
Anne
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Roger Pewick <axman22@hotmail.com>
To:= =20 blml <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 Tuesday, September 14, 1999 7:09 PM
Subject: Attempt = to use=20 outlook

Apolgies for my misunderstanding of = everyone's=20 needs.  Quite unintentional.  I have not received email = directly=20 from the internet during this year as my ISP has been unwilling to = solve my=20 non connection problem.  My solution has been to an = intermediary bbs=20 and QWK packets.  my bbs reader apparently does not interface = well with=20 threads.
 
So, I am trying out outlook express = via=20 hotmail.  feedback is appreciated.
 
Roger=20 Pewick
------=_NextPart_000_0062_01BF04A1.9959ACE0-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 11:45:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:45:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from perseus.mminternet.com (IDENT:root@perseus.mminternet.com [207.175.72.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25394 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:45:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from phillipm (adsl-gte-la-216-86-197-143.mminternet.com [216.86.197.143]) by perseus.mminternet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA12688; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:40:18 -0700 Message-ID: <005201bf049c$19970480$8fc556d8@mminternet.com> From: "Phillip Mendelsohn" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sveinn_R=FAnar_Eir=EDksson?= Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <000e01bf0486$545be2e0$7c9f90c2@svenni> Subject: Re: Problem of score assignment Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:45:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 15.B. states that "[i]f any player plays a board he has previously played, with the correct opponents or otherwise, his second score on the board is cancelled both for his side and his opponents, and the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score." Law 7.D. states that, "[a]ny contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table." Since the board was played twice by the same players, under Law 15.B. the first result must stand and the second result must be cancelled. Assuming that N-S were stationary, under Law 7.D. they are responsible for proper placement and movement of the boards (although in reality E-W should be paying attention to this also). Since Law 15.B. requires the Director to award an artificial adjusted score, and since N-S are "legally" responsible for the mix-up, N-S should receive Average-Minus (40%) and E-W Average-Plus (60%) on the board(s) they did not play. Welcome to the BLML! Phillip Mendelsohn ----- Original Message ----- From: Sveinn Rúnar Eiríksson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 4:09 PM Subject: Problem of score assignment Hi all!! My name is Sveinn Runar Eiriksson, I am Tournament Director in Iceland. I have been following this group for some time and finally I decided to come out from the closet and introduce myself. One reason is a problem that just happened here at a local club. I have no dogs or cats so I unfortunately cannot participate in the pet forum!! The format was Monrad (Swiss) Pairs Barometer. In one round the same board was played 2 times. So lets say that that they played board 17 times and the first time it was played it was recorded as board 16. The 2nd time they played it, the board had rotated 180 degrees (the board was placed incorrectly on the table, so West sat East with the East hand), so ofcourse noone noticed it was the same board. The total amount of matchpoints available for one board are 32 and they got about 26 and 6 for each result. The NS pair got 26 points in the result when the board was played the first time. I am not sure what is the best way to deal with this inconvenience but I have a few questions: 1) Should the first time the board was played count as the official result or should I take both results and divide by 2? 2) What score should the pairs get on the board they didnt play? 0-0% or 40-40% or any different score? Regards Sveinn R. Eiriksson From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 11:56:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:56:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.mail.gxn.net [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25554 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:56:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa1s05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.162] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Tbdj-0001t5-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:56:12 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Computer dealt hands Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 03:00:45 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf049e$4846b300$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: Peter Newman To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 12:27 AM Subject: Re: Computer dealt hands >At 00:42 21-09-99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Peter Newman wrote: >> >>>As some of you may be aware the 1998 National Open Teams in Australia was >>>marred when in the quarter finals after 30 boards (of 40) it was noticed >>>that the hands being played were identical to hands from the 1997 VCC >>>(another Australian National championship). >>> >>>We have had some reports that some clubs have accidentally dealt the same >>>hands and so used the same hands in different events. These typically have >>>been club duplicates. >>>This raises a number of issues - for masterpoint purposes should these >>>'fouled' sessions count? [I can see players screaming very loudly if >>>someone tries to take the masterpoints away]. If it is a multi-session >>>event should the scores from that fouled session apply. Should the results >>>only count if the players haven't played the hands before? >>> >>>Does anybody have regulations to cover this type of situation? I am sure it >>>is not unique to Australia... >> >>LAW 6 - THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL >> >>D. New Shuffle and Redeal >> 2. No Shuffle, or No Deal >> No result may stand if the cards are dealt >> without shuffle from a sorted pack, or if the >> deal had previously been played in a different >> session. >> >> It is Law, not Regulation. "No result may stand ..." is final. >> > >Thanks for the response David - I don't think I expressed the problem very >well. If the problem is discovered within time for correction for that >session then I suppose the session must be cancelled (or as many boards as >are affected). [Using 6D2 as you point out.] > >The problems are: >1. What happens if this is determined outside the correction period. [I >suppose the result has to stand.] >2. How do other places ensure that there is no duplication - particularly >at a club level if using pre-duplicated hands. >We have had another problem here in Sydney where 2 *different* clubs have >used a hand generator to generate pre-dealt hands - unfortunately the 2 >sets of hands were identical and some players play at both clubs... As the "keeper and user of the Duplimate machine in East Wales" I am aware that this is a problem that will very soon have to be addressed. I think often there is an user error when a previously stored file is remapped. However other duplicate deals do occur, and I lose sleep over this. The problem is evident when a complete set of boards is reproduced, and this is the most likely error. Jannersten have decided to provide a service where a disk is supplied. This disk has 100,000 guaranteed unique deals.This costs about 100ukp. I had a chat with Per Jannersten about this problem, and told him that I used a spreadsheet which used the Spade holding in the North hand of board 1, as an identification of the deal. He has now incorporated this in his standard software to exclude the possibility of the same deal being produced by the same PC. This does not protect against repeat deals at neighbouring clubs. The Windup software I now use (not Unique deal) can be downloaded from the Jannersten web site. I recommend that you use different software from the local club so that the seed generation is different. Dr Baccus file converter (downloadable) is useful, as some generators use .DUP; .DLM; etc. Good Luck Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 14:28:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA25796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:28:48 +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 OAA25781 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:28:38 +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 11Te14-000Fwp-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 04:28:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 05:16:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-Reply-To: <199909211300.AA19257@gateway.tandem.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199909211300.AA19257@gateway.tandem.com>, FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM writes > Coming from an area where the average club game participant is at >least two times (and probably three times) the age of the YC protagonists, >I think I would have ruled that the claimer did not know how to phrase >this claim correctly: I would interpret "making 10 unless you've psyched" >as implying that declarer would take the H finesse if it became proven on >the lead of the HK and cash H from the top otherwise. Certainly that >would be my ruling in the *non*-smoking section. hehe > > If I had accepted my down 2 with good grace (as I hope I would; there >is some doubt) I doubt that I'd claim again in that game. > The ruling was accepted with good grace, the claimer commenting that he thought the ruling close, and not worth appealing. (He sits on plenty of AC's at National level btw). -- 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 Sep 22 14:28:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA25798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:28:50 +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 OAA25784 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:28:40 +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 11Te16-000MxJ-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 04:28:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 05:13:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > You say: > >> Perhaps I >>paint a wilder picture than actually obtains > >... and yet you are going to rule that at imps YC players are going to >risk a game contract for overtricks when there is no reason to suppose >the odds are in their favour. I think that the expectation is positive for the finesse. prima facie it is 50%, and only needs to be 80% for a positive payback. The high frequency of 4 card weak 2's is strongly in favour of the finesse. > > The finesse is irrational: the player would not have taken it unless >he is a complete burk. > > In my view the YC players are not idiots and your ruling should >reflect that. > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 14:28:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA25797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:28:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25782 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:28:38 +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 11Te14-000Fwq-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 04:28:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 05:19:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Computer dealt hands In-Reply-To: <4AVF0CCVZs53EwLK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <4AVF0CCVZs53EwLK@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Peter Newman wrote: > >>As some of you may be aware the 1998 National Open Teams in Australia was >>marred when in the quarter finals after 30 boards (of 40) it was noticed >>that the hands being played were identical to hands from the 1997 VCC >>(another Australian National championship). >> >>We have had some reports that some clubs have accidentally dealt the same >>hands and so used the same hands in different events. These typically have >>been club duplicates. >>This raises a number of issues - for masterpoint purposes should these >>'fouled' sessions count? [I can see players screaming very loudly if >>someone tries to take the masterpoints away]. If it is a multi-session >>event should the scores from that fouled session apply. Should the results >>only count if the players haven't played the hands before? >> >>Does anybody have regulations to cover this type of situation? I am sure it >>is not unique to Australia... > >LAW 6 - THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL > >D. New Shuffle and Redeal > 2. No Shuffle, or No Deal > No result may stand if the cards are dealt > without shuffle from a sorted pack, or if the > deal had previously been played in a different > session. Does this mean that once all the gzillion hands that can be produced have been produced then bridge can no longer be played? > > It is Law, not Regulation. "No result may stand ..." is final. > -- 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 Sep 22 18:16:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 18:16:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26117 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 18:16:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <2728-32673>; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:15:36 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id JAA24492 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:50:25 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Computer dealt hands Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:59:30 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3C0@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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589345@XION> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Does this mean that once all the gzillion hands that can be produced >have been produced then bridge can no longer be played? I guess it does, but you and I are not going to experience that phenomenon :-) Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 19:42:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:42:17 +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 TAA26223 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:42:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-83.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.83]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23189 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:41:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37E8A0F5.34333624@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:27:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Illegal redouble? References: <199909211645.JAA22751@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > I am not certain in which camp I belong. If all opponents > > would be playing according to the laws, there would be no > > reason to "van twee walletjes eten", now would there ? > > "Eat from two wallets?" > I was using the dutch expression because I was answering a to dutchman. wal = quay, waterfront. walletje = diminutive of same. I have no idea where the expression came from. It means of course to take a double shot. But "eat from two wallets" seems a nice expression - let's start using it. Dutch contibution to bridge-laws language. > Sorry, I don't know any Dutch---now I'm curious. > > -- Adam -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 21:13:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:13:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA26377 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:13:43 +1000 (EST) From: dburn@btinternet.com Received: from thorium ([194.75.226.70] helo=btinternet.com) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11TkL9-0006Hd-00; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:13:35 +0100 Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:13:35 GMT Subject: Re: PP after UI X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.2s, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <37e8b9df.4d71.0@btinternet.com> X-User-Info: 193.113.139.186 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [snip] James Vickers wrote: >L16A states that the player "...may not choose from among logical alternative actions..." and of course anyone taking this action has to expect it to come under the scrutiny of the TD for a possible adjusted score, but is it actually an offence to make the bid? When he was chair of the EBU L+E Committee, David Burn wrote an article in "English Bridge" (aimed at the less experienced tournament or club player, admittedly) saying that after partner hesitates or asks a question or otherwise imparts UI, no actions are banned by law, the best advice is simply to bid as you would have done without the UI (but accept any ruling with good grace). [DWS] This advice is wrong. I personally have been burned [*coff*] a number of times when quoting other people: are you sure David said this? L73C requires players to attempt as far as possible to avoid using UI, and simply to bid as though the UI has not occurred is unsatisfactory and may often be illegal. In the above quoted case you might normally always bid 2S because you are a very aggressive player: you must not bid 2S once partner has made UI available that suggests bidding rather than passing. I have not subscribed to BLML for some time, but David was kind enough to copy to me the message from which the above is an extract. It may help to set the matter in context. Some years ago, there was concern that the average player was confused about his rights and obligations in UI positions. The most common perception appeared to be that once partner had hesitated, you were in effect barred from making calls other than pass. At that time, there was much confused thinking among players and administrators alike as to the legal position (there still is, of course, but there is slightly more clarity these days). As L&E chair at that time, I wrote a piece in the EBU's bi-monthly magazine, which attempted to address the confusion in simple terms. To that end, I was anxious to emphasise that players were not barred from taking "obvious" actions just because they had received UI. I deliberately did not use the words "logical alternative", because nobody knew (then, as now) what those words meant. Nor did I prescribe that players should evaluate all possible actions that they might take, and then reject any that were suggested by the UI. Firstly, that is far too complicated for the average club player; secondly, it is not what the Law requires. The words "over another" in L16 are (a) very important and (b) almost always ignored. The advice to "bid what you would have bid anyway" and to "act as though you were not in possession of UI", but to accept a ruling should one be given, were an attempt to simplify a complex legal procedure for the benefit of the average player. Such advice would, in my view, work in the great majority of cases, and would provide a clear indication to players that they were not costrained to take no action other than pass in the presence of UI. I do not consider that I have been quoted incorrectly or unfairly. As Mr Vickers pointed out, the article was aimed at players who would not be capable of appreciating the detailed ramifications of L16 and L73. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 21:28:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:28:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA26419 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:27:59 +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 NAA19678; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:27:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA12434; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:27:21 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:27:21 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sveinn_R=FAnar_Eir=EDksson?= cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Problem of score assignment In-Reply-To: <000e01bf0486$545be2e0$7c9f90c2@svenni> Message-ID: 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 VAA26420 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, [iso-8859-1] Sveinn Rúnar Eiríksson wrote: > The format was Monrad (Swiss) Pairs Barometer. In one round the same > board was played 2 times. So lets say that that they played board 17 > times and the first time it was played it was recorded as board 16. The > 2nd time they played it, the board had rotated 180 degrees (the board > was placed incorrectly on the table, so West sat East with the East > hand), so ofcourse noone noticed it was the same board. The total > amount of matchpoints available for one board are 32 and they got about > 26 and 6 for each result. The NS pair got 26 points in the result when > the board was played the first time. > 1) Should the first time the board was played count as the official > result or should I take both results and divide by 2? The first result on the board stands, see law 15B. The second result is cancelled. > 2) What score should the pairs get on the board they didnt play? 0-0% > or 40-40% or any different score? Both pairs couldn't play that board through a fault of their own, so they get 40% minus whatever procedural penalty you think is appropriate. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 22:01:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA26467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 22:01:39 +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 WAA26462 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 22:01:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from p4as08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.75] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Tl5H-000496-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:01:16 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:05:28 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf04f2$c2b37200$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 11:31 AM Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents >Anne Jones wrote: >> >> >> All that is proven on the play of the HK is that the 2H opener had at least >> 1 heart >> and his partner also had at least one. >> Declarer will not find out that RHO is going to follow to the second heart >> until >> he has committed himself to his play from Dummy. Once he has done so he is >> going to make 7 or 9 tricks dependant on whether he finesses or overtakes. >> Remember he has cashed all top black cards. >> He says "10 tricks, unless you've psyched" I'm interpreting this to mean >> "I'm >> playing you for your bid, and finessing" The man has psyched and there is >> now >> no way to recover. >> I'm ruling 3NT-2. >> Anne >> > >Sorry Anne, but after the first trick (HK) he knows already >that opener cannot have his bid any more. He knows when he has played HK that the 2H opener did not have 5H. When opener follows to the next heart he knows that he had 2. What he does not know is whether he had 2 or 3 or 4. He must make his play decision before he finds out. At imps we assume he is not going to risk his contract for an overtrick., but he has said "making 10 unless you've psyched". He did not say "making 9 unless you've psyched in which case I will make 12" He did not say "making 9 unless you've psyched in which case I will make only 7" There is no way that he can make specifically 10 tricks on any lie of the remaining cards.(unless I've mised something) For that reason I am ruling that his statement of claim does not stand up and that he has not counted correctly. I believe he intended to take the finesse. I still rule 3NT-2 Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 22:47:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA26608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 22:47:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26603 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 22:47:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <2372-32673>; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:46:16 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA25991 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:44:24 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Illegal redouble? Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:53:26 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3C1@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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589332@XION> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > >Martin Sinot wrote: >> >> >> NS might have a good (bridge) reason to redouble, and then I have no >> problem ruling 7SXXC. I already said that I need to see the distribution >> for that. But redoubling just to get the maximum, anticipating on TD >> to correct, is not allowed. Players must keep bidding normally and should >> not do abnormal things because the opponents do something illegal. > > >That is not correct, Martin. > >Players are allowed to do abnormal things when their >opponents have done something illegal _AND_ the TD has ruled >against them. >It is perfectly legal to base your play on opponents having >penalty cards and the like. > >What is -according to some- not allowed, is to do abnormal >things on the presumption that opponents have done something >illegal _when this is by no means yet certain_. It may well >be completely legal for this player to lead the club, in >which case the redoubled undertrick will stand. > >I am not certain in which camp I belong. If all opponents >would be playing according to the laws, there would be no >reason to "van twee walletjes eten", now would there ? but then this mailing list wouldn't exist, right? :-) Sorry, guys, I think I overshot myself a little on this one; doubleshotting (or "eating from two wallets" - nice term, Herman! This mistranslation does make sense!) is perfectly legal, of course, but the doubleshotter is on his own on that. If the damage resulting for the non-offending side was due to the attempt at doubleshotting, there will be no correction. In this case, if the damage had been caused by NS's doubleshotting attempt, there would have been no correction. Of course, in this case the redouble had nothing to do with whatever damage was caused; this came entirely from West's infraction (still, assuming that West did have a logical alternative for his club lead). The redouble merely enhanced the score a little. Therefore, we must simply write 7SXX= for both sides. Thank you all for making me see the light ;-) Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 23:26:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 23:26:38 +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 XAA26712 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 23:26:26 +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 OAA08804; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:26:17 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA14762; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:26:15 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:26:15 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22474; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:26:12 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA00543; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:25:38 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:25:38 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909221325.OAA00543@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, eajewm@globalnet.co.uk Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > There is no way that he can make specifically 10 tricks on any lie of the > remaining cards.(unless I've mised something) > > For that reason I am ruling that his statement of claim does not stand up > and that he has not counted correctly. I believe he intended to take the > finesse. > > I still rule 3NT-2 > > Anne I can't find the original hand, but doesn't declarer take 10 tricks if LHO has HJxxxx. He plays HK: (RHO shows out), Hx finessing the ten, HA, HQ; the HJ still stops hearts. Declarer's statement "10 tricks unless you psyched" is clear (to me) but incomplete: if 2H was not a psyche, HK will reveal the position and he can play as above for 10 tricks; if 2H was a psyche, declarer has not suggested how many tricks he will make or how he will play. So (given that 2H was a psyche) we have the position where declarer has suggested "play be curtailed" but has made no (material) statement. We award declarer only the tricks that he would win on all normal line of play. Playing on hearts is the only normal line, so we must decide if finessing is normal (award 3NT-2) or sub-normal (award 3NT+3). Declarer's statement about 10 tricks when LHO has not psyched is not relevant. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 22 23:35:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA26513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 22:05:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26508 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 22:05:32 +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 IAA29064 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:06:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990922080652.006ee1e4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:06:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card In-Reply-To: References: <01a501bf0194$c736ace0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001c01bf016c$d9f570a0$05c26dcb@default> <01a501bf0194$c736ace0$b12fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:34 AM 9/21/99 +0100, David wrote: > They refers to more than one person, and the use of "they" because the >person using it does not want to ascribe a gender to the particular >person is not English. English is as English does. The use of "they" in the singular (seen by some as a suitably "non-sexist" alternative to "he or she") is well-precedented in serious English literature (Jane Austen provides numerous examples), and was widely legitimized by its inclusion in the second edition of the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (which gives as its example "Everyone should do their own thing.") 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 Sep 23 00:18:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:18:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA26887 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:18:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <2877-7539>; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:17:16 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA26345; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:29:48 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Anne Jones'" , "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: claim after psyche by opponents Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:38:48 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3C2@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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589358@XION> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >He knows when he has played HK that the 2H opener did not have 5H. >When opener follows to the next heart he knows that he had 2. >What he does not know is whether he had 2 or 3 or 4. >He must make his play decision before he finds out. >At imps we assume he is not going to risk his contract for an overtrick., >but he has said "making 10 unless you've psyched". He did not say >"making 9 unless you've psyched in which case I will make 12" He did not >say "making 9 unless you've psyched in which case I will make only 7" >There is no way that he can make specifically 10 tricks on any lie of the >remaining cards.(unless I've mised something) >For that reason I am ruling that his statement of claim does not stand up >and that he has not counted correctly. I believe he intended to take the >finesse. >I still rule 3NT-2 >Anne If 2H opener has five hearts, declarer has 4 spades, 4 hearts with the marked finesse (West doesn't follow; can finesse only once) and two clubs - exactly what he claimed. Declarer didn't cash HK before claiming. Then, when HK is cashed, West follows. Declarer now has a decision whether to finesse or to drop. Since declarer has already 9 tricks without the finesse, and it is IMPs, I think it must be 12 tricks. In matchpoint, I would rule 7 tricks - the overtricks will be too tempting. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 00:21:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:21:27 +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 AAA26909 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:21:18 +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 11TnGd-000Gho-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:21:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:18:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-Reply-To: <199909221325.OAA00543@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199909221325.OAA00543@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes snip > >Declarer's statement "10 tricks unless you psyched" is clear (to me) but >incomplete: if 2H was not a psyche, HK will reveal the position and he >can play as above for 10 tricks; if 2H was a psyche, declarer has not >suggested how many tricks he will make or how he will play. > >So (given that 2H was a psyche) we have the position where declarer has >suggested "play be curtailed" but has made no (material) statement. We >award declarer only the tricks that he would win on all normal line of play. >Playing on hearts is the only normal line, so we must decide if finessing >is normal (award 3NT-2) or sub-normal (award 3NT+3). Declarer's statement >about 10 tricks when LHO has not psyched is not relevant. agreed. ... and how do you rule? Is the hook 'irrational'? LHO is Angela (of the Brighton cleavage well beloved of blml readers). Declarer is Tom Townsend, having a bad day with a clueless client, who is going to lose a lot of money in the late night poker game. (Wonderful eh, get the client to pay for the evening then rob him all night too). chs John > >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 Sep 23 00:45:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA26573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 22:31:56 +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 WAA26568 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 22:31:48 +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 IAA01097 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:32:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990922083311.006f09c4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:33:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: PP after UI In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990921161841.012a31cc@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.6.32.19990921091051.007a5a30@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.d e> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:18 PM 9/21/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >At 09:10 AM 9/21/99 +0200, Richard wrote: >>There is surely a case for giving PP after using UI. But if I give an >>adjusted score there is very rarely a case for giving PP in my opinion. >>That is what David although said. But sometimes there are cases where using >>UI dont result in an adjusted score. In these cases the PP is more in reach >>at least in my approach. >>What do you think of it? >> >Not much, I'm afraid. While I agree that a PP may be appropriate for some >UI cases, it seems to me that the issues concerning score adjustment and >PP's are (or should be) evaluated in entirely distinct terms. > >To me, the type of case where a PP could be appropriate is a case where we >judge that a player has deliberately used UI, especially if he is strong >enough to be expected to know the Laws. The case is bolstered considerably >if this player has been admonished in the past for similar behavior. > >But it is (or should be) an entirely separate matter from the score >adjustment, because it is intended to serve an entirely different purpose. >Score adjustment represents at least a crude attempt to restore equity, >protecting the NOs from the effects of an opponents' violation and ensuring >that the OS should not profit from their infraction. After equity has been >restored, we may find that the nature of the OS action merits a PP because >of its particularly offensive quality. But the degree of offensiveness is >independent of the magnitude of the effect, and hence independent from the >redress given as score adjustment. Michael's point seems obvious. The adjudication of the hand produces an "equitable" result (whether the adjudicators choose to adjust the score or not) without regard to the background/history/motivation of the player committing the infraction, leaving unaddressed the issue of whether the commission of the infraction warrants a PP. The latter is addressed independently, and the answer cannot be "only if it failed to cause damage". 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 Sep 23 00:49:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA27067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:49:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.math.uga.edu (alpha.math.uga.edu [128.192.3.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA27062 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:48:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from pluto.math.uga.edu (pluto [128.192.3.110]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20805 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:45:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA02640 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:34:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199909221434.KAA02640@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: yDbDUBr1by8BYrUVZ19BOw== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > He knows when he has played HK that the 2H opener did not have 5H. > When opener follows to the next heart he knows that he had 2. > What he does not know is whether he had 2 or 3 or 4. > He must make his play decision before he finds out. > At imps we assume he is not going to risk his contract for an overtrick., > but he has said "making 10 unless you've psyched". He did not say > "making 9 unless you've psyched in which case I will make 12" He did not > say "making 9 unless you've psyched in which case I will make only 7" > There is no way that he can make specifically 10 tricks on any lie of the > remaining cards.(unless I've mised something) > For that reason I am ruling that his statement of claim does not stand up > and that he has not counted correctly. I believe he intended to take the > finesse. > I still rule 3NT-2 While I agree with the conclusion, I don't agree with the argument. It seems *absolutely* clear to me that what declarer meant was "making 10 unless opener's partner follows to the first heart" (i.e., unless opener psyched and had fewer than 5 hearts). Thus the claim was incomplete: it made no mention of what declarer intended to do if opener's partner *did* follow to the first heart, and once he does follow, what declarer said he would do if he didn't follow becomes irrelevant. Jeremy. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 00:54:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA27098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:54:39 +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 AAA27093 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:54:32 +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 HAA08677; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 07:53:52 -0700 Message-Id: <199909221453.HAA08677@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:24:29 PDT." <01bf0499$379544e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 07:53:53 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > Yes Roger. I echo David's congratulations. Perhaps Adam would like to = > consult you! Are BLML readers having problems with my e-mails? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 01:31:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:31:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.math.uga.edu (alpha.math.uga.edu [128.192.3.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27242 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:30:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from pluto.math.uga.edu (pluto [128.192.3.110]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22883 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA02989 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:16:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:16:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199909221516.LAA02989@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: DVRT5ASajv/M0iwkwHgUKA== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > In article <199909221325.OAA00543@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker > writes > > snip > > > >Declarer's statement "10 tricks unless you psyched" is clear (to me) but > >incomplete: if 2H was not a psyche, HK will reveal the position and he > >can play as above for 10 tricks; if 2H was a psyche, declarer has not > >suggested how many tricks he will make or how he will play. > > > >So (given that 2H was a psyche) we have the position where declarer has > >suggested "play be curtailed" but has made no (material) statement. We > >award declarer only the tricks that he would win on all normal line of play. > >Playing on hearts is the only normal line, so we must decide if finessing > >is normal (award 3NT-2) or sub-normal (award 3NT+3). Declarer's statement > >about 10 tricks when LHO has not psyched is not relevant. > > agreed. ... and how do you rule? > Is the hook 'irrational'? > > LHO is Angela (of the Brighton cleavage well beloved of blml readers). > Declarer is Tom Townsend, having a bad day with a clueless client, who > is going to lose a lot of money in the late night poker game. (Wonderful > eh, get the client to pay for the evening then rob him all night too). (At the risk of boring most of BLML with discussion of personalities that they don't know:) I've partnered Angela several times, and played against her more often, and I've seen her make bent bids (such as 4-card weak twos) a lot more often than out-and-out psyches. So this confirms my opinion that finessing is not irrational. Jeremy. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 01:35:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:02:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.math.uga.edu (alpha.math.uga.edu [128.192.3.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27159 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:01:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from pluto.math.uga.edu (pluto [128.192.3.110]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA21371 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:58:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA02746 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:47:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:47:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199909221447.KAA02746@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: 8C9LDf6faNAb5LvDFlrycQ== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > At 01:34 AM 9/21/99 +0100, David wrote: > > > They refers to more than one person, and the use of "they" because the > >person using it does not want to ascribe a gender to the particular > >person is not English. > > English is as English does. The use of "they" in the singular (seen by > some as a suitably "non-sexist" alternative to "he or she") is > well-precedented in serious English literature (Jane Austen provides > numerous examples), and was widely legitimized by its inclusion in the > second edition of the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (which gives as > its example "Everyone should do their own thing.") Rather off-topic, but I wanted to share my favourite example of the singular plural. Academic mathematical papers, in English at least, are conventionally written in the first person plural (even if they only have a single author). This resulted in the following immortal line in a paper by a Catalan mathematician with a rather eccentric command of English: "A special case of this theorem was proved by ourself in ..." Jeremy. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 01:35:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:35:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f165.hotmail.com [207.82.251.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA27264 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:35:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 43601 invoked by uid 0); 22 Sep 1999 15:35:39 -0000 Message-ID: <19990922153539.43600.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:35:39 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: AC case Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:35:39 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Craig Senior" [major snip] >Even knowing for a fact that he would have bid 5C in >a vacuum does not get him off the hook. In general I agree, but one small exception, I think. >1. There was a hesitation. (IF)2. >Pass was an LA 3. Bidding on would have been demonstrably suggested >over >pass. So if 2., adjust back to 4S just making. The fact that >this South >would always bid on is irrelevant...except that such >knowledge, if >available, should serve to shield him from any >disciplinary penalty since >it IS evidence that he intended nothing >unethical. But if South can provide conclusive evidence (for example, in system notes - we've gone much past what can be on a CC, especially in the ACBL) that pass was an "impossible call" *for that partnership*, then it can't be a LA, irrespective of any number of peers who would consider passing. This is one of the reasons that (with one partner) we carry our copies of the EHAA booklet to the game with us; how many peers, for almost any definition of peer, would consider the auction 1NT-4C passable? Or the auction 2H-p-4H-5D; p-p-5H-p; p-6D-p-p; forcing (or 2D-p-4D-p forcing, for that matter?) >At this vulnerability at MP I don't see myself ever >passing, but that is probably irrelevant as well. > heh. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 01:44:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:44:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.math.uga.edu (alpha.math.uga.edu [128.192.3.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27297 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:44:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from pluto.math.uga.edu (pluto [128.192.3.110]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23217 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA03092 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:29:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:29:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199909221529.LAA03092@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Bidding boxes in the USA Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: j112AeNz+3vcF1WSeB8GPQ== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm visiting the US (Athens, Georgia) for a few months, and had my first experience of American bridge at a local club last week. I found Marvin's summary of the ACBL alert rules very useful (thanks, Marvin!), but I have a query about ACBL regulations on the use of bidding boxes that the ACBL website didn't seem to answer. In England, we're supposed to leave out the bidding cards until the opening lead has been made. Being a law-abiding sort of person, I've got into the habit of doing this. But here in Athens, I found that the opening leader would wait until I'd picked up the cards before leading (and several times I forgot and looked up to find three people politely waiting for me). So what are the rules here? Jeremy. ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ ---------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 02:01:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:01:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f11.hotmail.com [207.82.250.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA27532 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:01:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 42616 invoked by uid 0); 22 Sep 1999 16:00:22 -0000 Message-ID: <19990922160022.42615.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:00:21 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Problem of score assignment Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:00:21 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Phillip Mendelsohn" >Since the board was played twice by the same players, under Law 15.B. >the >first result must stand and the second result must be cancelled. >Assuming >that N-S were stationary, under Law 7.D. they are >responsible for proper >placement and movement of the boards (although "primarily responsible". >in reality E-W should be paying attention to this also). Since Law yes. >15.B. requires the Director to award an artificial adjusted score, >and >since N-S are "legally" responsible for the mix-up, N-S should >receive >Average-Minus (40%) No problem here, but see below on the percentage. >and E-W Average-Plus(60%) on the board(s) they did not play. > I disagree here. They were not "in no way at fault" (L12C1). I want to give them A- as well, and I'd ask questions, hoping to find them at fault. If I can't, I would consider them at least "partially at fault" and award Average (50% at pairs). Also note that Sveinn Runar stated that it was a Swiss Pairs. That normally means that it's cross-IMP scored - though since he states later that "matchpoints" were awarded, that may not be true. If it was matchpoint-scored, then the percentages are correct(*). If cross-IMPed, then A- is -3*comparisons IMPs, A is 0, and A+ is +3*comparisons IMPs. >Welcome to the BLML! > >From me as well! Michael. *) L88 gives 60% or session score for A+, Lille awards 40% or session score for A-. I know we discussed the meaning of "session" a long while back (about when I first joined BLML), but that was before 1997 rules, and the 1997 definition of "session". When we discussed it, I remember an argument that a "session" was a period of time between comparisons. So, assume Barometer Matchpointed pairs, with Swiss pairings after each round. How do we score an A+ for the purposes of pairing - i.e., what is a session for pairing purposes? And do we recalculate A+ at the end of the play time? As a specific example, A+ is awarded to a pair at the end of the second round, when their score on the other 3 boards was 46%. They then wake up, and play the best game of their lives, and end up with a 65% on the 25 boards they played. How do we rank A+ a) for seeding purposes for Round 3? b) w.r.t the final 65%? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 02:01:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:01:31 +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 CAA27539 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:01:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA21835; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:57:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-145.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.145) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020371; Wed Sep 22 10:51:38 1999 Message-ID: <008201bf0512$a12b8f80$9184d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:53:32 -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: David Stevenson >Marvin L. French wrote: > (MF)>>We would have let the gurus answer this one, but we wanted to congratulate >>Julie on the use of "they" with a singular antecedent. This is no bookish >>schoolmarm, but a woman who knows how to use the English language. > (DWS)> Who is "we"? (CS) Am them bein' editorial perhaps? Or are he just imperial? In any case his world travels preclude an immediate response. We (antecedent uncertain) wish him a safe journey. (DWS)> They refers to more than one person, and the use of "they" because the >person using it does not want to ascribe a gender to the particular >person is not English. (CS) Thank you. I was beginning to think I was the only unrepentent pedant on the list. :-) -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 03:01:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:13:42 +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 CAA27592 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:13:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA26353; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:12:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-145.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.145) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025501; Wed Sep 22 11:09:10 1999 Message-ID: <008d01bf0515$1412ed20$9184d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:11:04 -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 We apparently have shown only that Jane Austen used bad English at times. Shall we perhaps mark that down to artistic licence? As for Random House, perhaps they are demonstrating the inferiority of their editors' command of correct English. To make such an attempt to legitimatise what is at best an uneducated colloquialism suggests that "they aint no authority, like, ya know?". The idea that "everyone should do their own thing" itself epitomises the same left wing liberal thought that is attempting to embed itself into the language. But this is newspeak, not English. Else would you have us proclaim that "Truth are lies" or "Freedom are slavery?" Nay! That way lies linguistic chaos. We do not want the rules of language to be established by either a caterpilar or a clinton. Words must not mean what one says they mean, shifting to meet the whims of the writer or speaker. Let that worthy instead select the words that do mean what he intends. As debates here show, there are enough misunderstandings already. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 8:05 AM Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card >At 01:34 AM 9/21/99 +0100, David wrote: > >> They refers to more than one person, and the use of "they" because the >>person using it does not want to ascribe a gender to the particular >>person is not English. > >English is as English does. The use of "they" in the singular (seen by >some as a suitably "non-sexist" alternative to "he or she") is >well-precedented in serious English literature (Jane Austen provides >numerous examples), and was widely legitimized by its inclusion in the >second edition of the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (which gives as >its example "Everyone should do their own thing.") > > >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 Sep 23 03:34:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:34:35 +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 DAA27953 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:34:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from ehc.edu (ehc65.ehc.edu [208.27.12.65]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id TC7T4Q54; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:36:01 -0400 Message-ID: <37E91395.12862E6D@ehc.edu> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:36:21 -0400 From: "John A. Kuchenbrod" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bidding boxes in the USA References: <199909221529.LAA03092@pluto.math.uga.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > I'm visiting the US (Athens, Georgia) for a few months, and had > my first experience of American bridge at a local club last week. > I found Marvin's summary of the ACBL alert rules very useful (thanks, > Marvin!), but I have a query about ACBL regulations on the use of > bidding boxes that the ACBL website didn't seem to answer. > > In England, we're supposed to leave out the bidding cards until the > opening lead has been made. Being a law-abiding sort of person, I've > got into the habit of doing this. But here in Athens, I found that > the opening leader would wait until I'd picked up the cards before > leading (and several times I forgot and looked up to find three people > politely waiting for me). > > So what are the rules here? The standard club practice in Kentucky is to pick up the bidding cards once three passes occur. Often that third pass takes the form of a tap, the words "I'm out," a spoken "pass," picking up the bidding cards, or some other illegal form. Those with more experience outside of the commonwealth have left their bidding cards on the table until the lead; I find it a very nice practice, but very few follow it here. I have no idea what is "common" in Virginia; I've attended only one club since I moved here last month, and they don't use bidding boxes at all. John -- | Dr. John Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu | lazarus.ehc.edu/~jkuchen | From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 03:49:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:16:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA27862 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:16:41 +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 NAA19537 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:16:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199909221716.NAA18639@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <19990922160022.42615.qmail@hotmail.com> (mdfarebr@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: Problem of score assignment Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother writes: > So, assume Barometer Matchpointed pairs, with Swiss pairings after each > round. How do we score an A+ for the purposes of pairing - i.e., what is a > session for pairing purposes? And do we recalculate A+ at the end of the > play time? > As a specific example, A+ is awarded to a pair at the end of the second > round, when their score on the other 3 boards was 46%. They then wake up, > and play the best game of their lives, and end up with a 65% on the 25 > boards they played. How do we rank A+ a) for seeding purposes for Round 3? > b) w.r.t the final 65%? a) 60%. b) 65%. The ACBL has a similar rule for Swiss Teams. If a match is forfeited at VP's, the winners are considered to have won by 3 IMPs, and the losers receive zero. At the end of the event, the winners' score is adjusted to the highest of (1) the temporary score; (2) the average VP's in matches the winners actually played; or (3) the average VP's scored by the opponents of the losers in matches actually played. Thus, if two teams with 52 VP's meet in the fifth round, but one fails to show, the winning team is considered to have 64 VP's for pairing puroses. Then, at the end of the event, if the winning team has 91 VP's in the seven matches it played, it recieves 13 for the forfeit. -- David Grabiner, grabine@bgnet.bgsu.edu (note new Email; math has problems) http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine 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 Sep 23 03:58:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:58:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA28093 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:58:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (ip228.kansas-city4.mo.pub-ip.psi.net [38.27.35.228]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA01371 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990922125408.009c15c0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:57:34 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Minor Penalty Card In-Reply-To: <008d01bf0515$1412ed20$9184d9ce@host> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I went away for a couple of weeks and hoped the he/they discussion would die away in my absence. It did not. I'm an editor by trade and have a personal and a professional opinion on the issue. Neither is relevant to BLML, IMHO, so I'm not sharing them now (I did once; that was enough). Can we take the linguistic discussion somewhere such as alt.usage.english or Copyediting-L and get back to talk about bridge laws? Humble thanks, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 04:11:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 04:11:00 +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 EAA28147 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 04:10:52 +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 TAA18921 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:10:43 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA12094 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:10:41 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 18:10:41 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA25158 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:10:37 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id TAA00737 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:10:04 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:10:04 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909221810.TAA00737@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: singular they; was Re: Minor Penalty Card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I avoiding responding when DWS said that the dictionary defines "they" as plural when even quite small dictionaries admit it is used as a singular pronoun. But I couldn't ignore this: > We apparently have shown only that Jane Austen used bad English at times. > Shall we perhaps mark that down to artistic licence? > > As for Random House, perhaps they are demonstrating the inferiority of their > editors' command of correct English. To make such an attempt to legitimatise > what is at best an uneducated colloquialism suggests that "they aint no > authority, like, ya know?". > So if people find reference which disagree with you, the references must be wrong. This usage is also recorded in OED (Oxford English Dictionary) with no indication that is an "uneducated colloquium" and cites references going back to 17th century (Milton, Pope?). Fowler's English Usage also recommends the usage in certain circumstances. The usage is useful for people whose readers/listeners may think "he" is solely male, and don't wish to appear to exclude female members of their! audience. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 04:17:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:14:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f264.hotmail.com [207.82.251.155]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA27605 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:14:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 87895 invoked by uid 0); 22 Sep 1999 16:13:46 -0000 Message-ID: <19990922161346.87894.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:13:45 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Illegal redouble? Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:13:45 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Martin Sinot" >Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >That is not correct, Martin. > > > >Players are allowed to do abnormal things when their > >opponents have done something illegal _AND_ the TD has ruled > >against them. > >It is perfectly legal to base your play on opponents having > >penalty cards and the like. > > > >What is -according to some- not allowed, is to do abnormal > >things on the presumption that opponents have done something > >illegal _when this is by no means yet certain_. It may well > >be completely legal for this player to lead the club, in > >which case the redoubled undertrick will stand. > > > >I am not certain in which camp I belong. If all opponents > >would be playing according to the laws, there would be no > >reason to "van twee walletjes eten", now would there ? > >but then this mailing list wouldn't exist, right? :-) > >Sorry, guys, I think I overshot myself a little on this one; >doubleshotting (or "eating from two wallets" - nice term, Herman! >This >mistranslation does make sense!) is perfectly legal, of course, >but the >doubleshotter is on his own on that. I don't see this case as double-shotting. I know I'm butchering rabbits here (splitting hairs), but I believe a double-shot is when someone takes an action that is wild, assuming that the director will return him to a good score in the likely event that the wild action fails. Here, the redouble doesn't have a backup - South is either going for 7Sxx= or 7Sxx-1, depending solely on whether West has a LA to the club lead that was certainly demonstrably suggested over others by the UI. It's very likely that West does, so it's very likely to succeed, but South has no fall-back. So, "Either we get a top, or the director will roll us back to a good score because LHO took advantage of UI" - doubleshot. "Top or bottom, partner - but he's given me a 10-1 chance that it's a top, so I'm taking it" - agressive bridge, but not the same thing (to my mind, anyway). And frankly, a nice, quiet director explaining L16 (and trying to keep the grin off her face) to East who she probably heard react :-) and a grand slam, rewound, made when it was booked for -1, should teach East to be a little more attentive to the proprieties next time. "And that's a Good Thing"(Luba Goy as Martha Stewart). Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 04:27:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 04:27:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (Salamix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA28213 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 04:27:06 +1000 (EST) From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29802 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA220584792; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:26:32 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA182824791; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:26:31 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:26:26 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Bidding boxes in the USA 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 EAA28214 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > I'm visiting the US (Athens, Georgia) for a few months, and had > my first experience of American bridge at a local club last week. > I found Marvin's summary of the ACBL alert rules very useful (thanks, > Marvin!), but I have a query about ACBL regulations on the use of > bidding boxes that the ACBL website didn't seem to answer. > [Laval Dubreuil] Try www.acbl.org/regulations Then choose bidding-box Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 04:46:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 04:46:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mid.minfod.com (mid.minfod.com [207.227.70.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA28284 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 04:46:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [207.227.70.80] (helo=JNichols) by mid.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11TrMP-0007Vh-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:43:21 -0500 Message-Id: <4.1.19990922133946.0093a870@popmid.minfod.com> X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:46:04 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Bidding boxes in the USA In-Reply-To: <199909221529.LAA03092@pluto.math.uga.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Unfortunately, the common practice where I play here in the US is to pick up the bidding cards as quickly as possible after the final pass. This frequently leads to confusion as to what the final contract was, who is declarer, etc. The final pass is sometimes made by picking up the bidding cards, or even worse, after a simple auction like 1N - 3N the player after the 3N passes by picking up his/her bidding cards. In this kind of situation I have more than once found myself doubling a contract that is no longer on the table! It would be nice if we could encourage the "bids on the table until the opening lead" practice that you describe, but I don't have much hope of that. John S. Nichols At 10:29 AM 9/22/99 , Jeremy Rickard wrote: >I'm visiting the US (Athens, Georgia) for a few months, and had >my first experience of American bridge at a local club last week. >I found Marvin's summary of the ACBL alert rules very useful (thanks, >Marvin!), but I have a query about ACBL regulations on the use of >bidding boxes that the ACBL website didn't seem to answer. > >In England, we're supposed to leave out the bidding cards until the >opening lead has been made. Being a law-abiding sort of person, I've >got into the habit of doing this. But here in Athens, I found that >the opening leader would wait until I'd picked up the cards before >leading (and several times I forgot and looked up to find three people >politely waiting for me). > >So what are the rules here? > > Jeremy. > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Jeremy Rickard >Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk >WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ >---------------------------------------------------------- > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 05:02:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 05:02:16 +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 FAA28331 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 05:02:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp239-107.worldonline.nl [195.241.239.107]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA01269 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:01:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00ff01bf052d$02da6e80$6beff1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: Subject: Re: Computer dealt hands Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:02:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Peter Newman wrote: > >>As some of you may be aware the 1998 National Open Teams in Australia was >>marred when in the quarter finals after 30 boards (of 40) it was noticed >>that the hands being played were identical to hands from the 1997 VCC >>(another Australian National championship). >> >>We have had some reports that some clubs have accidentally dealt the same >>hands and so used the same hands in different events. These typically have >>been club duplicates. >>This raises a number of issues - for masterpoint purposes should these >>'fouled' sessions count? [I can see players screaming very loudly if >>someone tries to take the masterpoints away]. If it is a multi-session >>event should the scores from that fouled session apply. Should the results >>only count if the players haven't played the hands before? >> >>Does anybody have regulations to cover this type of situation? I am sure it >>is not unique to Australia... > >LAW 6 - THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL > >D. New Shuffle and Redeal > 2. No Shuffle, or No Deal > No result may stand if the cards are dealt > without shuffle from a sorted pack, or if the > deal had previously been played in a different > session. > > It is Law, not Regulation. "No result may stand ..." is final. > Remark: I had prepared this reply before the one by John Probst arrived. Mine is similar to his, but somewhat less in jest, and I would appreciate to have this matter discussed further, so here is my mail in spite of mine being posted later than John's. Of course I agree with your assertion that "no result may stand ...", but I am afraid I disagree with your use of L6 to justify it. L6 gives two reasons for not allowing a result to stand: 1) if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted pack. This either applies for ALL computer dealt hands or for NONE. Assuming we don't want to bar any computer dealing I take it that you did ruled this condition out. 2) if the deal had previously been played in a different session. Now we really have a difficulty here. I assume the law makers merely intended L6 to applies to sessions of *the same* event. Is my assumption correct ?? If it is, this does not cover Peter's problem, for the hands were "merely" played at another event previously, not at the same event. If it is not, we would be obliged to verify for any hand that we intend to play whether that particular distribution of the cards did occur before in any deal from the first hand played aboard the S.S. Finland onwards. We thus set ourselves an impossible task. So yes, the results cannot stand, but no, i.m.h.o. this cannot be justified by quoting L6. Jac From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 05:04:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 05:04:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA28349 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 05:03:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA00121; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:02:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-145.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.145) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029752; Wed Sep 22 14:01:25 1999 Message-ID: <00e901bf052d$2510fa00$9184d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Robin Barker" , Subject: Re: singular they; was Re: Minor Penalty Card Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:03:21 -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: Robin Barker >I avoiding responding when DWS said that the dictionary defines "they" as >plural when even quite small dictionaries admit it is used as a singular >pronoun. It small a measure of their accuracy? The fact that "it is used"in this fashion does not make it proper. > >But I couldn't ignore this: >> We apparently have shown only that Jane Austen used bad English at times. >> Shall we perhaps mark that down to artistic licence? >> >> As for Random House, perhaps they are demonstrating the inferiority of their >> editors' command of correct English. To make such an attempt to legitimatise >> what is at best an uneducated colloquialism suggests that "they aint no >> authority, like, ya know?". >> > >So if people find reference which disagree with you, the >references must be wrong. > Of course. :-)) If someone is right, then they must be wrong. I am well aware of the logical speciousness, which is why I inserted the matter in quotes. On the other hand I could quote numerous posts on this group by intelligent people whose rulings would fly in the face of the lawbook. That some "authority" agrees with you does not change what is right. (pero il mezzo) >This usage is also recorded in OED (Oxford English Dictionary) >with no indication that is an "uneducated colloquium" and cites >references going back to 17th century (Milton, Pope?). Fowler's >English Usage also recommends the usage in certain circumstances. > >The usage is useful for people whose readers/listeners may think >"he" is solely male, and don't wish to appear to exclude female >members of their! audience. Ain't is a useful word too...but it is illiterate. Dumbing down the language one uses to an audience that cannot understand correct English, does not make the dumbed down version correct. By the by, do you use colloquium as synonymous with colloquialism? Craig From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 05:32:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 05:32:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.mail.gxn.net [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA28428 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 05:32:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa7s11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.168] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Ts7a-0005zA-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:32:06 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:36:19 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0531$be2511a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 3:36 PM Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents >In article <199909221325.OAA00543@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker > writes > >snip >> >>Declarer's statement "10 tricks unless you psyched" is clear (to me) but >>incomplete: if 2H was not a psyche, HK will reveal the position and he >>can play as above for 10 tricks; if 2H was a psyche, declarer has not >>suggested how many tricks he will make or how he will play. >> >>So (given that 2H was a psyche) we have the position where declarer has >>suggested "play be curtailed" but has made no (material) statement. We >>award declarer only the tricks that he would win on all normal line of play. >>Playing on hearts is the only normal line, so we must decide if finessing >>is normal (award 3NT-2) or sub-normal (award 3NT+3). Declarer's statement >>about 10 tricks when LHO has not psyched is not relevant. > >agreed. ... and how do you rule? >Is the hook 'irrational'? > >LHO is Angela (of the Brighton cleavage well beloved of blml readers). >Declarer is Tom Townsend, having a bad day with a clueless client, who >is going to lose a lot of money in the late night poker game. (Wonderful >eh, get the client to pay for the evening then rob him all night too). So pretty young things get taught bad habits in YC do they? Is a successful psyche by a PYT more or less painful than one by the usual suspects. (wild and ethical) Also I was interested to know why North bid this as he did. Perhaps you have explained this as well. Or would most YC players consider 3NT to be an automatic bid on the hand. At least "clueless client" was not so clueless after all. He must have passed this 2H very smoothly. Perhaps he was more interested in his RHO than in her bid :-)) A tactical game bridge, there is no doubt!! Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 05:42:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 04:57:04 +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 EAA28305 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 04:56:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from ehc.edu (ehc65.ehc.edu [208.27.12.65]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id TC7T4RPR; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:58:37 -0400 Message-ID: <37E926F1.727876BA@ehc.edu> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:58:57 -0400 From: "John A. Kuchenbrod" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bidding boxes in the USA References: <00d601bf052a$b908f300$9184d9ce@host> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Seeing Craig's reply, I should clarify--a few (but far from all) Kentuckians who find their way out of the commonwealth share Jeremy's practice. And I apologize for the awkward spacing of my last message--I'm still getting used to my mailer. Curse my college for not making Unix more readily available!! Craig Senior wrote: > > Here in Pennsylvania, one is expected to pick up the bidding cards and > replace them in the bidding boxes before the opening lead is faced. > > > From: John A. Kuchenbrod > > > > >Those with more experience outside of the commonwealth have left their > >bidding cards on the table until the lead; I find it a very nice > >practice, > >but very few follow it here. > > -- | Dr. John Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu | lazarus.ehc.edu/~jkuchen | From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 06:41:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 05:01:41 +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 FAA28321 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 05:01:32 +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 MAA12144; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:00:49 -0700 Message-Id: <199909221900.MAA12144@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Bidding boxes in the USA In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:26:26 PDT." Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:00:50 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval Du Breuil wrote: > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > > > I'm visiting the US (Athens, Georgia) for a few months, and had > > my first experience of American bridge at a local club last week. > > I found Marvin's summary of the ACBL alert rules very useful > (thanks, > > Marvin!), but I have a query about ACBL regulations on the use of > > bidding boxes that the ACBL website didn't seem to answer. > > > [Laval Dubreuil] Try www.acbl.org/regulations > Then choose bidding-box I already tried looking at the regulations, and they don't address the issue. I don't think there's any regulation regarding when the bidding cards are supposed to be put away. I've played at many regionals in California and Las Vegas, and at a fair number of NABC's in different places, and everywhere I've played, everyone puts the bidding cards away right after the final pass; however, frequently someone asks to have the bidding cards left up for a few moments after the final pass while they look things over, and this request is always granted. I think this is custom, not regulation. Personally, I have enough trouble finding space on my side of the table for the bidding cards, the bidding box, my convention card, the score tickets when I'm North, and (most importantly) my coffee; so if I had to find space also to put the opening lead before the bidding cards got put away, I'm afraid I would have an insoluble problem. Note also that Law 20 gives you the right to ask for a review before your first turn to play, even if the bidding cards have been put away. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 06:46:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 04:45:58 +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 EAA28275 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 04:45:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA26834; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:44:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-145.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.145) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026806; Wed Sep 22 13:44:05 1999 Message-ID: <00d601bf052a$b908f300$9184d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "John A. Kuchenbrod" , Subject: Re: Bidding boxes in the USA Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:46:01 -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 Here in Pennsylvania, one is expected to pick up the bidding cards and replace them in the bidding boxes before the opening lead is faced. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: John A. Kuchenbrod To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Bidding boxes in the USA >Jeremy Rickard wrote: >> >> I'm visiting the US (Athens, Georgia) for a few months, and had >> my first experience of American bridge at a local club last week. >> I found Marvin's summary of the ACBL alert rules very useful (thanks, >> Marvin!), but I have a query about ACBL regulations on the use of >> bidding boxes that the ACBL website didn't seem to answer. >> >> In England, we're supposed to leave out the bidding cards until the >> opening lead has been made. Being a law-abiding sort of person, I've >> got into the habit of doing this. But here in Athens, I found that >> the opening leader would wait until I'd picked up the cards before >> leading (and several times I forgot and looked up to find three people >> politely waiting for me). >> >> So what are the rules here? > >The standard club practice in Kentucky is to pick up the bidding cards >once three passes occur. Often that third pass takes the form of a tap, >the words "I'm out," a spoken "pass," picking up the bidding cards, >or some other illegal form. > >Those with more experience outside of the commonwealth have left their >bidding cards on the table until the lead; I find it a very nice >practice, >but very few follow it here. > >I have no idea what is "common" in Virginia; I've attended only one club >since I moved here last month, and they don't use bidding boxes at all. > >John >-- >| Dr. John Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu | lazarus.ehc.edu/~jkuchen | From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 06:56:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 06:56:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.math.uga.edu (alpha.math.uga.edu [128.192.3.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28684 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 06:56:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from pluto.math.uga.edu (pluto [128.192.3.110]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA07059 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:53:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA06167 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:42:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:42:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199909222042.QAA06167@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Bidding boxes in the USA Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: Si9tbB2a8pXjZ/Z/p0zO2g== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval Dubreuil wrote: > Jeremy Rickard wrote: >> >> I'm visiting the US (Athens, Georgia) for a few months, and had >> my first experience of American bridge at a local club last week. >> I found Marvin's summary of the ACBL alert rules very useful (thanks, >> Marvin!), but I have a query about ACBL regulations on the use of >> bidding boxes that the ACBL website didn't seem to answer. >> > [Laval Dubreuil] Try www.acbl.org/regulations > Then choose bidding-box Yes, I'd found my way there. But that says everything about putting down the bidding cards, but (curiously) nothing about picking them up (apart from the stop card). Jeremy. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 08:43:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 08:43:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.mail.gxn.net [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28926 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 08:43:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb8s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.185] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Tv6X-0000kz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 23:43:13 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:33:18 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0539$b41f7b20$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: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 4:19 PM Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook > >Anne Jones wrote: > >> Yes Roger. I echo David's congratulations. Perhaps Adam would like to = >> consult you! > >Are BLML readers having problems with my e-mails? Yes Adam. They refuse to thread. For instance this thread was started by Roger and when opened has mailings from Roger/David/Roger/Anne and then standing alone unthreaded and some distance away is your latest posting. This is not a problem of mega magnitude, but it's the little anoyances that send the blood pressure up :-) Anne > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 08:49:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 08:49:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.mail.gxn.net [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28951 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 08:49:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from pabs01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.172] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11TvCX-0000s9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 23:49:26 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 23:53:35 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf054d$4d4ee520$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: Jeremy Rickard To: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 8:51 PM Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents > >> One of us has misunderstood the situation. It might well be me. >> >> The original posting was:- >> Declarer wins the C lead, cashes 4S, the KC and claims >> "Making 10 unless you've psyched" >> >> I read this as "at the end of trick 6, but before playing to trick 7" thus >> he already knew opener could not have started off with 5 hearts. > >How does he know this? Maybe you misread KC as KH? You're right. I certainly did. Admittedly, there >seems to be no point in cashing the KC and every point in cashing KH, >so it's possible John miswrote. > >> However this is YC, it's not a psyche to have only 4, just a deviation :-) > >If that! > > Jeremy. > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 09:03:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:03:04 +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 JAA28977 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:02:56 +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 QAA16386; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:02:16 -0700 Message-Id: <199909222302.QAA16386@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:33:18 PDT." <01bf0539$b41f7b20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:02:13 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne wrote: > >> Yes Roger. I echo David's congratulations. Perhaps Adam would like to = > >> consult you! > > > >Are BLML readers having problems with my e-mails? > > Yes Adam. They refuse to thread. > For instance this thread was started by Roger and when opened has mailings > from Roger/David/Roger/Anne and then standing alone unthreaded and some > distance away is your latest posting. > This is not a problem of mega magnitude, but it's the little anoyances that > send the blood pressure up :-) > > Anne Hmmm . . . I don't understand why. I was asking because I was hoping to find out from others, besides you, whether they were having the same problem. The problem could be something peculiar to the software you use to read e-mail. In fact, it makes no sense at all that my messages don't thread. Comparing the headers on the one I sent to the one you just sent, mine has this header that yours doesn't: In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:24:29 PDT." <01bf0499$379544e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> while yours has these headers that mine doesn't: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 It baffles me that your message would thread and mine wouldn't, unless there's a bug in the program you're using. Does anyone reading this have any idea what my headers *should* contain that they don't? If there's something that would help, I can possibly tweak things to make sure my outgoing mail contains those headers. (However, I'm using a system at work and cannot simply get a new e-mail program and use it.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 11:04:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:04:38 +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 LAA29218 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:04:31 +1000 (EST) From: StefTaurus@aol.com Received: from StefTaurus@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id pGPWa24699 (7994) for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:06:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:06:01 EDT Subject: Re: singular they; was Re: Minor Penalty Card 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.i for Windows 95 sub 135 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 22/09/99 19:58:35 GMT Standard Time, rts48u@ix.netcom.com writes: > > > >The usage is useful for people whose readers/listeners may think > >"he" is solely male, and don't wish to appear to exclude female > >members of their! audience. > > > Ain't is a useful word too...but it is illiterate. Dumbing down the language > one uses to an audience that cannot understand correct English, does not > make the dumbed down version correct. I don't think it's a matter of the inability to understand correct English. I have understood the usage of 'he' to refer to a singular antecedent which could be either male or female, all my life. Yet I have always felt excluded by this usage. And I find it annoying when men say things like 'why should you be bothered by such trivia?' It's easy to say that a matter is of no consequence when there is no chance of the shoe's ever being on the other foot. I am not now, and never have been, on a crusade to change people's usage of English; I am quite aware of the futility of such an undertaking. But I support those who eschew some people's idea of 'correct English' in an attempt to be 'correct' in a broader sense. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 12:21:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:21:46 +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 MAA29322 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:21:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from p53s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.84] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11TyVa-0001zd-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:21:19 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: singular they; was Re: Minor Penalty Card Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:25:40 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf056a$edd38d80$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 For the purists among us, this has nothing whatsoever to do with minor penalty cards so press the "delete" key NOW -----Original Message----- From: StefTaurus@aol.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 2:27 AM Subject: Re: singular they; was Re: Minor Penalty Card >In a message dated 22/09/99 19:58:35 GMT Standard Time, rts48u@ix.netcom.com >writes: > >> > >> >The usage is useful for people whose readers/listeners may think >> >"he" is solely male, and don't wish to appear to exclude female >> >members of their! audience. I'm much too old to "burn my bra" and I think there's far too much women's lib' nonsence in the world today anyway. Those who support it's concepts are in a minority of women, and as a minority group of _man_kind should "keep their place" I am a chair_man_ and as DWS will assure you, there's little that is masculane about either me or my logic:-) So Stefanie, stop feeling sorry for yourself and show these fellas that we do have our attributes, if it's only the ability to RTFLB without finding so many problems! Anne >> >> >> Ain't is a useful word too...but it is illiterate. Dumbing down the >language >> one uses to an audience that cannot understand correct English, does not >> make the dumbed down version correct. > >I don't think it's a matter of the inability to understand correct English. >I have understood the usage of 'he' to refer to a singular antecedent which >could be either male or female, all my life. Yet I have always felt excluded >by this usage. > >And I find it annoying when men say things like 'why should you be bothered >by such trivia?' It's easy to say that a matter is of no consequence when >there is no chance of the shoe's ever being on the other foot. > >I am not now, and never have been, on a crusade to change people's usage of >English; I am quite aware of the futility of such an undertaking. But I >support those who eschew some people's idea of 'correct English' in an >attempt to be 'correct' in a broader sense. > >Stefanie Rohan > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 12:46:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:46:14 +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 MAA29386 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:46:07 +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 11TytR-000BtX-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:45:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:44:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Stevenson Shock! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Extract from the results of the usual suspect game at the Young Chelsea Wednesday Night (Tough wild game etc). 39 Pairs Pos Pr Names................................ MPs %Age 38 44 Mrs Guggenheim and Mr Guggenheim 301 40.14 39 7 David Stevenson and Junior Int'al 189 25.24 Top = 30 Average = 375 This is NOT a PSYCHE. He went through the boards with me and IT IS TRUE. I felt you should know. We need to be told. 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 Sep 23 12:53:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:53:36 +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 MAA29402 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:53:29 +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 11Tz0a-000NVZ-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:53:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:51:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: singular they; was Re: Minor Penalty Card In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , StefTaurus@aol.com writes snip >I am not now, and never have been, on a crusade to change people's usage of >English; I am quite aware of the futility of such an undertaking. But I >support those who eschew some people's idea of 'correct English' in an >attempt to be 'correct' in a broader sense. As one of those who is not particularly PC (favourite joke: Q. Why did He create She? A. He had trouble teaching sheep to type.), nonetheless I'm totally with Steffie: English is as she is spoke. Period. It's like Acol. There are no right answers. chs john > >Stefanie Rohan -- 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 Sep 23 15:19:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:19:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29583 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:18:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:11:53 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19990922160022.42615.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:10:54 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Problem of score assignment Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael Farebrother writes: >I disagree here. They were not "in no way at fault" (L12C1). I >want to give them A- as well, and I'd ask questions, hoping to find them at >fault. If I can't, I would consider them at least "partially at fault" and >award Average (50% at pairs). Shades of the Inquisition! Do you _really_ mean this the way it sounds? :-( 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/AwUBN+m4Mr2UW3au93vOEQJZSACfSezYuacIH/VAb5n6IOXwYsqpD0MAoLit 3TvspR4p/N7lKpixk+UxLGzx =E5gJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 15:49:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:49:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29630 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:49:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:41:46 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990922133946.0093a870@popmid.minfod.com> References: <199909221529.LAA03092@pluto.math.uga.edu> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:47:21 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Bidding boxes in the USA Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 John S. Nichols writes: >Unfortunately, the common practice where I play here in the US is to pick >up the bidding cards as quickly as possible after the final pass. This >frequently leads to confusion as to what the final contract was, who is >declarer, etc. It's common practice here, too. Sometimes folks do it _before_ the final pass. :-( The ACBL web page on bidding boxes doesn't address the end of the auction _at all_. It does say, regarding whether a call pulled out of the box is "inadvertant": "It is difficult, however, to justify pulling a bid in place of a pass, double or redouble as a mechanical error. Calls from different pockets should rarely, if at all, be judged as inadvertent." This contravenes what my memory recalls as the recent concensus on this list - that calls from different pockets may indeed be inadvertant. The site does mention one exception: if a double is followed by a jump bid by the same player, the double is likely to have been inadvertant. But the way I read it, any other situation is likely to be ruled as not inadvertant. Does the list disagree, or is my memory faulty? 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/AwUBN+m/Mr2UW3au93vOEQKNiACgwoOyYsm4DtWBmxQCYyxU7FkvKqYAoL1W 1prURbESsNs6mUiSz8752z8a =Wnrd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 16:02:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:02:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com [139.134.5.159]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA29656 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:02:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za958073 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:59:37 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-109-113.tmns.net.au ([139.134.109.113]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Remorseful-MailRouter V2.5 5/1710594); 23 Sep 1999 15:59:34 Message-ID: <024a01bf0617$b577b940$70de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Computer dealt hands Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:01:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac Fuchs wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >>Peter Newman wrote: >> >>>As some of you may be aware the 1998 National Open Teams in Australia was >>>marred when in the quarter finals after 30 boards (of 40) it was noticed >>>that the hands being played were identical to hands from the 1997 VCC >>>(another Australian National championship). >>> >>>We have had some reports that some clubs have accidentally dealt the same >>>hands and so used the same hands in different events. These typically have >>>been club duplicates. >>>This raises a number of issues - for masterpoint purposes should these >>>'fouled' sessions count? [I can see players screaming very loudly if >>>someone tries to take the masterpoints away]. If it is a multi-session >>>event should the scores from that fouled session apply. Should the results >>>only count if the players haven't played the hands before? >>> >>>Does anybody have regulations to cover this type of situation? I am sure >it >>>is not unique to Australia... >> >>LAW 6 - THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL >> >>D. New Shuffle and Redeal >> 2. No Shuffle, or No Deal >> No result may stand if the cards are dealt >> without shuffle from a sorted pack, or if the >> deal had previously been played in a different >> session. >> >> It is Law, not Regulation. "No result may stand ..." is final. >> > > >Remark: I had prepared this reply before the one by John Probst arrived. >Mine is similar to his, but somewhat less in jest, and I would appreciate >to have this matter discussed further, so here is my mail in spite of mine >being posted later than John's. > >Of course I agree with your assertion that "no result may stand ...", >but I am afraid I disagree with your use of L6 to justify it. >L6 gives two reasons for not allowing a result to stand: >1) if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted pack. >This either applies for ALL computer dealt hands or for NONE. >Assuming we don't want to bar any computer dealing I take it >that you did ruled this condition out. >2) if the deal had previously been played in a different session. >Now we really have a difficulty here. I assume the law makers merely >intended L6 to applies to sessions of *the same* event. >Is my assumption correct ?? >If it is, this does not cover Peter's problem, for the hands were >"merely" played at another event previously, not at the same event. >If it is not, we would be obliged to verify for any hand that we intend to >play whether that particular distribution of the cards did occur before in >any deal from the first hand played aboard the S.S. Finland onwards. We thus >set ourselves an impossible task. > >So yes, the results cannot stand, but no, i.m.h.o. this cannot be justified >by >quoting L6. > At the time of the incident Peter Newman was living in Japan. I was there and several matters, which arose at the time, may be of interest to BLML...... At the 1998 Australian Nationals some players argued that, when the recurrent hands appeared in the third quarter of their Round of 16 knockout matches, none of the players in their match had played the hands before, because they had not played in the other event 6 months earlier. They argued further that in simultaneous pairs events we sometimes use a set of hands, say from a US National 30 years earlier, which have been played before, but have not been previously played by the actual players. Their argument was: What's the difference? Both times the players have not played the hands before. Shouldn't the results stand? Surely Law 6D2 doesn't apply, due to the word "session". Or should we cancel all the results of (and masterpoints from) Simultaneous Pairs events which use hands from bygone sessions? One team was particularly strident in wanting the recurrent set retained, because their team, lacking players who participated in the earlier event, had gained many imps in the recurrent set over their opponents who had played the boards before! Note that the recurrent hand problem was not noticed until the 3/4 time break in the matches. The committee met and had to decide: (1) do we cancel the recurrent boards and replay the set (this is what they decided lto do, largely due to Law 6D2 not reading "session of the same event", after they had obtained copies of the relevant sets by FAX), or (2) do we allow the scores to stand because none of the players remembered the hands (except perhaps subconsciously) from six months earlier, or (3) do we cancel the scores of matches where one or more of the players played in the earlier event, and allow the scores to stand if none of the players played in the earlier event? This argument was dismissed, partly because the non-players may have heard their friends talking about the hands, and partly because there seemed to be no law or regulation to permit such a ruling. A further problem was to consider which other sets had recurred. I believe this remains a mystery to the present day, as it is very difficult to find out. My long explanation may help explain why Jan's point about the "different session" is so important; the word "session" rather than "event" in Law 6D2 may be related to the concept that "the same players have had the opportunity to play the same hands earlier". A question. More than a year after the incident it appears that the hands from a different Australian event (the Men's Pairs) had been played in a Zonal playoff in New Zealand 9 months earlier. Two contestants participated in both events. According to BLML logic (so far), I wonder if the masterpoints for this event should be retrospectively cancelled if the boards are confirmed to have occurred twice. Note that none of the players noticed; it has only been noticed by someone now because a spectacular freak hand from each event was written up in the different countries. Another question. In the 1982 playoff for the Australian team, the same set of boards occurred in two sessions. Just one pair from each team played the boards twice; both pairs happened to rotate 180 degrees the second time. This was discovered two months afterwards from the hand records. We'll assume that the results the second time are sufficient to change which team won (an assumption, probably not the actual case). Should the boards be cancelled? Should the Australian team be altered? Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 16:50:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:50:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29745 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:50:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn39p02.ozemail.com.au [210.84.15.130]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA03483 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:50:39 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990923170329.00916d50@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:03:29 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last night, after a competitive auction, LHO bid 3NT which was passed round to me. I doubled, partner now bid 3S, not accepted. When this was changed to a pass, my double was cancelled and I was not able to re-instate it, much to my annoyance..until declarer rolled in 9 tricks without drawing breath. I remarked on partner's nice undouble bid but I presume that a TD could adjust (automatically?) under L72B1. Partner actually enquired of the director if he was allowed to double. Would this make any difference? Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 18:46:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA29854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:46:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29849 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:46:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <2923-11283>; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 10:45:40 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA31481 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 10:26:35 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 10:35:16 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3C3@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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589380@XION> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >Last night, after a competitive auction, LHO bid 3NT which was passed round >to me. I doubled, partner now bid 3S, not accepted. When this was changed >to a pass, my double was cancelled and I was not able to re-instate it, >much to my annoyance..until declarer rolled in 9 tricks without drawing >breath. > >I remarked on partner's nice undouble bid but I presume that a TD could >adjust (automatically?) under L72B1. Partner actually enquired of the >director if he was allowed to double. Would this make any difference? > >Cheers, > >Tony Let me get this straight: The bidding went: LHO pard LHO you ... something... 3NT pass pass dbl pass 3S* pass pass If this is really the right auction, I see no reason why the double should be cancelled. The 3S would have done this, but since it was not accepted, there are only passes after the double which means that opponents play 3NT doubled. It has nothing to do with L72B1, and also partners enquiry is not important. I think TD made a tiny mistake by cancelling the double. P.S. Please fill in subject next time. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 19:42:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA29924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:42:46 +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 TAA29908 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:42:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-45.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.45]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25648 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:42:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37E9EF8D.8BDEE4B2@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:14:53 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Computer dealt hands References: <00ff01bf052d$02da6e80$6beff1c3@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac Fuchs wrote: > > > Of course I agree with your assertion that "no result may stand ...", > but I am afraid I disagree with your use of L6 to justify it. > L6 gives two reasons for not allowing a result to stand: > 1) if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted pack. > This either applies for ALL computer dealt hands or for NONE. > Assuming we don't want to bar any computer dealing I take it > that you did ruled this condition out. > 2) if the deal had previously been played in a different session. > Now we really have a difficulty here. I assume the law makers merely > intended L6 to applies to sessions of *the same* event. > Is my assumption correct ?? > If it is, this does not cover Peter's problem, for the hands were > "merely" played at another event previously, not at the same event. > If it is not, we would be obliged to verify for any hand that we intend to > play whether that particular distribution of the cards did occur before in > any deal from the first hand played aboard the S.S. Finland onwards. We thus > set ourselves an impossible task. > > So yes, the results cannot stand, but no, i.m.h.o. this cannot be justified > by > quoting L6. > > Jac Quite correct, Jac. Let me quote the ss Finland in another sense : the world simultaneous. Or even our fifth friday, and I don't even need John's peculiar London habit. When a hand is played on friday morning in Sydney, and then on friday evening in Fairbanks, there is almost enough time for one to fly accross the pacific and play the same hand on the same date ! (there are other examples of the same sort). So the criterium simply cannot be "hand has been played before". L6 really only applies to the same tournament. It is L16 which must be used. So the solution is : award every player that has played in the other event 60% on every board. I think a redeal is not against the Laws in such a case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 19:42:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA29922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:42:46 +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 TAA29907 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:42:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-45.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.45]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25660 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:42:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37E9F2EF.3E301121@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:29:19 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > Extract from the results of the usual suspect game at the Young Chelsea > Wednesday Night (Tough wild game etc). 39 Pairs > > Pos Pr Names................................ MPs %Age > 38 44 Mrs Guggenheim and Mr Guggenheim 301 40.14 > 39 7 David Stevenson and Junior Int'al 189 25.24 > Was this the same junior int'al as mentioned earlier today, or another usual suspect. Well done David, this is one even I have never accomplished. But then again, I am usually counted in Ascherman, where the same result would give a more respectable looking 26.75% ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 19:42:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA29923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:42:45 +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 TAA29906 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:42:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-45.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.45]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25639 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:42:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37E9EDAD.7A367531@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:06:53 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents References: <01bf04f2$c2b37200$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One reply to Anne, not necessarily intended to convince her. Anne Jones wrote: > > > > >Sorry Anne, but after the first trick (HK) he knows already > >that opener cannot have his bid any more. > > He knows when he has played HK that the 2H opener did not have 5H. > When opener follows to the next heart he knows that he had 2. > What he does not know is whether he had 2 or 3 or 4. > He must make his play decision before he finds out. Indeed. > At imps we assume he is not going to risk his contract for an overtrick., > but he has said "making 10 unless you've psyched". He did not say > "making 9 unless you've psyched in which case I will make 12" He did not > say "making 9 unless you've psyched in which case I will make only 7" Wrong conclusion. He has said "I make 10 unless you have psyched". This expands to "I make the second round finesse if RHO shows out, and I am not telling what I will do if he does have a card". Basically, from the moment at which RHO plays to the HK, we have a claim without any statement. We should not keep claimer to a statement that has been proven to be "broken down". The discussion as to whether the finesse remains a normal line has since passed us by, and should really be ruled by John himself, but the principle should be correct. OK Anne ? > There is no way that he can make specifically 10 tricks on any lie of the > remaining cards.(unless I've mised something) > For that reason I am ruling that his statement of claim does not stand up > and that he has not counted correctly. I believe he intended to take the > finesse. By his very statement he has said the he does not know what to do if there has been a psyche. > I still rule 3NT-2 > Anne -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 21:11:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 21:11:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.mail.gxn.net [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA00215 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 21:11:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from pf0s11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.241] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11U6mP-0003f2-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:11:14 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:15:29 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf05b4$f1f9df00$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: Tony Musgrove To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 8:09 AM >Last night, after a competitive auction, LHO bid 3NT which was passed round >to me. I doubled, partner now bid 3S, not accepted. When this was changed >to a pass, my double was cancelled and I was not able to re-instate it, >much to my annoyance..until declarer rolled in 9 tricks without drawing >breath. I assume that you are not joking. The TD should have read L27B2. The insufficient bid was not accepted so had to be made sufficient. In that your partner chose to pass, this will silence you for the remainder of the auction. You are defending 3NT doubled. I assume it is now outside the correction period, but if it was not, your opponents could ask for a ruling under L82C. It is certainly not a Law 72 situation as his insufficient bid cannot cancel any call you have already made. Maybe the TD read L27 (partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call) as this cancels all bids he has ever made. It takes female logic to think of that:-) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 23 22:09:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 22:09:08 +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 WAA00365 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 22:09:01 +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 IAA04296 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 08:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990923081029.0069ddc8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 08:10:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Bidding boxes in the USA In-Reply-To: <199909221529.LAA03092@pluto.math.uga.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:29 AM 9/22/99 -0400, Jeremy wrote: >In England, we're supposed to leave out the bidding cards until the >opening lead has been made. Being a law-abiding sort of person, I've >got into the habit of doing this. But here in Athens, I found that >the opening leader would wait until I'd picked up the cards before >leading (and several times I forgot and looked up to find three people >politely waiting for me). > >So what are the rules here? There aren't any. Local practices vary, but the way they do things in Athens seems to be most common. 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 Sep 24 00:15:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:15:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.67.79.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00698 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:15:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <2731-21191>; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:15:23 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA00644; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:24:40 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Anne Jones'" , "'BLML'" Subject: RE: Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:33:19 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3C5@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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589385@XION> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >>Last night, after a competitive auction, LHO bid 3NT which was passed round >>to me. I doubled, partner now bid 3S, not accepted. When this was changed >>to a pass, my double was cancelled and I was not able to re-instate it, >>much to my annoyance..until declarer rolled in 9 tricks without drawing >>breath. > >I assume that you are not joking. >The TD should have read L27B2. The insufficient bid was not accepted so had > to be made sufficient. In that your partner chose to pass, this will >silence you for >the remainder of the auction. You are defending 3NT doubled. >I assume it is now outside the correction period, but if it was not, your >opponents >could ask for a ruling under L82C. It is certainly not a Law 72 situation as >his >insufficient bid cannot cancel any call you have already made. I think it is a little too early for 82C. Can't we simply write 3NTX= (i.e. 82B1) After all, the removal of the double didn't influence the auction, and neither did the play (apparently). >Maybe the TD read L27 (partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call) as >this >cancels all bids he has ever made. It takes female logic to think of that:-) > >Anne This TD probably assigns tons of lead penalties for all those extra cancelled calls ;-) Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 00:33:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:33:05 +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 AAA00803 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:32:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-021.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.213]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA84908 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:32:17 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <01a501bf05d2$602260c0$d5307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Clarification of 43B2b - Part 2 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:46:02 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Spades are trumps. An impatient dummy looks at his partner's curtain card. Subsequently declarer calls for a high Club from dummy but ruffs in his hand. Dummy asks declarer about the possible revoke and declarer admits to having a small club. Declarer corrects his revoke, the revoke is treated as established and Law 64 applies. But is this a 64A1 or a 64A2 ruling. I think we agreed that 64A2 applied in part 1 where there was no trump suit. Are we in 64A1 land now? Best regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 01:25:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:25:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe26.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA00971 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:25:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 77018 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Sep 1999 15:24:34 -0000 Message-ID: <19990923152434.77017.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.116.134] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <024a01bf0617$b577b940$70de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Computer dealt hands Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 10:19:59 -0500 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 Numerous references were made of concluded events that were decided by hands played in previous events. It would seem that the correction period established in the CoC would apply and I would think that by the time in question it had expired absent a relevant appeal. Otherwise, expiration of the correction period is an impotent collection of words. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 6:01 PM Subject: Fw: Computer dealt hands > Jac Fuchs wrote: > > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >>Peter Newman wrote: > > One team was particularly strident in wanting the recurrent set retained, > because their team, lacking players who participated in the earlier event, > had gained many imps in the recurrent set over their opponents who had > played the boards before! > > Note that the recurrent hand problem was not noticed until the 3/4 time > break in the matches. The committee met and had to decide: > (1) do we cancel the recurrent boards and replay the set (this is what they > decided lto do, largely due to Law 6D2 not reading "session of the same > event", after they had obtained copies of the relevant sets by FAX), or > (2) do we allow the scores to stand because none of the players remembered > the hands (except perhaps subconsciously) from six months earlier, or If there were hand records, they could have been studied by anyone, not just the players, at anytime after they were issued. I know people who retain a historical file of hand records from a large variety of events, not that they study them just in case they are reused. > Another question. In the 1982 playoff for the Australian team, the same set > of boards occurred in two sessions. Just one pair from each team played the > boards twice; both pairs happened to rotate 180 degrees the second time. > This was discovered two months afterwards from the hand records. We'll > assume that the results the second time are sufficient to change which team > won (an assumption, probably not the actual case). Should the boards be > cancelled? Should the Australian team be altered? > > Peter Gill > Sydney Australia. > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 02:17:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 02:17:48 +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 CAA01255 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 02:17:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA27755; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:15:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-44.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.44) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026351; Thu Sep 23 11:11:05 1999 Message-ID: <001701bf05de$84b50e40$2c84d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: singular they; was Re: Minor Penalty Card Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:12:49 -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 Perhaps we should campaign for the use of the feminine indeterminate in constructions such as "everyone to her own abilities" or "each parent should bring her child". Her can mean "his or her" just as clearly as his. But their is abominable. This is not an attack on women; as the married father of daughters the most important people in my life are women. I despise anyone who would demean them or try to falsely limit them. But I despise the efforts of the man-haters to warp the language in an effort to address their agendae. One might as well suppose there is something gay about homosexuality. Let's eschew the lip service of newspeak and concentrate on addressing real issues like the removal of glass ceilings and cracking down with jail terms for bashers. We could end up with a better society AND a language that makes sense. I regret that Stephanie feels hurt by the conventions of standard English. This should not be the case. To suggest that women are anything less than a full part of mankind is unacceptable; the standard usage is inclusive, using he,him,his as a shorthand for human, not male. We might better address on this list the absurdity that women cannot be as excellent bridge players as men. There would appear to be little reason in terms of capability; women excel in all fields involving intellect and competitiveness, and bridge does not require size or muscularity. Is it that we have created an expectation that women are inferior by having open and women's events? Perhaps we need to carry the Blanchard doctrine a step further, and not restrict any events by gender. Then the women's event cannot be considered to be of lesser importance; the top women will be constrained to enter the open events if they wish to compete, and sooner or later some of them will win. This is where real agenda against sexism should lie...not in the perversion of language to right a slight that was never really there. -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 10:53 PM Subject: Re: singular they; was Re: Minor Penalty Card >In article , StefTaurus@aol.com writes > >snip > >>I am not now, and never have been, on a crusade to change people's usage of >>English; I am quite aware of the futility of such an undertaking. But I >>support those who eschew some people's idea of 'correct English' in an >>attempt to be 'correct' in a broader sense. > >As one of those who is not particularly PC (favourite joke: Q. Why did >He create She? A. He had trouble teaching sheep to type.), nonetheless >I'm totally with Steffie: English is as she is spoke. Period. > >It's like Acol. There are no right answers. > >chs john >> >>Stefanie Rohan > >-- >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 -- Craig Senior Q. How many blondes does it take to win the Bermuda Bowl? ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// A. Four if they play their cards right. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 04:51:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 04:51:56 +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 EAA01667 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 04:51:48 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA24644; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:51:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-44.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.44) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma024210; Thu Sep 23 13:48:07 1999 Message-ID: <005401bf05f4$757627a0$2c84d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "BLML" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 14:50:05 -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 I'm certainly no expert, but thought I should mention that Adam's posts thread with no problem for me using Outlook Express. Craig -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan To: BLML Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 7:03 PM Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook > >Anne wrote: > >> >> Yes Roger. I echo David's congratulations. Perhaps Adam would like to = >> >> consult you! >> > >> >Are BLML readers having problems with my e-mails? >> >> Yes Adam. They refuse to thread. >> For instance this thread was started by Roger and when opened has mailings >> from Roger/David/Roger/Anne and then standing alone unthreaded and some >> distance away is your latest posting. >> This is not a problem of mega magnitude, but it's the little anoyances that >> send the blood pressure up :-) >> >> Anne > >Hmmm . . . I don't understand why. I was asking because I was hoping >to find out from others, besides you, whether they were having the >same problem. The problem could be something peculiar to the software >you use to read e-mail. > >In fact, it makes no sense at all that my messages don't thread. >Comparing the headers on the one I sent to the one you just sent, mine >has this header that yours doesn't: > > In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:24:29 PDT." > <01bf0499$379544e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> > >while yours has these headers that mine doesn't: > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-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 > >It baffles me that your message would thread and mine wouldn't, unless >there's a bug in the program you're using. > >Does anyone reading this have any idea what my headers *should* >contain that they don't? If there's something that would help, I can >possibly tweak things to make sure my outgoing mail contains those >headers. (However, I'm using a system at work and cannot simply get a >new e-mail program and use it.) > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 05:02:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 05:02:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f11.hotmail.com [207.82.250.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA01714 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 05:02:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 30547 invoked by uid 0); 23 Sep 1999 19:01:26 -0000 Message-ID: <19990923190126.30546.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:01:26 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Problem of score assignment Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:01:26 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Ed Reppert >Michael Farebrother writes: > > >I disagree here. They were not "in no way at fault" (L12C1). I > >want to give them A- as well, and I'd ask questions, hoping to find > > >them at fault. If I can't, I would consider them at least > >"partially >at fault" and award Average (50% at pairs). > >Shades of the Inquisition! Do you _really_ mean this the way it >sounds? >:-( > Well, Directing is an example of Inquisitory Jurisprudence, so yeah, sort of. But I know that's not what you mean... Not sure how it sounds, but I always ask enough questions to find out what happened. And I don't want to be giving out A-/A+, when both pairs were sitting at the table the whole time, and they all weren't watching to see that the new board was the old board, 180-switched. After all, there were only two boards on the table. I can imagine North: "We get 40% because we are legally responsible, but they get 60% because they were in no way at fault? They were there the whole time!" And playing wrong boards upsets movements, especially swiss-seeded barometer ones. This is not the kind of behaviour I want to encourage, even by inaction. Now, I can see giving A-/A+ in the standard "played wrong board" case where N-S kept their last round boards and passed their new ones down the table. I would like to be able to expect E-W to know their boards were out of sequence, but I don't think I can, in good grace. I can also see A-/A+ (or even A/A- or A+/A-) if one player pulled out the cards of her partner to berate him over the idiocy he just committed, and in the process of breaching large numbers of the Laws and Proprieties, caused the board to turn around instead of be flipped under. I am not intending Inquisition - I am just coming to the table, finding out what happened, and assigning a score based on the information received. In this particular case, though, it's going to take a lot of convincing to make me rule that E-W are "in no way at fault" (A+). It will take some convincing, but definately doable, that they "are only partially at fault" (A=). Finally, IIRC, the movement was Swiss Pairs, Barometer. In all the versions of this movement I have run, there are no stationary players, unless luck or skill (or lack of skill, at least at the tables I end up at) keeps them in one place. So we may have a different argument on L7D - it is entirely possible that either both pairs "remain[] at a table throught a session", and A-/A- is automatic (i.e. if a session is the round) or neither pair does (and what do we assign here, when none of the two contestants at the table is "primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table" (if the session is the event, or the uninterrupted time of play, at least). Which only opens up more cans, of course. Michael (he of the worms). ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 07:32:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 07:32:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.mail.gxn.net [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02065 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 07:32:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb8s11a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.171.185] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11UGTh-0000nA-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 22:32:34 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 22:36:57 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf060b$c2daf680$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: Craig Senior To: BLML ; Adam Beneschan Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 8:05 PM Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook >I'm certainly no expert, but thought I should mention that Adam's posts >thread with no problem for me using Outlook Express. That's good enough for me. While it seems strange that everyone else's behaves OK in my Outlook , I am happy to accept that it is not a problem if I am the only one with difficulties. Sorry Adam for thinking it was your fault. Thanks Craig and Pam Thanks Roger Pewick for reducing my unthreaded mail by 50%. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 08:18:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:18:47 +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 IAA02164 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:18:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn47p42.ozemail.com.au [210.84.2.107]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA16641 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:18:36 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990924083143.00918850@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:31:43 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: RE: This field has been left blank on purpose In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3C5@XION> References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589385@XION> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:33 PM 23/09/99 +0200, you wrote: >Anne Jones wrote: >>>Last night, after a competitive auction, LHO bid 3NT which was passed >round >>>to me. I doubled, partner now bid 3S, not accepted. When this was >changed >>>to a pass, my double was cancelled and I was not able to re-instate it, >>>much to my annoyance..until declarer rolled in 9 tricks without drawing >>>breath. >> >>I assume that you are not joking. >>The TD should have read L27B2. The insufficient bid was not accepted so had How extraordinary. Of course you are all correct. In fact, on reflection the TD at the table got it right as well. However amid the general hilarity and recriminations after the hand, we all assumed that because partner had been forbidden to double, and I had been barred from further bidding, that the contract had magically been undoubled. I'm off to 'fess up, Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 09:14:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:14:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02290 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:14:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial44.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.44]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA27366; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:14:41 -0400 To: "John Probst" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 3:44 AM +0100 9/23/99, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Extract from the results of the usual suspect game at the Young Chelsea >Wednesday Night (Tough wild game etc). 39 Pairs > >Pos Pr Names................................ MPs %Age >38 44 Mrs Guggenheim and Mr Guggenheim 301 40.14 >39 7 David Stevenson and Junior Int'al 189 25.24 > >Top = 30 Average = 375 > >This is NOT a PSYCHE. He went through the boards with me and IT IS TRUE. > >I felt you should know. We need to be told. chs John DWS and partner must have been filling in to make up an add number of pairs. I've never finished ahead of the Guggenheims myself! AW From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 11:36:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02765 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:34 +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 11UJX6-000CV0-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:48:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:28:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook References: <005401bf05f4$757627a0$2c84d9ce@host> In-Reply-To: <005401bf05f4$757627a0$2c84d9ce@host> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >I'm certainly no expert, but thought I should mention that Adam's posts >thread with no problem for me using Outlook Express. They thread perfectly well for me using Turnpike. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 24 11:39:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:39:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc2.occa.home.com [24.2.8.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02907 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:39:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from home.com ([24.5.183.132]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19990924013911.YXZF14774.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:39:11 -0700 Message-ID: <37EAD743.32373ACA@home.com> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:43:31 -0700 From: Linda Trent Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-AtHome0405 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws discussion group Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook References: <005401bf05f4$757627a0$2c84d9ce@host> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nor mine - in either Netscape or Euduora Pro... Linda Craig Senior wrote: > > I'm certainly no expert, but thought I should mention that Adam's posts > thread with no problem for me using Outlook Express. > > Craig > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Beneschan > To: BLML > Cc: adam@irvine.com > Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 7:03 PM > Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook > > > > >Anne wrote: > > > >> >> Yes Roger. I echo David's congratulations. Perhaps Adam would like to > = > >> >> consult you! > >> > > >> >Are BLML readers having problems with my e-mails? > >> > >> Yes Adam. They refuse to thread. > >> For instance this thread was started by Roger and when opened has > mailings > >> from Roger/David/Roger/Anne and then standing alone unthreaded and some > >> distance away is your latest posting. > >> This is not a problem of mega magnitude, but it's the little anoyances > that > >> send the blood pressure up :-) > >> > >> Anne > > > >Hmmm . . . I don't understand why. I was asking because I was hoping > >to find out from others, besides you, whether they were having the > >same problem. The problem could be something peculiar to the software > >you use to read e-mail. > > > >In fact, it makes no sense at all that my messages don't thread. > >Comparing the headers on the one I sent to the one you just sent, mine > >has this header that yours doesn't: > > > > In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:24:29 PDT." > > <01bf0499$379544e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> > > > >while yours has these headers that mine doesn't: > > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-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 > > > >It baffles me that your message would thread and mine wouldn't, unless > >there's a bug in the program you're using. > > > >Does anyone reading this have any idea what my headers *should* > >contain that they don't? If there's something that would help, I can > >possibly tweak things to make sure my outgoing mail contains those > >headers. (However, I'm using a system at work and cannot simply get a > >new e-mail program and use it.) > > > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 12:36:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02761 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:30 +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 11UJX3-000CUy-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:48:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:23:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: singular they; was Re: Minor Penalty Card References: <199909221810.TAA00737@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199909221810.TAA00737@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >I avoiding responding when DWS said that the dictionary defines "they" as >plural when even quite small dictionaries admit it is used as a singular >pronoun. I am quite sure I didn't. Please could you tell me when I made this claim so completely alien to my nature. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 24 13:10:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:53 +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 KAA02782 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11UJX7-000NkG-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:48:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:29:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! 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: >Extract from the results of the usual suspect game at the Young Chelsea >Wednesday Night (Tough wild game etc). 39 Pairs > >Pos Pr Names................................ MPs %Age >38 44 Mrs Guggenheim and Mr Guggenheim 301 40.14 >39 7 David Stevenson and Junior Int'al 189 25.24 > >Top = 30 Average = 375 > >This is NOT a PSYCHE. He went through the boards with me and IT IS TRUE. > >I felt you should know. We need to be told. chs John It is not true. It is lies. They re-scored it after finding three errors. I actually scored 23.016%. Full story to RGB. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 24 13:36:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02762 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:31 +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 11UJX4-000CUz-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:48:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:26:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837589385@XION> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3C5@XION> In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3C5@XION> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >Anne Jones wrote: >>>Last night, after a competitive auction, LHO bid 3NT which was passed >round >>>to me. I doubled, partner now bid 3S, not accepted. When this was >changed >>>to a pass, my double was cancelled and I was not able to re-instate it, >>>much to my annoyance..until declarer rolled in 9 tricks without drawing >>>breath. >> >>I assume that you are not joking. >>The TD should have read L27B2. The insufficient bid was not accepted so had >> to be made sufficient. In that your partner chose to pass, this will >>silence you for >>the remainder of the auction. You are defending 3NT doubled. >>I assume it is now outside the correction period, but if it was not, your >>opponents >>could ask for a ruling under L82C. It is certainly not a Law 72 situation >as >>his >>insufficient bid cannot cancel any call you have already made. > >I think it is a little too early for 82C. Can't we simply write 3NTX= >(i.e. 82B1) After all, the removal of the double didn't influence the >auction, and neither did the play (apparently). No, you cannot, because TDs are not allowed to change scores on a whim. The result obtained at the table was 3NT=, yes? How can you change that without a Law? Is there a Law that allows a change? Yes, L82C. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 24 13:38:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:41 +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 KAA02749 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:24 +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 11UJWy-000CUz-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:48:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:54:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents 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: >David Stevenson writes >> You say: >> >>> Perhaps I >>>paint a wilder picture than actually obtains >> >>... and yet you are going to rule that at imps YC players are going to >>risk a game contract for overtricks when there is no reason to suppose >>the odds are in their favour. >I think that the expectation is positive for the finesse. >prima facie it is 50%, and only needs to be 80% for a positive payback. >The high frequency of 4 card weak 2's is strongly in favour of the >finesse. Since the dawn of time players having been discovering a <***BELLS CLANG***> *NEW* *IDEA*. It is that if you try for overtricks at imps in some situations the odds favour you. I have read an article in Bridge Magazine when it was A4 size [twenty-five years ago?] arguing this: I have heard people expounding it for ever. It is rubbish, and decent players do not follow it - or if they do, they find a dearth of team-mates and partners. At Bridge you are trying to win an event. Doesn't matter whether it is the Spingold, the Bermuda Bowl or the YC Friday night, that is what you are trying to do. Big losses do not lead to winning events - and ***nor do small gains***! So when the odds favour trying a 1 imp in or 13 out play, good players ignore the odds because they are still a losing policy. 12 tricks - next case. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 14:07:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:42 +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 KAA02750 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:24 +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 11UJWy-000CV0-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:48:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:58:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Computer dealt hands References: <00ff01bf052d$02da6e80$6beff1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <00ff01bf052d$02da6e80$6beff1c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac Fuchs wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >>Peter Newman wrote: >> >>>As some of you may be aware the 1998 National Open Teams in Australia was >>>marred when in the quarter finals after 30 boards (of 40) it was noticed >>>that the hands being played were identical to hands from the 1997 VCC >>>(another Australian National championship). >>> >>>We have had some reports that some clubs have accidentally dealt the same >>>hands and so used the same hands in different events. These typically have >>>been club duplicates. >>>This raises a number of issues - for masterpoint purposes should these >>>'fouled' sessions count? [I can see players screaming very loudly if >>>someone tries to take the masterpoints away]. If it is a multi-session >>>event should the scores from that fouled session apply. Should the results >>>only count if the players haven't played the hands before? >>> >>>Does anybody have regulations to cover this type of situation? I am sure >it >>>is not unique to Australia... >> >>LAW 6 - THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL >> >>D. New Shuffle and Redeal >> 2. No Shuffle, or No Deal >> No result may stand if the cards are dealt >> without shuffle from a sorted pack, or if the >> deal had previously been played in a different >> session. >> >> It is Law, not Regulation. "No result may stand ..." is final. >> > > >Remark: I had prepared this reply before the one by John Probst arrived. >Mine is similar to his, but somewhat less in jest, and I would appreciate >to have this matter discussed further, so here is my mail in spite of mine >being posted later than John's. > >Of course I agree with your assertion that "no result may stand ...", >but I am afraid I disagree with your use of L6 to justify it. >L6 gives two reasons for not allowing a result to stand: >1) if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted pack. >This either applies for ALL computer dealt hands or for NONE. >Assuming we don't want to bar any computer dealing I take it >that you did ruled this condition out. >2) if the deal had previously been played in a different session. >Now we really have a difficulty here. I assume the law makers merely >intended L6 to applies to sessions of *the same* event. >Is my assumption correct ?? No, if it meant that why not put it in the Law. >If it is, this does not cover Peter's problem, for the hands were >"merely" played at another event previously, not at the same event. >If it is not, we would be obliged to verify for any hand that we intend to >play whether that particular distribution of the cards did occur before in >any deal from the first hand played aboard the S.S. Finland onwards. We thus >set ourselves an impossible task. Of course we don't. The Law does not say that we should attempt this silly verification. >So yes, the results cannot stand, but no, i.m.h.o. this cannot be justified >by >quoting L6. Well, you have assumed L6 means other than it says. I believe it means what it says. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 24 14:36:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:07:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from hummvee.islandia.is (hummvee.islandia.is [194.144.156.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03226 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:06:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from svenni (nas567.islandia.is [194.144.158.47]) by hummvee.islandia.is (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id EAA40994 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 04:09:14 GMT (envelope-from svenni@islandia.is) Message-ID: <002401bf0639$e0654920$2f9e90c2@svenni> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sveinn_R=FAnar_Eir=EDksson?= To: References: <19990923190126.30546.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Problem of score assignment Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 04:07:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Guess I was in a little bit too much haste when I wrote the original arcticle. The format was Monrad Barometer. I wasnt sure if everyone would understand Monrad so I put (Swiss) behind it as some refer to Monrad as Swiss, like some chessplayers. I also thought that if playing Barometer with imp-scoring it would be referred to as IMP-pairs. Any way, there is no stationary pair(s) and both pairs are responsible for writing the correct result, at least here as we have signature lines that both pairs have to sign. Isnt it automatic to penalise each pair for 10% of top score of one board for procedural penalty? Thanks for clearing this mess for me! :-)) Regards SVenni From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 14:46:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02758 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:48:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11UJX2-000Nk5-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:48:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:17:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Computer dealt hands References: <024a01bf0617$b577b940$70de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <024a01bf0617$b577b940$70de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >At the time of the incident Peter Newman was living in Japan. I was there >and several matters, which arose at the time, may be of interest to >BLML...... > >At the 1998 Australian Nationals some players argued that, when the >recurrent hands appeared in the third quarter of their Round of 16 knockout >matches, none of the players in their match had played the hands before, >because they had not played in the other event 6 months earlier. >They argued further that in simultaneous pairs events we sometimes use a set >of hands, say from a US National 30 years earlier, which have been played >before, but have not been previously played by the actual players. >Their argument was: What's the difference? Both times the players have not >played the hands before. Shouldn't the results stand? Surely Law 6D2 doesn't >apply, due to the word "session". >Or should we cancel all the results of (and masterpoints from) Simultaneous >Pairs events which use hands from bygone sessions? > >One team was particularly strident in wanting the recurrent set retained, >because their team, lacking players who participated in the earlier event, >had gained many imps in the recurrent set over their opponents who had >played the boards before! > >Note that the recurrent hand problem was not noticed until the 3/4 time >break in the matches. The committee met and had to decide: >(1) do we cancel the recurrent boards and replay the set (this is what they >decided lto do, largely due to Law 6D2 not reading "session of the same >event", after they had obtained copies of the relevant sets by FAX), or >(2) do we allow the scores to stand because none of the players remembered >the hands (except perhaps subconsciously) from six months earlier, or >(3) do we cancel the scores of matches where one or more of the players >played in the earlier event, and allow the scores to stand if none of the >players played in the earlier event? This argument was dismissed, partly >because the non-players may have heard their friends talking about the >hands, and partly because there seemed to be no law or regulation to permit >such a ruling. > >A further problem was to consider which other sets had recurred. I believe >this remains a mystery to the present day, as it is very difficult to find >out. > >My long explanation may help explain why Jan's point about the "different >session" is so important; the word "session" rather than "event" in Law 6D2 >may be related to the concept that "the same players have had the >opportunity to play the same hands earlier". > >A question. More than a year after the incident it appears that the hands >from a different Australian event (the Men's Pairs) had been played in a >Zonal playoff in New Zealand 9 months earlier. Two contestants participated >in both events. According to BLML logic (so far), I wonder if the >masterpoints for this event should be retrospectively cancelled if the >boards are confirmed to have occurred twice. Note that none of the players >noticed; it has only been noticed by someone now because a spectacular freak >hand from each event was written up in the different countries. > >Another question. In the 1982 playoff for the Australian team, the same set >of boards occurred in two sessions. Just one pair from each team played the >boards twice; both pairs happened to rotate 180 degrees the second time. >This was discovered two months afterwards from the hand records. We'll >assume that the results the second time are sufficient to change which team >won (an assumption, probably not the actual case). Should the boards be >cancelled? Should the Australian team be altered? One of the complaints about NABC appeals is that ACs tend to make up their own Laws, and do what they feel to be right. OK, I am not suggesting it is true, but there will always be some people, whether TDs, ACs or NAs who make up Laws for particular positions. Is this a good idea? L6D2 does not permit a score to be obtained when the board was played previously in a different session. The only defensible approach to take is that [a] it means what it says and [b] that it applies. OK, I can understand if authorities want to do otherwise in these tricky situations, but my guess is it will cost them an extremely large amount in the Law Courts if they adopt such an approach. --------- Two further comments. Simultaneous Pairs with selected hands is not bridge anyway. It really does not matter that there is a breach of L6D2 since most of the rest of L6 has been breached. This is basically similar to Level 1 restrictions in England/Wales, and beginner games elsewhere: they are games that are not real bridge, but are considered an acceptable form. The reason for the word "session" in L6D2 is because the 1987 Laws outlawed all Duplicate Bridge in their version of L6D2, so it was needed to add a word to make it mean what it was supposed to mean. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 24 15:51:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:51:49 +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 PAA03489 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:51:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id BAA28896 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:51:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id BAA28340 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:51:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909240551.BAA28340@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > So when the odds favour trying a 1 imp in or > 13 out play, good players ignore the odds because they are still a > losing policy. David desJardines (hope I've spelled that right) once expressed a quite different opinion on RGB. (For those who don't know, DdJ is a mathematician and superb bridge analyst. I suspect he is also a fine player, but I can't testify to that.) Do we at least agree that the legal question is whether taking the finesse is or is not rational? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 16:17:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:17:51 +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 QAA03532 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:17:40 +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 CAA29040 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 02:17:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id CAA28372 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 02:17:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 02:17:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909240617.CAA28372@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: Computer dealt hands X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" > Or should we cancel all the results of (and masterpoints from) Simultaneous > Pairs events which use hands from bygone sessions? These are presumably "special contests" under L81F (?? -- no FLB at hand). SO's are allowed to make up their own rules for those. > A question. More than a year after the incident it appears that the hands > from a different Australian event (the Men's Pairs) had been played One supposes that the correction period had expired by the time the problem was discovered. > From: David Stevenson > Well, you have assumed L6 means other than it says. I believe it > means what it says. This approach can be applied to quite a few other laws as well. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 18:56:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA03730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:56:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03725 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:56:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from idt.net (ppp-26.ts-2.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.74]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id EAA05856; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 04:55:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37EB3C56.68494A26@idt.net> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:54:46 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just to show the kind of directors we have here in Los Angeles, in a recent (Tuesday) continuous Pairs event, Mark Itabashi and Rhoda Walsh had a 229 (74%) and LOST to a pair of directors who had a 234 1/2 (75%)!!!!! Send David over here when he learns a little about playing as well as directing :)))) Irv David Stevenson wrote: > > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >Extract from the results of the usual suspect game at the Young Chelsea > >Wednesday Night (Tough wild game etc). 39 Pairs > > > >Pos Pr Names................................ MPs %Age > >38 44 Mrs Guggenheim and Mr Guggenheim 301 40.14 > >39 7 David Stevenson and Junior Int'al 189 25.24 > > > >Top = 30 Average = 375 > > > >This is NOT a PSYCHE. He went through the boards with me and IT IS TRUE. > > > >I felt you should know. We need to be told. chs John > > It is not true. It is lies. They re-scored it after finding three > errors. I actually scored 23.016%. > > Full story to RGB. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 24 19:54:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 19:54:56 +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 TAA03797 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 19:54:47 +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 KAA23885; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:49:47 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA11148; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:49:44 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:49:44 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07960; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:49:41 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA01505; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:49:04 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:49:04 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199909240949.KAA01505@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: singular they; was Re: Minor Penalty Card Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David wrote: > Robin Barker wrote: > >I avoiding responding when DWS said that the dictionary defines "they" as > >plural when even quite small dictionaries admit it is used as a singular > >pronoun. > > I am quite sure I didn't. Please could you tell me when I made this > claim so completely alien to my nature. David I didn't mean to misquote you. > They refers to more than one person, and the use of "they" because the > person using it does not want to ascribe a gender to the particular > person is not English. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ The text I remembered (above) made no reference to dictionaries: as it made such authoritive statements, I assumed (incorrectly) that you had cited some authority for your words. Obviously I should have kept my mouth shut on this subject. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 21:10:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:10:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from loger.inter.net.il (loger.inter.net.il [192.116.192.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03976 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:09:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-4-106.access.net.il [213.8.4.106] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07045; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:08:18 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37EB5BD8.BD533589@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:09:12 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Bley CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: PP after UI References: <3.0.6.32.19990921091051.007a5a30@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I try to point again that people play bridge for joy .... The rules were made to help them enjoy , in the "british gentlemen's way".. trying to keep "equity" , etc... So we should be very careful to decrease a pair's result when there is no very evident reason - it means something like (and excuse me for the too tough language..) : "..you tried to get a good result in a dirty illegal way , therefore we use the most dirty rights as TD to make you pay for it ..." . The practical situation - which is stil a question of judgment/evaluation - is an action which would almost never exist in a "sane" player call/play . Dany Richard Bley wrote: > > There is surely a case for giving PP after using UI. But if I give an > adjusted score there is very rarely a case for giving PP in my opinion. > That is what David although said. But sometimes there are cases where using > UI dont result in an adjusted score. In these cases the PP is more in reach > at least in my approach. > What do you think of it? > > Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 21:09:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:09:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from loger.inter.net.il (loger.inter.net.il [192.116.192.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03963 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:09:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-4-106.access.net.il [213.8.4.106] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07105; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:08:28 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37EB5BE6.315157F0@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:09:26 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Jones CC: BLML Subject: Re: References: <01bf05b4$f1f9df00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OI............you an antifeminist , chauvinistic, etc...??? As much as I know Ladies TD - either they have no idea about laws , or they are the best , because they know the laws very well and are sensitive to the flavor of bridge..... Cheers Dany Anne Jones wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Musgrove > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 8:09 AM > > >Last night, after a competitive auction, LHO bid 3NT which was passed round > >to me. I doubled, partner now bid 3S, not accepted. When this was changed > >to a pass, my double was cancelled and I was not able to re-instate it, > >much to my annoyance..until declarer rolled in 9 tricks without drawing > >breath. > > I assume that you are not joking. > The TD should have read L27B2. The insufficient bid was not accepted so had > to be made sufficient. In that your partner chose to pass, this will > silence you for > the remainder of the auction. You are defending 3NT doubled. > I assume it is now outside the correction period, but if it was not, your > opponents > could ask for a ruling under L82C. It is certainly not a Law 72 situation as > his > insufficient bid cannot cancel any call you have already made. > > Maybe the TD read L27 (partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call) as > this > cancels all bids he has ever made. It takes female logic to think of that:-) > > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 21:09:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:09:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from loger.inter.net.il (loger.inter.net.il [192.116.192.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03964 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:09:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-4-106.access.net.il [213.8.4.106] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07122; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:08:34 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37EB5BED.CEE4A466@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:09:33 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dburn@btinternet.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: PP after UI References: <37e8b9df.4d71.0@btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk dburn@btinternet.com wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > [snip] > > Some years ago, there was concern that the average player was confused about > his rights and obligations in UI positions. The most common perception appeared > to be that once partner had hesitated, you were in effect barred from making > calls other than pass. At that time, there was much confused thinking among > players and administrators alike as to the legal position (there still is, of > course, but there is slightly more clarity these days). I remember those times , when myself suffered more than once , because keeping 8 Spades in my hand it was "using UI" when partner thought more than regular to bid 3NT and I bid 4 Sp.........One of our best TD , and I believe in Europe too , changed the score to 3NT -1 ; telling me that it is stupid to play it in 3NT , but " you are banned to bid anymore because he bid out of tempo"....I believe that today it will be..... (I prefer not to use nonacademical words). > As L&E chair at that time, I wrote a piece in the EBU's bi-monthly magazine, > which attempted to address the confusion in simple terms. To that end, I was > anxious to emphasise that players were not barred from taking "obvious" actions The definition of "obvious" is still problematic , because at bridge - as in many branches of science and usual life - what is obvious for you isn't for me and vice-versa..... > just because they had received UI. I deliberately did not use the words "logical > alternative", because nobody knew (then, as now) what those words meant. Nor > did I prescribe that players should evaluate all possible actions that they > might take, and then reject any that were suggested by the UI. Firstly, that > is far too complicated for the average club player; secondly, it is not what > the Law requires. The words "over another" in L16 are (a) very important and > (b) almost always ignored. > > The advice to "bid what you would have bid anyway" and to "act as though you > were not in possession of UI", but to accept a ruling should one be given, were > an attempt to simplify a complex legal procedure for the benefit of the average > player. Such advice would, in my view, work in the great majority of cases, > and would provide a clear indication to players that they were not costrained > to take no action other than pass in the presence of UI. this is the way I acted as TD many years , and the players were very confortable with it , but many times their remarks were .."yesterday the TD in Z club told us we are not allowed to call/bid...because of the infraction...." . Well I agree 100% with David Burn's approach , and it convince me to add LAW 99 - "... > I do not consider that I have been quoted incorrectly or unfairly. As Mr Vickers > pointed out, the article was aimed at players who would not be capable of appreciating > the detailed ramifications of L16 and L73. > > David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 21:19:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:19:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from loger.inter.net.il (loger.inter.net.il [192.116.192.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA04017 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:19:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-4-106.access.net.il [213.8.4.106] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08583; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:18:14 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37EB5E30.F521AB7E@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:19:12 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Beneschan CC: BLML Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook References: <199909222302.QAA16386@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No threading problems........... We have some difficulties to answer them , but this is another story........... Keep on Adam ! Dany Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Anne wrote: > > > >> Yes Roger. I echo David's congratulations. Perhaps Adam would like to = > > >> consult you! > > > > > >Are BLML readers having problems with my e-mails? > > > > Yes Adam. They refuse to thread. > > For instance this thread was started by Roger and when opened has mailings > > from Roger/David/Roger/Anne and then standing alone unthreaded and some > > distance away is your latest posting. > > This is not a problem of mega magnitude, but it's the little anoyances that > > send the blood pressure up :-) > > > > Anne > > Hmmm . . . I don't understand why. I was asking because I was hoping > to find out from others, besides you, whether they were having the > same problem. The problem could be something peculiar to the software > you use to read e-mail. > > In fact, it makes no sense at all that my messages don't thread. > Comparing the headers on the one I sent to the one you just sent, mine > has this header that yours doesn't: > > In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:24:29 PDT." > <01bf0499$379544e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> > > while yours has these headers that mine doesn't: > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-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 > > It baffles me that your message would thread and mine wouldn't, unless > there's a bug in the program you're using. > > Does anyone reading this have any idea what my headers *should* > contain that they don't? If there's something that would help, I can > possibly tweak things to make sure my outgoing mail contains those > headers. (However, I'm using a system at work and cannot simply get a > new e-mail program and use it.) > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 21:57:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:57:35 +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 VAA04090 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:57:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from pbes03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.191] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11UTy0-00058K-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 12:56:45 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:01:16 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0684$813a6200$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Dany Haimovici To: Anne Jones Cc: BLML Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 12:28 PM Subject: Re: >OI............you an antifeminist , chauvinistic, etc...??? > >As much as I know Ladies TD - either they have no idea about laws , or >they are the best , because they know the laws very well and are >sensitive to the flavor of bridge..... > >Cheers >Dany It was my own female logic that I was laughing at. I always assume that when we are told about a TDs ruling, that we are talking about male TDs. If the TD in question was a lady, I apologise to her.(him or them:-) Anne > > >Anne Jones wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tony Musgrove >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 8:09 AM >> >> >Last night, after a competitive auction, LHO bid 3NT which was passed round >> >to me. I doubled, partner now bid 3S, not accepted. When this was changed >> >to a pass, my double was cancelled and I was not able to re-instate it, >> >much to my annoyance..until declarer rolled in 9 tricks without drawing >> >breath. >> >> I assume that you are not joking. >> The TD should have read L27B2. The insufficient bid was not accepted so had >> to be made sufficient. In that your partner chose to pass, this will >> silence you for >> the remainder of the auction. You are defending 3NT doubled. >> I assume it is now outside the correction period, but if it was not, your >> opponents >> could ask for a ruling under L82C. It is certainly not a Law 72 situation as >> his >> insufficient bid cannot cancel any call you have already made. >> >> Maybe the TD read L27 (partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call) as >> this >> cancels all bids he has ever made. It takes female logic to think of that:-) >> >> Anne > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 24 22:53:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:53:25 +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 WAA04203 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:53:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from orr.tpsgc.gc.ca (magi.com) [198.103.167.14] by mail.magi.com with esmtp (Exim 1.80 #5) id 11UUqX-0000UA-00; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:53:05 -0400 Message-ID: <37EB742F.9BC88865@magi.com> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:53:03 -0400 From: David Kent Organization: PWGSC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > At 3:44 AM +0100 9/23/99, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >Extract from the results of the usual suspect game at the Young Chelsea > >Wednesday Night (Tough wild game etc). 39 Pairs > > > >Pos Pr Names................................ MPs %Age > >38 44 Mrs Guggenheim and Mr Guggenheim 301 40.14 > >39 7 David Stevenson and Junior Int'al 189 25.24 > > > >Top = 30 Average = 375 > > > >This is NOT a PSYCHE. He went through the boards with me and IT IS TRUE. > > > >I felt you should know. We need to be told. chs John > > DWS and partner must have been filling in to make up an add number of pairs. > > I've never finished ahead of the Guggenheims myself! > > AW Hmmmm. Very interesting. In GB do you number your pairs in octal? Dave Kent From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 00:33:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 00:33:13 +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 AAA04480 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 00:33:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA27962; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:31:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-195.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.195) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma027812; Fri Sep 24 09:31:10 1999 Message-ID: <002a01bf0699$bb5c1400$c384d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Computer dealt hands Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:33:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How about this scenario then? Team BL narrowly loses an important match. They feed all of the hand records into their supercomputer and seek a match with any hand ever quoted in the bridge literature. Finding that a hand on which they received a poor score had indeed been played years ago in another venue they seek to have that board cancelled and thus win the match. Is that really what we want? You tell Herman you would not go to extremes looking for violations of this law...but what if the BL'ers mine this new mother lode for winning other than by superior bidding and play? Somehow we allowed common sense to prevail for the 10 years that the Law banned duplicate, and did not cancel all results from the matches held in that period. Is there not some way we may use common sense here, rather than read the law literally, at least until it can be revised to eliminate the silliness of throwing out perfectly sound at the table results. By the way, is replay duplicate actually bad? A number of people have told me it is a rather fun memory testing game. Is it perhaps some variant of bridge? I concede it is not duplicate contract bridge. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Computer dealt hands >Jac Fuchs wrote: >> >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>Peter Newman wrote: >>> >>>>As some of you may be aware the 1998 National Open Teams in Australia was >>>>marred when in the quarter finals after 30 boards (of 40) it was noticed >>>>that the hands being played were identical to hands from the 1997 VCC >>>>(another Australian National championship). >>>> >>>>We have had some reports that some clubs have accidentally dealt the same >>>>hands and so used the same hands in different events. These typically have >>>>been club duplicates. >>>>This raises a number of issues - for masterpoint purposes should these >>>>'fouled' sessions count? [I can see players screaming very loudly if >>>>someone tries to take the masterpoints away]. If it is a multi-session >>>>event should the scores from that fouled session apply. Should the results >>>>only count if the players haven't played the hands before? >>>> >>>>Does anybody have regulations to cover this type of situation? I am sure >>it >>>>is not unique to Australia... >>> >>>LAW 6 - THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL >>> >>>D. New Shuffle and Redeal >>> 2. No Shuffle, or No Deal >>> No result may stand if the cards are dealt >>> without shuffle from a sorted pack, or if the >>> deal had previously been played in a different >>> session. >>> >>> It is Law, not Regulation. "No result may stand ..." is final. >>> >> >> >>Remark: I had prepared this reply before the one by John Probst arrived. >>Mine is similar to his, but somewhat less in jest, and I would appreciate >>to have this matter discussed further, so here is my mail in spite of mine >>being posted later than John's. >> >>Of course I agree with your assertion that "no result may stand ...", >>but I am afraid I disagree with your use of L6 to justify it. >>L6 gives two reasons for not allowing a result to stand: >>1) if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted pack. >>This either applies for ALL computer dealt hands or for NONE. >>Assuming we don't want to bar any computer dealing I take it >>that you did ruled this condition out. >>2) if the deal had previously been played in a different session. >>Now we really have a difficulty here. I assume the law makers merely >>intended L6 to applies to sessions of *the same* event. >>Is my assumption correct ?? > > No, if it meant that why not put it in the Law. > >>If it is, this does not cover Peter's problem, for the hands were >>"merely" played at another event previously, not at the same event. >>If it is not, we would be obliged to verify for any hand that we intend to >>play whether that particular distribution of the cards did occur before in >>any deal from the first hand played aboard the S.S. Finland onwards. We thus >>set ourselves an impossible task. > > Of course we don't. The Law does not say that we should attempt this >silly verification. > >>So yes, the results cannot stand, but no, i.m.h.o. this cannot be justified >>by >>quoting L6. > > Well, you have assumed L6 means other than it says. I believe it >means what it says. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 25 01:11:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:11:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04576 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:11:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11UWyk-0002bL-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:09:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:43:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents References: <199909240551.BAA28340@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909240551.BAA28340@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 >> So when the odds favour trying a 1 imp in or >> 13 out play, good players ignore the odds because they are still a >> losing policy. > >David desJardines (hope I've spelled that right) once expressed a >quite different opinion on RGB. (For those who don't know, DdJ is >a mathematician and superb bridge analyst. I suspect he is also >a fine player, but I can't testify to that.) > >Do we at least agree that the legal question is whether taking >the finesse is or is not rational? No. Normal, as defined in the Laws. That includes careless and inferior but not irrational [1]. Nearly the same thing. I believe to finesse in the given situation for the class of player assumed [2] is irrational. [1] Quoted from memory [2] Now we know who the player was it could be argued differently but all my previous remarks which I stand by were based on a typical YC player rather than the actual 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 Sep 25 01:12:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:12:22 +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 BAA04585 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:12:13 +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 11UWyM-000NBZ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:09:20 +0000 Message-ID: <6Z4ViVCte163Ewj7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:51:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Computer dealt hands References: <199909240617.CAA28372@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909240617.CAA28372@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Peter Gill" >> Or should we cancel all the results of (and masterpoints from) Simultaneous >> Pairs events which use hands from bygone sessions? > >These are presumably "special contests" under L81F (?? -- no FLB at hand). >SO's are allowed to make up their own rules for those. Really? I did not know that. When are we playing in an anti- clockwise tournament then? Nothing gives SOs the right to suspend the Laws except in specific situations - in effect only for the effects of screens. >> A question. More than a year after the incident it appears that the hands >> from a different Australian event (the Men's Pairs) had been played > >One supposes that the correction period had expired by the time the >problem was discovered. That's an effective argument. We are back to the Kojak problem with L62/63 though: you are saying that "No result may stand ..." may be superseded by another Law. >> From: David Stevenson >> Well, you have assumed L6 means other than it says. I believe it >> means what it says. >This approach can be applied to quite a few other laws as well. To be honest, we all accept certain things that are not quite as certain Laws say. *BUT* the moment there is a difference of opinion, then we should go for the literal approach if it makes sense. 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 Sat Sep 25 02:45:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 02:45:40 +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 CAA04987 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 02:45:31 +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 11UYTJ-00073Y-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:45:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:41:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: singular they; was Re: Minor Penalty Card References: <199909240949.KAA01505@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199909240949.KAA01505@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > >David wrote: >> Robin Barker wrote: >> >I avoiding responding when DWS said that the dictionary defines "they" as >> >plural when even quite small dictionaries admit it is used as a singular >> >pronoun. >> >> I am quite sure I didn't. Please could you tell me when I made this >> claim so completely alien to my nature. > >David > >I didn't mean to misquote you. > >> They refers to more than one person, and the use of "they" because the >> person using it does not want to ascribe a gender to the particular >> person is not English. >The text I remembered (above) made no reference to dictionaries: >as it made such authoritive statements, I assumed (incorrectly) >that you had cited some authority for your words. > >Obviously I should have kept my mouth shut on this subject. Dictionaries! Pah! when I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, neither more nor less. ... Humpty Dumpty, Alice through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 25 02:45:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 02:45:44 +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 CAA04992 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 02:45:37 +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 11UYTJ-0009F2-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:45:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:41:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! References: <37EB742F.9BC88865@magi.com> In-Reply-To: <37EB742F.9BC88865@magi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Kent wrote: >Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> >> At 3:44 AM +0100 9/23/99, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >Extract from the results of the usual suspect game at the Young Chelsea >> >Wednesday Night (Tough wild game etc). 39 Pairs >> > >> >Pos Pr Names................................ MPs %Age >> >38 44 Mrs Guggenheim and Mr Guggenheim 301 40.14 >> >39 7 David Stevenson and Junior Int'al 189 25.24 >> > >> >Top = 30 Average = 375 >> > >> >This is NOT a PSYCHE. He went through the boards with me and IT IS TRUE. >> > >> >I felt you should know. We need to be told. chs John >> >> DWS and partner must have been filling in to make up an add number of pairs. >> >> I've never finished ahead of the Guggenheims myself! >> >> AW > >Hmmmm. Very interesting. In GB do you number your pairs in octal? No. Why? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 02:56:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 02:56:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe26.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA05037 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 02:56:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 84768 invoked by uid 65534); 24 Sep 1999 16:56:06 -0000 Message-ID: <19990924165606.84767.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.113.86] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:47:12 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 6:54 PM Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >David Stevenson writes > > >> You say: > >> > >>> Perhaps I > >>>paint a wilder picture than actually obtains > >> > >>... and yet you are going to rule that at imps YC players are going to > >>risk a game contract for overtricks when there is no reason to suppose > >>the odds are in their favour. > > >I think that the expectation is positive for the finesse. > >prima facie it is 50%, and only needs to be 80% for a positive payback. > >The high frequency of 4 card weak 2's is strongly in favour of the > >finesse. > > Since the dawn of time players having been discovering a <***BELLS > CLANG***> *NEW* *IDEA*. It is that if you try for overtricks at imps in > some situations the odds favour you. I have read an article in Bridge > Magazine when it was A4 size [twenty-five years ago?] arguing this: I > have heard people expounding it for ever The number of ice cold no brainer contracts at IMPs that go down is huge because declarer did not pay attention to details- including world class declarers. A player professes to never jeopardize an IMP contract. He then makes a claim and yet in the claim statement does not say 'I will not jeopardize the contract'. Is not such a person one who says one thing and then does another? I should think that to be held to a line that will not jeopardize the contract, he must claim it and not be silent on the issue. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > It is rubbish, and decent players do not follow it - or if they do, > they find a dearth of team-mates and partners. > > At Bridge you are trying to win an event. Doesn't matter whether it > is the Spingold, the Bermuda Bowl or the YC Friday night, that is what > you are trying to do. Big losses do not lead to winning events - and > ***nor do small gains***! So when the odds favour trying a 1 imp in or > 13 out play, good players ignore the odds because they are still a > losing policy. > > 12 tricks - next 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 Sat Sep 25 02:59:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 02:59:28 +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 CAA05052 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 02:59:21 +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 JAA19748; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:58:39 -0700 Message-Id: <199909241658.JAA19748@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 24 Sep 1999 01:51:39 PDT." <199909240551.BAA28340@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:58:39 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willer wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > So when the odds favour trying a 1 imp in or > > 13 out play, good players ignore the odds because they are still a > > losing policy. > > David desJardines (hope I've spelled that right) desJardins, actually. > once expressed a > quite different opinion on RGB. (For those who don't know, DdJ is > a mathematician and superb bridge analyst. I suspect he is also > a fine player, but I can't testify to that.) I was involved in that discussion. I couldn't believe it at first, but after running a Monte Carlo simulation, I ended up agreeing with him. The simple "mathematical" way of looking at it is if there's an "unsafe" play that will gain you 1 IMP if it wins or cost 13 if it loses, you should do it if the odds of success are greater than 13:1. That's too simplistic, though, since you're not paid by the IMP but rather by whether you win or lose the whole match (let's assume knockout matches for simplicity). But my simulation found that, under my assumptions, the odds weren't that far off---that the unsafety play gained (improved your chances of winning the match) if it had, say, 14:1 or 15:1 odds of success. Basically, I plugged in different assumptions about how many IMPs you thought you were up at the time and how many boards you had left to play. (I assumed, however, that the average IMP score on succeeding boards was 0, i.e. that the teams are evenly matched; I don't know how different the result would be if your team is stronger or weaker.) Even if you're on the next-to-last board, and you think you're ahead by a moderate amount, the unsafety play is still the mathematically correct play if it has greater than 25:1 odds of succeeding or so. Of course, if you're on the last board and you think you're ahead by a few IMPs, there is no gain at all in trying for the extra IMP. The bottom line for BLMLers: At IMPs, jeopardizing one's contract in order to try for an overtrick cannot automatically be called "irrational". (Note: My intent is to make a general statement here, not to comment on the ruling on the actual hand.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 03:08:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 03:08:27 +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 DAA05071 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 03:08:20 +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 KAA19880; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:07:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199909241707.KAA19880@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:58:39 PDT." <199909241658.JAA19748@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:07:36 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > Steve Willer wrote: > > > > From: David Stevenson > > > So when the odds favour trying a 1 imp in or > > > 13 out play, good players ignore the odds because they are still a > > > losing policy. > > > > David desJardines (hope I've spelled that right) > > desJardins, actually. Here I am correcting the spelling of someone's name, and then I went and botched Steve's name. That's WillNer. WillNer. WillNer. WillNer. Sorry about that. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 03:29:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 03:29:11 +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 DAA05169 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 03:29:01 +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 NAA09819 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:28:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199909241728.NAA27831@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What standard should the TD expect in order to be convinced that a call was a misbid rather than a misexplanation? Example (from the club last night): S W N E P P P 1H P 1S 2D 2H! P 3H P 4H X P P P West alerted 2H: "We play support doubles, so the 2H rebid denies three spades." In fact, East had three spades. The explanation was UI to East, but it couldn't have affected East's bidding; South claimed that she would not have doubled 4H and both N and S would have defended differently.) The E-W convention cards had support doubles marked, and East did not correct the explanation at the end of the auction. Would this be considered evidence that E-W had the agreement, and East had forgotten, so there was no damage? The hands are not included because the issue was moot on the actual hands. -- David Grabiner, grabine@bgnet.bgsu.edu (note new Email; math has problems) http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine 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 Sep 25 03:31:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 03:31:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.math.uga.edu (alpha.math.uga.edu [128.192.3.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA05190 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 03:31:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from pluto.math.uga.edu (pluto [128.192.3.110]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA22541 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA27557 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:16:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:16:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199909241716.NAA27557@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: ivglQYkcdRq8ONnLdz5yYA== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Since the dawn of time players having been discovering a <***BELLS > CLANG***> *NEW* *IDEA*. It is that if you try for overtricks at imps in > some situations the odds favour you. I have read an article in Bridge > Magazine when it was A4 size [twenty-five years ago?] arguing this: I > have heard people expounding it for ever. I don't claim it's a *NEW* *IDEA*. It's just an obvious consequence of the scoring system. > It is rubbish, and decent players do not follow it - or if they do, > they find a dearth of team-mates and partners. > > At Bridge you are trying to win an event. Doesn't matter whether it > is the Spingold, the Bermuda Bowl or the YC Friday night, that is what > you are trying to do. Big losses do not lead to winning events - and > ***nor do small gains***! Of course they do! Has nobody ever lost a match by 1 IMP that they would have won if they'd got just one more IMP for an overtrick and played the extra set (or won whatever other tiebreaking system was in operation)? > So when the odds favour trying a 1 imp in or > 13 out play, good players ignore the odds because they are still a > losing policy. Suppose you're playing an IMP match in a knockout competition. If there's a draw, suppose your opponents would win the split tie (similar argument if you would). Suppose you have to decide whether to risk your contract for an overtrick. If you take the risk, you win 1 IMP if it works, you lose 12 IMPs if it doesn't. Then taking the risk will win you the match if the score is even apart from this board: one possible score. It will lose you the match if the score is between +1 and +12 IMPs to you apart from this board: twelve possible scores. All scores between 0 IMPs and 12 IMPs are approximately equally likely. So if taking the risk is more than 12 times as likely to win 1 IMP as it is to lose 12 IMPs, then it's more likely to win the match for you than to lose it. Generations of bookmakers have made a living by following this "losing policy". Jeremy. --------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ --------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 04:15:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 04:15:37 +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 EAA05337 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 04:15:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA06722; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:14:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-195.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.195) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma005836; Fri Sep 24 13:10:55 1999 Message-ID: <007101bf06b8$6f5bcea0$c384d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: singular they; was Re: Minor Penalty Card Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:12:52 -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 > Dictionaries! Pah! > > > when I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, neither >more nor less. > > ... Humpty Dumpty, Alice through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Which, as I pointed out in my previous post, is exactly what those language revisionists would like to be able to do with English. But I had thought it was the caterpillar. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 05:02:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 05:02:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA05445 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 05:02:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.255.241] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Uabl-0004jg-00; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 20:02:13 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01bf06bf$3444af60$f1ffabc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <37EB742F.9BC88865@magi.com> Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 20:01:26 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: 24 September 1999 16:41 Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! [David Kent] > > > >Hmmmm. Very interesting. In GB do you number your pairs in octal? > [DWS] > No. > > Why? > The poster is curious because he does not see how there can be a pair numbered 44 when the bottom pair finished 39th. He is, naturally, unfamiliar with the practice at the Young Chelsea and other bridge clubs of adding 20, 40 or 60 to the table number to give the pair number for EW in section 1, NS in section 2 and EW in section 2 respectively. Were he to be informed that there was such a practice at a club where computer scoring was used, he would no doubt be as incredulous as I am. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 06:18:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 06:18:57 +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 GAA05678 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 06:18:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from p68s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.105] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Ubnk-0005eU-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:18:40 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:23:18 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf06ca$a3491760$758693c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: David Stevenson Cc: Bridge Laws Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 8:23 PM Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: 24 September 1999 16:41 >Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! > >[David Kent] > >> > >> >Hmmmm. Very interesting. In GB do you number your pairs in octal? >> > >[DWS] > >> No. >> >> Why? >> > >The poster is curious because he does not see how there can be a pair >numbered 44 when the bottom pair finished 39th. He is, naturally, >unfamiliar with the practice at the Young Chelsea and other bridge >clubs of adding 20, 40 or 60 to the table number to give the pair >number for EW in section 1, NS in section 2 and EW in section 2 >respectively. Were he to be informed that there was such a practice at >a club where computer scoring was used, he would no doubt be as >incredulous as I am. Not really. It allows one to use unused numbers for later arrivals. If there are 12 full tables in play, pairs numbered 1-24 and a late pair arrives to sit N/S at 13 they will be pair 25. This is a)untidy and b)doesnt make a pretty pattern on the traveller, and c)gets confused at the bottom of a numbered traveller in the arrow switches. Also E/W remember their pair number more easily this way. They know which table they started at if they don't know anything else and it's easier for the dears to remember that they added 20 than a variable between 12 and 16. Still incredulous? Anne > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 07:04:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 07:04:34 +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 HAA05768 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 07:04:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA03524; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:03:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-195.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.195) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002863; Fri Sep 24 16:01:23 1999 Message-ID: <001001bf06d0$3f126e80$c384d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:03:18 -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: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Burn >To: David Stevenson >Cc: Bridge Laws >Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 8:23 PM >Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! > > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: David Stevenson >>To: >>Sent: 24 September 1999 16:41 >>Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! >> >>[David Kent] >> >>> > >>> >Hmmmm. Very interesting. In GB do you number your pairs in octal? >>> >> >>[DWS] >> >>> No. >>> >>> Why? >>> >> >>The poster is curious because he does not see how there can be a pair >>numbered 44 when the bottom pair finished 39th. He is, naturally, >>unfamiliar with the practice at the Young Chelsea and other bridge >>clubs of adding 20, 40 or 60 to the table number to give the pair >>number for EW in section 1, NS in section 2 and EW in section 2 >>respectively. Were he to be informed that there was such a practice at >>a club where computer scoring was used, he would no doubt be as >>incredulous as I am. > >Not really. It allows one to use unused numbers for later arrivals. >If there are 12 full tables in play, pairs numbered 1-24 and a late > pair arrives to sit N/S at 13 they will be pair 25. This is a)untidy and > b)doesnt make a pretty pattern on the traveller, and c)gets confused > at the bottom of a numbered traveller in the arrow switches. >Also E/W remember their pair number more easily this way. They know >which table they started at if they don't know anything else and it's easier >for the dears to remember that they added 20 than a variable between >12 and 16. >Still incredulous? >Anne >> Just surprised. Why not number the 1ns,2ns etc and 1ew 2ew etc? That's how we commonly do it in the US. Does your computer scoring require pair number to be a numeric only field? Craig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 08:46:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:46:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.math.uga.edu (alpha.math.uga.edu [128.192.3.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05945 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:46:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from pluto.math.uga.edu (pluto [128.192.3.110]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA02447 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:42:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA00214 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:31:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199909242231.SAA00214@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: 5t9aWcu+eljr18tVu8H8zg== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: > Steve Willer wrote: > > > > From: David Stevenson > > > So when the odds favour trying a 1 imp in or > > > 13 out play, good players ignore the odds because they are still a > > > losing policy. > > > > David desJardines (hope I've spelled that right) > > desJardins, actually. > > > once expressed a > > quite different opinion on RGB. (For those who don't know, DdJ is > > a mathematician and superb bridge analyst. I suspect he is also > > a fine player, but I can't testify to that.) > > I was involved in that discussion. I couldn't believe it at first, > but after running a Monte Carlo simulation, I ended up agreeing with > him. [... rushing to get in before somebody complains that we've got off-topic ...] I remember that discussion too. But it wasn't about the principle that it is sometimes right to risk your game (or even slam) for an overtrick, if the odds are sufficiently in your favour. I'm sure David desJardins would have considered that to be as obvious as I do (and would probably have expressed this more forthrightly than me!). It was about the fact that the comparative strengths of the teams (or the state of the match) makes far less difference to the principle than one might think. One often hears players from the more arrogant side saying things like: "Why take risks? If we just play steadily, we'll beat them." If you're the better team (or you're ahead in the match), it *is* less attractive to risk a game for an overtrick, but not very much less at all. Jeremy. ---------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ ---------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 09:46:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 09:46:05 +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 JAA06086 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 09:45:55 +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 11Uf26-000Akq-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:45:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 00:32:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Problem of score assignment References: <000e01bf0486$545be2e0$7c9f90c2@svenni> In-Reply-To: <000e01bf0486$545be2e0$7c9f90c2@svenni> 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 JAA06088 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sveinn Eiríksson wrote: > My name is Sveinn Runar Eiriksson, I am Tournament Director in > Iceland.  I have been following this group for some time and > finally I decided to come out from the closet and introduce > myself.   One reason is a problem that just happened here at a > local club.   I have no dogs or cats so I unfortunately cannot > participate in the pet forum!! No matter: it is very nice to see you here. > The format was Monrad (Swiss) Pairs Barometer. Unfortunately I do not know Monrad Pairs. Is it just Swiss Pairs, or is there something else? --------- Phillip Mendelsohn wrote: >Law 15.B. states that "[i]f any player plays a board he has previously >played, with the correct opponents or otherwise, his second score on the >board is cancelled both for his side and his opponents, and the Director >shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the >opportunity to earn a valid score." Law 7.D. states that, "[a]ny contestant >remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for >maintaining proper conditions of play at the table." > >Since the board was played twice by the same players, under Law 15.B. the >first result must stand and the second result must be cancelled. Assuming >that N-S were stationary, under Law 7.D. they are responsible for proper >placement and movement of the boards (although in reality E-W should be >paying attention to this also). Since Law 15.B. requires the Director to >award an artificial adjusted score, and since N-S are "legally" responsible >for the mix-up, N-S should receive Average-Minus (40%) and E-W Average-Plus >(60%) on the board(s) they did not play. I think this is a return to the bad old days of earlier Law books and people blaming North for everything. The current law book only says a stationary pair is primarily responsible. If Monrad pairs is like a normal Swiss Pairs then either [a] A session is the same as a match, and both pairs are stationary, or [b] A session is a number of matches, and neither pair is stationary Suppose that Monrad Pairs is different, and only one pair does remain at the table for a session. The wording of the Law is "primarily responsible" and I do not interpret that to mean the other pair have no responsibility: it would be worded differently if that is what it meant. So whether Monrad Pairs involves one pair being stationary for a session or not, both pairs must take some responsibility for playing a board again. In principle, I would give A-/A-. It is hardly appropriate with two pairs at the table that one of them gets A+ when they play a board for a second time. --------- Michael Farebrother wrote: >I disagree here. They were not "in no way at fault" (L12C1). I >want to give them A- as well, and I'd ask questions, hoping to find them at >fault. If I can't, I would consider them at least "partially at fault" and >award Average (50% at pairs). Others have commented on the word "hoping", which I believe is not what Michael meant. But I am surprised at the default situation he proposes: I believe you give A-/A- unless one side convinces you they were not at fault. >Also note that Sveinn Runar stated that it was a Swiss Pairs. That normally >means that it's cross-IMP scored - though since he states later that >"matchpoints" were awarded, that may not be true. If it was >matchpoint-scored, then the percentages are correct(*). If cross-IMPed, >then A- is -3*comparisons IMPs, A is 0, and A+ is +3*comparisons IMPs. I think that you have led a slightly sheltered existence if you think Swiss Pairs are normally x-imps! Swiss Pairs has taken over in England as the most popular form of the game - and not one is x-imped! Matchpoints is standard. >*) L88 gives 60% or session score for A+, Lille awards 40% or session score >for A-. I know we discussed the meaning of "session" a long while back >(about when I first joined BLML), but that was before 1997 rules, and the >1997 definition of "session". When we discussed it, I remember an argument >that a "session" was a period of time between comparisons. > >So, assume Barometer Matchpointed pairs, with Swiss pairings after each >round. How do we score an A+ for the purposes of pairing - i.e., what is a >session for pairing purposes? And do we recalculate A+ at the end of the >play time? The SO is required to define a session, so it is up to them to decide this one. Actually, it is not a session "for pairing purposes": pairing is irrelevant to a session. But a session needs to be defined for the purposes of L5A and L88. The EBU defines a Swiss Pairs match as a session [WB 88.3]. --------- Sveinn Rúnar Eiríksson wrote: >Isnt it automatic to penalise each pair for 10% of top score of one board >for procedural penalty? No. The general approach is to have certain things for which there are laid-down penalties, and to give PPs otherwise only when pairs seem not to be suffering otherwise. There are people on BLML who argue this is theoretically unfair, but it is a practical approach. In the case we are quoting, the pairs concerned have lost the second board and are getting A-/A-, ie 40/40 in effect: it does not seem necessary to add another 10% penalty. There is another possibility, of course. If they had time to play the other board as well, then they do not need to get averages on it. Now we might consider 10% penalty for each side because they have not suffered 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 Sat Sep 25 09:46:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 09:46:07 +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 JAA06087 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 09:45:58 +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 11Uf22-000C2m-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:45:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:54:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding boxes in the USA References: <199909221529.LAA03092@pluto.math.uga.edu> <4.1.19990922133946.0093a870@popmid.minfod.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >The ACBL web page on bidding boxes doesn't address the end of the auction >_at all_. It does say, regarding whether a call pulled out of the box is >"inadvertant": "It is difficult, however, to justify pulling a bid in >place of a pass, double or redouble as a mechanical error. Calls from >different pockets should rarely, if at all, be judged as inadvertent." This >contravenes what my memory recalls as the recent concensus on this list - >that calls from different pockets may indeed be inadvertant. The site does >mention one exception: if a double is followed by a jump bid by the same >player, the double is likely to have been inadvertant. But the way I read >it, any other situation is likely to be ruled as not inadvertant. Does the >list disagree, or is my memory faulty? It took some time for it to be realised that the "obvious" advice that calls from a different part of the box could not be inadvertent was wrong. The TD should treat every case on its merits and ignore this bit of advice that has been quoted in a number of places [including here within the last four weeks!]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 25 10:21:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:21:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep6.mail.ozemail.net (fep6.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06195 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:21:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn11p56.ozemail.com.au [210.84.11.184]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA02647 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:21:09 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990925103427.0091e850@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:34:27 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! In-Reply-To: <37EB3C56.68494A26@idt.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:54 AM 24/09/99 -0700, you wrote: >Just to show the kind of directors we have here in Los Angeles, in a >recent (Tuesday) continuous Pairs event, Mark Itabashi and Rhoda Walsh >had a 229 (74%) and LOST to a pair of directors who had a 234 1/2 >(75%)!!!!! Send David over here when he learns a little about playing >as well as directing :)))) It seems to me that DWS + his brother may already have been playing in this field. Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 10:49:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:49:04 +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 KAA06238 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:48:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from p9ds03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.158] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Ug17-00010O-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:48:46 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:46:59 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf06de$b6181080$d38293c3@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: Craig Senior To: Anne Jones ; BLML Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 10:22 PM Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! > >-----Original Message----- >From: Anne Jones >To: BLML >Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 4:18 PM >Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! > > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David Burn >>To: David Stevenson >>Cc: Bridge Laws >>Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 8:23 PM >>Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! >> >> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: David Stevenson >>>To: >>>Sent: 24 September 1999 16:41 >>>Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! >>> >>>[David Kent] >>> >>>> > >>>> >Hmmmm. Very interesting. In GB do you number your pairs in octal? >>>> >>> >>>[DWS] >>> >>>> No. >>>> >>>> Why? >>>> >>> >>>The poster is curious because he does not see how there can be a pair >>>numbered 44 when the bottom pair finished 39th. He is, naturally, >>>unfamiliar with the practice at the Young Chelsea and other bridge >>>clubs of adding 20, 40 or 60 to the table number to give the pair >>>number for EW in section 1, NS in section 2 and EW in section 2 >>>respectively. Were he to be informed that there was such a practice at >>>a club where computer scoring was used, he would no doubt be as >>>incredulous as I am. >> >>Not really. It allows one to use unused numbers for later arrivals. >>If there are 12 full tables in play, pairs numbered 1-24 and a late >> pair arrives to sit N/S at 13 they will be pair 25. This is a)untidy and >> b)doesnt make a pretty pattern on the traveller, and c)gets confused >> at the bottom of a numbered traveller in the arrow switches. >>Also E/W remember their pair number more easily this way. They know >>which table they started at if they don't know anything else and it's >easier >>for the dears to remember that they added 20 than a variable between >>12 and 16. >>Still incredulous? >>Anne >>> >Just surprised. Why not number the 1ns,2ns etc and 1ew 2ew etc? That's how >we commonly do it in the US. Does your computer scoring require pair number >to be a numeric only field? No. If there is to be a winner for each field, then it is usual to have N/S and E/W pair numbers. If the movement has an arrowswitch it is usual to have a numeric only field. It has the advantage of being easier to key the names in. The advantage of one numerical identity for each pair. Less cumbersome than Pair 10 N/S Red sect . It also has the psychological advantage that the players never believe that an arrowswitch is fair anyway, and this helps them to think in terms of one field. But no, it's not 100% necessary. These are all the reasons that I use this method. John in Young Chelsea may have others. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 10:59:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:59:21 +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 KAA06310 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:59:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from p04s03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.5] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11UgB6-0001Vo-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:59:04 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Outlook Express users Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 02:03:46 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf06f1$d1898980$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have lots of folders in my Outlook Express facility and I would like to save the contents to floppy disk. Does anyone know how to do this? Thanks Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 11:36:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:54:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06280 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:54:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Ug6S-00029x-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 00:54:17 +0000 Message-ID: <8cREzXFOoB73Ewqw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:40:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! References: <001001bf06d0$3f126e80$c384d9ce@host> In-Reply-To: <001001bf06d0$3f126e80$c384d9ce@host> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Just surprised. Why not number the 1ns,2ns etc and 1ew 2ew etc? That's how >we commonly do it in the US. Does your computer scoring require pair number >to be a numeric only field? Yes. I suppose it is because the word number generally refers to a number. Anyway, why use 1ew when 21 is easier and quicker to write? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 25 11:47:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:47:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f250.hotmail.com [207.82.251.141]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA06405 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:47:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 2024 invoked by uid 0); 25 Sep 1999 01:47:09 -0000 Message-ID: <19990925014709.2023.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:47:07 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Problem of score assignment Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:47:07 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Michael Farebrother wrote: > >>I disagree here. They were not "in no way at fault" (L12C1). I >>want to give them A- as well, and I'd ask questions, hoping to find >>them >>at fault. If I can't, I would consider them at least >>"partially at >>fault" and award Average (50% at pairs). > > Others have commented on the word "hoping", which I believe is not >what Michael meant. But I am surprised at the default situation he >proposes: I believe you give A-/A- unless one side convinces you they >were not at fault. > Thank you for pointing this out to me, David; I did not realize the import of the word "hoping" - and yes, I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was that in this case (one board played twice in succession by the same 4 players) my initial feeling is that neither side deserves a better score than the other, and that will be my ruling, unless my questioning discovers such a reason. Which I think is what you said you believe (fortuitous coincidence, of course - I wouldn't want to be accused of actually *agreeing* with DWS on anything :-). >>Also note that Sveinn Runar stated that it was a Swiss Pairs. That >> >>normally means that it's cross-IMP scored [snip] > I think that you have led a slightly sheltered existence if you >think >Swiss Pairs are normally x-imps! Swiss Pairs has taken over in >England as >the most popular form of the game - and not one is >x-imped! Matchpoints is >standard. > Ah. Well, yes, I am sheltered. My experience with Swiss pairs is limited to the UWBC, the 2 games that Eric Sutherland ran and the two games that I ran. And those, at least, were cross-imped. And I won't run another one of those until I get a computer scorer, let me tell you. Matchpointed, I might do it. I also believe that those were the only 4 swiss pairs games in ACBL District 2 - but ICBW. It just isn't a game that is known around here. >>So, assume Barometer Matchpointed pairs, with Swiss pairings after >>each >>round. How do we score an A+ for the purposes of pairing - >>i.e., what >>is a session for pairing purposes? And do we >>recalculate A+ at the end >>of the play time? > > The SO is required to define a session, so it is up to them to >decide >this one. Actually, it is not a session "for pairing >purposes": pairing >is irrelevant to a session. But a session needs >to be defined for the >purposes of L5A and L88. The EBU defines a >Swiss Pairs match as a session >[WB 88.3]. > So, the answer to my question, at least in the EBU, is that the A+ percentage is based on the rest of the other boards played at that table, with no other matches during the event, already played, or to be played, being taken into account? Have I got this right? Michael ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 12:00:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:00:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06445 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:00:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Uh7x-000Kgd-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:59:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 02:39:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! In-Reply-To: <37EB742F.9BC88865@magi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <37EB742F.9BC88865@magi.com>, David Kent writes >Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> >> At 3:44 AM +0100 9/23/99, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >Extract from the results of the usual suspect game at the Young Chelsea >> >Wednesday Night (Tough wild game etc). 39 Pairs >> > >> >Pos Pr Names................................ MPs %Age >> >38 44 Mrs Guggenheim and Mr Guggenheim 301 40.14 >> >39 7 David Stevenson and Junior Int'al 189 25.24 >> > >> >Top = 30 Average = 375 >> > >> >This is NOT a PSYCHE. He went through the boards with me and IT IS TRUE. >> > >> >I felt you should know. We need to be told. chs John >> >> DWS and partner must have been filling in to make up an add number of pairs. >> >> I've never finished ahead of the Guggenheims myself! >> >> AW > >Hmmmm. Very interesting. In GB do you number your pairs in octal? > hehe. No. NS take their table Number. EW Add 20. Section 2 NS add 40, EW add 60. Thus pair 64 started at EW Section 2 Table 4. Easy! cheers john > >Dave Kent -- 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 Sep 25 12:00:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:00:14 +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 MAA06446 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:00:06 +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 11Uh7x-000HT2-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:59:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 02:52:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! In-Reply-To: <001001bf06d0$3f126e80$c384d9ce@host> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001001bf06d0$3f126e80$c384d9ce@host>, Craig Senior writes > >-----Original Message----- >From: Anne Jones >To: BLML >Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 4:18 PM >Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! > > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David Burn >>To: David Stevenson >>Cc: Bridge Laws >>Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 8:23 PM >>Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! >> >> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: David Stevenson >>>To: >>>Sent: 24 September 1999 16:41 >>>Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! >>> >>>[David Kent] >>> >>>> > >>>> >Hmmmm. Very interesting. In GB do you number your pairs in octal? >>>> >>> >>>[DWS] >>> >>>> No. >>>> >>>> Why? >>>> >>> >>>The poster is curious because he does not see how there can be a pair >>>numbered 44 when the bottom pair finished 39th. He is, naturally, >>>unfamiliar with the practice at the Young Chelsea and other bridge >>>clubs of adding 20, 40 or 60 to the table number to give the pair >>>number for EW in section 1, NS in section 2 and EW in section 2 >>>respectively. Were he to be informed that there was such a practice at >>>a club where computer scoring was used, he would no doubt be as >>>incredulous as I am. >> >>Not really. It allows one to use unused numbers for later arrivals. >>If there are 12 full tables in play, pairs numbered 1-24 and a late >> pair arrives to sit N/S at 13 they will be pair 25. This is a)untidy and >> b)doesnt make a pretty pattern on the traveller, and c)gets confused >> at the bottom of a numbered traveller in the arrow switches. >>Also E/W remember their pair number more easily this way. They know >>which table they started at if they don't know anything else and it's >easier >>for the dears to remember that they added 20 than a variable between >>12 and 16. >>Still incredulous? >>Anne >>> >Just surprised. Why not number the 1ns,2ns etc and 1ew 2ew etc? That's how >we commonly do it in the US. Does your computer scoring require pair number >to be a numeric only field? No, but we use travellers and arrow switches, so when you see 27 v 8 on the traveller you know it was arrow switched. With pick up slips you don't even really need pair numbers, just table numbers and round numbers. It would even be sensible to put names on the pick-ups and check them against the names on the pick-ups. PS this is true unless you're using the Ukranian movement (a movement used by a pair of ukranians, who didn't bother to sit-out and overtook another pair who stayed in the bar for two rounds, whilst their ukranian friends didn't bother to introduce the relay boards into the movement) btw I recovered the movement and ended up with only one table unable to play a round, but the computer was pretty rude about the number of boards played by the "wrong" pairs. My code says things like "You MUST be joking" after a few pair number adjustments :)) > >Craig > -- 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 Sep 25 12:29:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:54:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06281 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:54:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Ug6T-00029y-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 00:54:17 +0000 Message-ID: <78vFbYF0sB73Ewpk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:45:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909241728.NAA27831@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909241728.NAA27831@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: > >What standard should the TD expect in order to be convinced that a call >was a misbid rather than a misexplanation? I am not trying to be clever, but I am sure that the standard a TD requires to convince him is that which convinces him. >Example (from the club last night): > >S W N E >P P P 1H >P 1S 2D 2H! >P 3H P 4H >X P P P > >West alerted 2H: "We play support doubles, so the 2H rebid denies three >spades." In fact, East had three spades. The explanation was UI to >East, but it couldn't have affected East's bidding; South claimed that >she would not have doubled 4H and both N and S would have defended >differently.) > >The E-W convention cards had support doubles marked, and East did not >correct the explanation at the end of the auction. Would this be >considered evidence that E-W had the agreement, and East had forgotten, >so there was no damage? Everything is evidence. Now the question is whether the TD is convinced. What did East say when asked why he did not double? The TD asks the questions, inspects the CC, and decides what he believes has happened. In this case I believe a misbid is quite a likely possibility because of one strong [in my view] piece of evidence: players not playing support doubles rarely have them on the CC. To put it another way, the evidence of the CC is probably stronger than what the players say. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 12:36:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:54:41 +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 KAA06289 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:54:31 +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 11Ug6Y-0002AP-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 00:54:23 +0000 Message-ID: <2c2GDSFSjB73EwK9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:35:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents References: <199909240551.BAA28340@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199909241658.JAA19748@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199909241658.JAA19748@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Steve Willer wrote: > >> > From: David Stevenson >> > So when the odds favour trying a 1 imp in or >> > 13 out play, good players ignore the odds because they are still a >> > losing policy. >> >> David desJardines (hope I've spelled that right) > >desJardins, actually. > >> once expressed a >> quite different opinion on RGB. (For those who don't know, DdJ is >> a mathematician and superb bridge analyst. I suspect he is also >> a fine player, but I can't testify to that.) > >I was involved in that discussion. I couldn't believe it at first, >but after running a Monte Carlo simulation, I ended up agreeing with >him. > >The simple "mathematical" way of looking at it is if there's an >"unsafe" play that will gain you 1 IMP if it wins or cost 13 if it >loses, you should do it if the odds of success are greater than 13:1. >That's too simplistic, though, since you're not paid by the IMP but >rather by whether you win or lose the whole match (let's assume >knockout matches for simplicity). But my simulation found that, under >my assumptions, the odds weren't that far off---that the unsafety play >gained (improved your chances of winning the match) if it had, say, >14:1 or 15:1 odds of success. Basically, I plugged in different >assumptions about how many IMPs you thought you were up at the time >and how many boards you had left to play. (I assumed, however, that >the average IMP score on succeeding boards was 0, i.e. that the teams >are evenly matched; I don't know how different the result would be if >your team is stronger or weaker.) Even if you're on the next-to-last >board, and you think you're ahead by a moderate amount, the unsafety >play is still the mathematically correct play if it has greater than >25:1 odds of succeeding or so. Of course, if you're on the last board >and you think you're ahead by a few IMPs, there is no gain at all in >trying for the extra IMP. It is not just a question of mathematics anyway. You can quote all the mathematics you like, but the first time you lose a k/o match by 6 imps trying for a 1 imp gain and losing 13 imps you have lost team- mates. Bridge is not just mathematics. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 25 13:37:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA06652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:37:32 +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 NAA06646 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:37:21 +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 XAA28112 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id XAA29105 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:37:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909250337.XAA29105@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > The E-W convention cards had support doubles marked... As David S. has said, this is strong evidence that support doubles were agreed. A suspicious (or careful, pick one) TD might like to know how long the agreement had been in effect and whether it had been forgotten in the recent past. Asking the player why he didn't double is certainly a good start. Depending on what the TD finds out, the players may be instructed to modify their explanations in future. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 16:33:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:33:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (exim@nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06904 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:33:43 +1000 (EST) From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (af06@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.114.243]) by mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11UlOo-0005L0-00; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:33:34 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA173131213; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:33:33 +0200 Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:33:33 +0200 (CES) In-Reply-To: <8cREzXFOoB73Ewqw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> from "David Stevenson" at Sep 25, 1999 01:40:46 AM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to David Stevenson: > >Craig Senior wrote: > >>Just surprised. Why not number the 1ns,2ns etc and 1ew 2ew etc? That's how >>we commonly do it in the US. Does your computer scoring require pair number >>to be a numeric only field? > > Yes. I suppose it is because the word number generally refers to a >number. Anyway, why use 1ew when 21 is easier and quicker to write? Do you never play Howell movements with more than 20 pairs? Furthermore I know that there have been sections in British tournaments with more than 40 pairs. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 18:20:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA07017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:20:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07011 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:19:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-122.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.122]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA02299 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:19:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37EB9E5D.9797C746@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:53:01 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents References: <199909240551.BAA28340@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: David Stevenson > >> So when the odds favour trying a 1 imp in or > >> 13 out play, good players ignore the odds because they are still a > >> losing policy. > > > >David desJardines (hope I've spelled that right) once expressed a > >quite different opinion on RGB. (For those who don't know, DdJ is > >a mathematician and superb bridge analyst. I suspect he is also > >a fine player, but I can't testify to that.) > > > >Do we at least agree that the legal question is whether taking > >the finesse is or is not rational? > > No. Normal, as defined in the Laws. That includes careless and > inferior but not irrational [1]. Nearly the same thing. > Are you trying to boost your statistics, David ? Steve's question is completely correct ! We are not talking careless, we are not talking inferior, not in this case. The only question we need to ask is whether it be irrational. If you don't think the question as to whether it is rational is not the same question, you really need another dictionary. > I believe to finesse in the given situation for the class of player > assumed [2] is irrational. > So do I. John does not. But Steve's question was merely : is this the only question that remains ? I believe it does not serve the list when you reply that question by stating exactly the same thing with other words. > [1] Quoted from memory > [2] Now we know who the player was it could be argued differently but > all my previous remarks which I stand by were based on a typical YC > player rather than the actual one > Which is precisely why the one question that remains (as Steve, me, and probably you - despite your negative answer above - believe) can only be answered on site - by John. If he can explain to the claimer that he does not find it irrational to finesse, and the player agrees or does not bother to appeal, then John's ruling is as correct as he can get it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 18:20:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA07022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:20:03 +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 SAA07015 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:19:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-122.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.122]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA02306 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:19:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37EBA023.CEEE3FA6@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:00:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Computer dealt hands References: <002a01bf0699$bb5c1400$c384d9ce@host> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > How about this scenario then? Team BL narrowly loses an important match. > They feed all of the hand records into their supercomputer and seek a match > with any hand ever quoted in the bridge literature. Finding that a hand on > which they received a poor score had indeed been played years ago in another > venue they seek to have that board cancelled and thus win the match. Is that > really what we want? The chances of this happening (all 52 cards the same, really) by way of chance are so remote that I would not mind this scenario. No-one with any modicum of knowledge of statistics will try this, unless he suspects something. And if that something does indeed occur, then maybe it would indeed be better to have the match replayed. > You tell Herman you would not go to extremes looking > for violations of this law...but what if the BL'ers mine this new mother > lode for winning other than by superior bidding and play? Somehow we allowed > common sense to prevail for the 10 years that the Law banned duplicate, and > did not cancel all results from the matches held in that period. Is there > not some way we may use common sense here, rather than read the law > literally, at least until it can be revised to eliminate the silliness of > throwing out perfectly sound at the table results. > Since I don't believe this can ever happen, unless by some process of bad duplication, I don't mind this interpretation of the Law. As you say, the old Laws in effect banned every duplicate. I don't understand your new reading. It says : "in a different session". It does not say "in a different session of the same tournament". So it must include any session in any different tournament. It does not say "previously". So if we define the session of the ss Finland to run from tuesday to monday, there is no problem. Since session is defined as "before calculation", and the (real) ss Finland can only be calculated after all the results are in, this poses no problem. I like the wording, and I don't mind the consequence. > By the way, is replay duplicate actually bad? A number of people have told > me it is a rather fun memory testing game. Is it perhaps some variant of > bridge? I concede it is not duplicate contract bridge. Indeed, but quite a different topic entirely. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 18:41:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA07070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:41:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07065 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:41:14 +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 EAA01489 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 04:41:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id EAA29220 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 04:41:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 04:41:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909250841.EAA29220@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Computer dealt hands X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Craig Senior" > How about this scenario then? Team BL narrowly loses an important match. > They feed all of the hand records into their supercomputer and seek a match > with any hand ever quoted in the bridge literature. Perhaps you would care to compute for us the chance that they would find such a deal? (Hint: there are roughly 10^29 possible bridge deals. What fraction of these have been "used" so far?) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 18:59:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA07091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:59:12 +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 SAA07086 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:59:02 +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 EAA01539 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 04:58:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id EAA29232 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 04:59:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 04:59:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909250859.EAA29232@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: Computer dealt hands X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: "Peter Gill" > >> Or should we cancel all the results of (and masterpoints from) Simultaneous > >> Pairs events which use hands from bygone sessions? > > > >These are presumably "special contests" under L81F (?? -- no FLB at hand). > >SO's are allowed to make up their own rules for those. Sorry; it was 80E, "establish special conditions for bidding and play." > From: David Stevenson > Really? I did not know that. When are we playing in an anti- > clockwise tournament then? Any time the SO says so, as far as I can tell. Of course if they don't want a lot of unhappy customers, SO's would do well to advertise the special nature of their contest well in advance, but I see nothing stopping them from having whatever strange rules they want. In practice, "instant matchpoint" games are indeed advertised well in advance, at least in my experience. > Nothing gives SOs the right to suspend the Laws except in specific > situations - in effect only for the effects of screens. Isn't one of the Lille interpretations to the effect that "not in conflict with these Laws" applies only to regulations made under L80F and not those made under other laws, L80E in particular? > That's an effective argument. We are back to the Kojak problem with > L62/63 though: you are saying that "No result may stand ..." may be > superseded by another Law. Hmmm... I think you are right. We seem to have a conflict between two Laws, so one of them has to give. > To be honest, we all accept certain things that are not quite as > certain Laws say. *BUT* the moment there is a difference of opinion, > then we should go for the literal approach if it makes sense. I'll make a convert of you yet! How about just "We should go for the literal approach if it makes sense?" Yes, there are instances where the literal approach does not make sense, and then we need a bit of interpretation, but quite often (!) a literal reading makes sense and causes no problems. The law writers really did not do such a bad job. (I think that last sentence is an example of _litotes_.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 19:01:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:01:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (exim@nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07101 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:01:30 +1000 (EST) From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (af06@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.114.243]) by mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11Unhq-0005Lc-00; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:01:22 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA179900081; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:01:21 +0200 Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:01:21 +0200 (CES) In-Reply-To: <37EB9E5D.9797C746@village.uunet.be> from "Herman De Wael" at Sep 24, 1999 05:53:01 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to Herman De Wael: > >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >> From: David Stevenson >> >> So when the odds favour trying a 1 imp in or >> >> 13 out play, good players ignore the odds because they are still a >> >> losing policy. >> > >> >David desJardines (hope I've spelled that right) once expressed a >> >quite different opinion on RGB. (For those who don't know, DdJ is >> >a mathematician and superb bridge analyst. I suspect he is also >> >a fine player, but I can't testify to that.) >> > >> >Do we at least agree that the legal question is whether taking >> >the finesse is or is not rational? >> >> No. Normal, as defined in the Laws. That includes careless and >> inferior but not irrational [1]. Nearly the same thing. >> > >Are you trying to boost your statistics, David ? > >Steve's question is completely correct ! > >We are not talking careless, we are not talking inferior, >not in this case. >The only question we need to ask is whether it be >irrational. >If you don't think the question as to whether it is rational >is not the same question, you really need another >dictionary. > >> I believe to finesse in the given situation for the class of player >> assumed [2] is irrational. >> > >So do I. John does not. I am frequently in such situations in high level IMP matches. I don't finesse for those overtricks, because I rather try to recover from -1 IMP than from -13 IMPs, but I do not think that playing for the overtricks is poor IMP strategy, much less irrational. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 19:15:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:15:42 +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 TAA07133 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:15:31 +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 FAA01600 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 05:15:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id FAA29255 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 05:15:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 05:15:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909250915.FAA29255@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Clarification of 43B2b - Part 2 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > An impatient dummy looks at his partner's curtain card. Subsequently > declarer calls for a high Club from dummy but ruffs in his hand. Dummy > asks declarer about the possible revoke and declarer admits to having a > small club. > > Declarer corrects his revoke, the revoke is treated as established and Law > 64 applies. > But is this a 64A1 or a 64A2 ruling. In the general case, there are four possibilities: declarer may win or not win the revoke trick either before or after the correction. If he wins both times (e.g. trumps, then corrects by playing a winner) clearly the penalty is two tricks. If he loses both times (e.g. discards, then corrects by playing a loser), we have for the moment a one-trick penalty, but later play may convert it to two. The two alternate cases are not at all clear. In the case above, declarer has won the revoke trick before correction but not after. The remaining case is where declarer discards and then corrects with a winner. Now he has won after but not before. It seems to me that one of the alternate cases should be a two-trick penalty and the other (potentially) a one-trick penalty, but I suppose one can argue with that. L64A asks whether "the trick on which the revoke occurred" was "won" by the revoker. That sounds to me like the _final_ disposition of the revoke trick, not who would have won it if the revoke had not been corrected. So Fearghal's case is a one-trick penalty (unless declarer later wins a club trick), while if declarer had discarded and then corrected with a high club, it would be a two- trick revoke. But I don't think this is entirely clear, and quite possibly I'm missing something. The whole business of corrected revokes still being penalized is one that doesn't appeal to me. I hope the LC will have another look in 2007. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 25 23:25:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:25:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07470 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:25:15 +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 11Uros-000NQW-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:24:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:57:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Problem of score assignment References: <19990925014709.2023.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19990925014709.2023.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >> The SO is required to define a session, so it is up to them to >decide >>this one. Actually, it is not a session "for pairing >purposes": pairing >>is irrelevant to a session. But a session needs >to be defined for the >>purposes of L5A and L88. The EBU defines a >Swiss Pairs match as a session >>[WB 88.3]. >So, the answer to my question, at least in the EBU, is that the A+ >percentage is based on the rest of the other boards played at that table, >with no other matches during the event, already played, or to be played, >being taken into account? Have I got this right? Yes. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 25 23:25:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:25:30 +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 XAA07481 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:25:21 +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 11Uros-000NQd-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:24:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:03:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Computer dealt hands References: <199909250859.EAA29232@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909250859.EAA29232@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 >>> Sorry; it was 80E, "establish special conditions for bidding and >>> play." >> Really? I did not know that. When are we playing in an anti- >> clockwise tournament then? >Any time the SO says so, as far as I can tell. Of course if they don't >want a lot of unhappy customers, SO's would do well to advertise the >special nature of their contest well in advance, but I see nothing >stopping them from having whatever strange rules they want. In practice, >"instant matchpoint" games are indeed advertised well in advance, at >least in my experience. >> Nothing gives SOs the right to suspend the Laws except in specific >> situations - in effect only for the effects of screens. >Isn't one of the Lille interpretations to the effect that "not in >conflict with these Laws" applies only to regulations made under L80F >and not those made under other laws, L80E in particular? Let us get this straight. You believe that the effect of L80E is that the SO can make any regulation, even one in conflict with the Laws and it applies? You mean that all the criticism of the ACBL I have read here and on RGB is completely wrong because they are not bound by any of the Laws in the Law book: their Laws Commission can say anything and do anything and say it is permitted under L80E? You mean that it is perfectly legal to give an artificial score instead of an assigned score if the TD is too lazy to assign because L80E permits it if the SO says so? You mean that all the complaints about the ACBL regulating natural bidding are worth nothing because they can regulate natural bidding as much as they like under L80E? You mean that they can amend any single Law and say it is amended under L80E? You mean that any decision we take here to try to teach our readers is subject to the proviso 'unless the ACBL instruct otherwise under L80E'? You mean they have a perfect right to penalise declarer whenever the defence leads out of turn under L80E? You mean that the EBU L&EC can stop worrying about whether their decisions are legal but just say that they are legal under L80E? I am sorry, but that is not an interpretation of L80E that I accept. >> That's an effective argument. We are back to the Kojak problem with >> L62/63 though: you are saying that "No result may stand ..." may be >> superseded by another Law. > >Hmmm... I think you are right. We seem to have a conflict between >two Laws, so one of them has to give. > >> To be honest, we all accept certain things that are not quite as >> certain Laws say. *BUT* the moment there is a difference of opinion, >> then we should go for the literal approach if it makes sense. > >I'll make a convert of you yet! How about just "We should go for the >literal approach if it makes sense?" Yes, there are instances where >the literal approach does not make sense, and then we need a bit of >interpretation, but quite often (!) a literal reading makes sense and >causes no problems. The law writers really did not do such a bad job. >(I think that last sentence is an example of _litotes_.) Oh? when have I argued with a "literal reading that makes sense and causes no problems"? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 25 23:25:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:25:30 +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 XAA07480 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:25:21 +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 11Urot-000NQX-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:24:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:01:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! References: <8cREzXFOoB73Ewqw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas wrote: >According to David Stevenson: >>Craig Senior wrote: >>>Just surprised. Why not number the 1ns,2ns etc and 1ew 2ew etc? That's how >>>we commonly do it in the US. Does your computer scoring require pair number >>>to be a numeric only field? >> Yes. I suppose it is because the word number generally refers to a >>number. Anyway, why use 1ew when 21 is easier and quicker to write? >Do you never play Howell movements with more than 20 pairs? Yes, I have done. No, I don't see the relevance of the question. >Furthermore I know that there have been sections in British >tournaments with more than 40 pairs. I cannot remember one offhand. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 25 23:25:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:25:27 +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 XAA07471 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:25:15 +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 11Urot-000NQg-0A; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:24:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:04:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Max Bavin , Mike Swanson From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: L63B MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am pleased to see that my long-held dislike of L25B has been displaced at last at number one. The wording from Malta was so strange that I gave up trying to understand it, and presumed I knew what it meant. However, reading it for the fifth time in the train on the way to an L&EC meeting I suddenly realised what it meant - and now I hate L63B [assuming we follow the Malta interpretation] more than L25B. Please can we go back to a violation of L61B establishes the revoke? I am sure that all of you understood the wording from Malta, and if you did you can skip the next couple of paragraphs. For anyone that did not, let me explain what they are saying. L63B says: When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. Now this means that [a] the revoker substitutes a legal card, plays the hand out, and each side makes a number of tricks and [b] the Director goes back to the point of the revoke, lets the revoke stand, plays the hand out for himself from there as though the revoke is established, and applies the revoke laws to that imaginary play. He calculates the penalty from that then applies it to the actual score. Let us see an example. Hearts are trumps. Declarer has already made 8 tricks. A Dummy cashes the SA, West revokes x by ruffing, East says "No spades", x L63B applies, West's heart is x - x replaced by a spade, declarer draws x J the trump and cashes the CA. The A - revoke has cost declarer nothing. - x x A Now the Director does the - imaginary play bit. If the revoke A had been established, West would have won the revoke trick, led the DA ruffed by East with the HJ, making two tricks. The penalty for the established revoke would be two tricks, since the revoker [West] won the revoke trick, and East-West won a subsequent trick. So two tricks are transferred to declarer, who now makes thirteen tricks. Just for comparison, suppose East does not say "No spades", what would have happened? the play would have gone as in the Director's imaginary play, declarer would have made nine tricks, and the extra two tricks would have given him eleven. Without the revoke eleven tricks would have been made, so this has worked in its normal method of restoring equity but sometimes giving a bonus operation. So the effect of L63B is to give the NOs two tricks for no reason at all. That'll teach the offenders! Do not forget that they also get a major penalty card, so it will often be three tricks. Where are the tar and feathers? Now, consider a slight change in the above scenario. Before the last three tricks, suppose declarer had made all ten tricks. What then? Well, according to the Malta interpretation, the revoke is corrected so declarer makes all thirteen, then the penalty is calculated and declarer is given two more tricks, making fifteen. So the "correct" ruling is 7H making with two overtricks. Aha, you say, L64C says you should do equity! No, it does not, you only restore equity under L64C if the NOs are damaged - and giving them 7H+2 [is that 7H+9 in NAmerica?] does not damage them. You cannot get fifteen tricks on a hand? True, but we are not having fifteen tricks on a hand. We are giving the score for fifteen tricks on a hand, and L77 does not contain any maximum number of tricks in the scoring table. Great! cc Max Bavin Mike Swanson -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 26 00:06:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:06:00 +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 AAA07602 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:05:53 +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 QAA28042; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:05:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA02819; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:05:14 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:05:14 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Grabiner cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <199909241728.NAA27831@claytor.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, 24 Sep 1999, David Grabiner wrote: > > What standard should the TD expect in order to be convinced that a call > was a misbid rather than a misexplanation? > > Example (from the club last night): > > S W N E > P P P 1H > P 1S 2D 2H! > P 3H P 4H > X P P P > > West alerted 2H: "We play support doubles, so the 2H rebid denies three > spades." In fact, East had three spades. The explanation was UI to > East, but it couldn't have affected East's bidding; South claimed that > she would not have doubled 4H and both N and S would have defended > differently.) > > The E-W convention cards had support doubles marked, and East did not > correct the explanation at the end of the auction. Would this be > considered evidence that E-W had the agreement, and East had forgotten, > so there was no damage? You seem to forget possibility: east is aware that EW play support doubles but decided that 2H gave a better description of his hand than a support double. xxx/AKxxxxx/x/Ax comes to mind. 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 Sep 26 01:25:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 01:25:55 +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 BAA07741 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 01:25:43 +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 IAA05287; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:25:03 -0700 Message-Id: <199909251525.IAA05287@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 25 Sep 1999 01:35:30 PDT." <2c2GDSFSjB73EwK9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:25:02 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > It is not just a question of mathematics anyway. You can quote all > the mathematics you like, but the first time you lose a k/o match by 6 > imps trying for a 1 imp gain and losing 13 imps you have lost team- > mates. Well, if your teammates are David desJardins and someone else who is familiar with the actual facts, you probably won't lose them---they'll tell you you made the right play and just got unlucky. The flip side is that you may lose a K/O match by 1 or 2 IMPs because (among other things) you *didn't* try for the 1 IMP gain when the mathematics say you should have. This will happen more often than losing a match by trying for a 1 IMP gain; but this time, it won't be obvious to your teammates why the match was lost, so they'll chalk it up to bad luck. This doesn't seem right to me. It's essentially saying, "I'm going to make a play that decreases my chance of winning the match, and I'm doing it because if it does lose the match, I'll be able to avoid blame because my teammates will never figure out that it was my play that cost the match." If you're willing to lose more matches to avoid having to find new teammates, I guess that's your choice. I'm not sure I'd have that problem, since I can say "I've looked into the mathematics of it and run a computer simulation, and I found that the safety play loses more matches than it wins in this type of situation"; hopefully, even if my teammates weren't convinced, they would at least understand that I did what I thought was best and had good reasons for doing what I did. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 26 01:33:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 01:33:13 +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 BAA07773 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 01:33:03 +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 LAA09183 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:32:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199909251532.LAA12739@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199909250337.XAA29105@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:37:23 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> From: David Grabiner >> The E-W convention cards had support doubles marked... > As David S. has said, this is strong evidence that support doubles were > agreed. A suspicious (or careful, pick one) TD might like to know how > long the agreement had been in effect and whether it had been forgotten > in the recent past. Asking the player why he didn't double is certainly > a good start. The answer in this case was that E-W were playing for the first time, and neither one had had a chance to forget it. West may not have been familiar with the rules about correcting; she said that she didn't correct at the end of the auction because she misheard East's explanation. -- David Grabiner, grabine@bgnet.bgsu.edu (note new Email; math has problems) http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine 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 Sep 26 01:35:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 01:35:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07787 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 01:35:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05420; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:35:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199909251535.IAA05420@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:05:14 PDT." Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:35:02 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, David Grabiner wrote: > > > > > What standard should the TD expect in order to be convinced that a call > > was a misbid rather than a misexplanation? > > > > Example (from the club last night): > > > > S W N E > > P P P 1H > > P 1S 2D 2H! > > P 3H P 4H > > X P P P > > > > West alerted 2H: "We play support doubles, so the 2H rebid denies three > > spades." In fact, East had three spades. The explanation was UI to > > East, but it couldn't have affected East's bidding; South claimed that > > she would not have doubled 4H and both N and S would have defended > > differently.) > > > > The E-W convention cards had support doubles marked, and East did not > > correct the explanation at the end of the auction. Would this be > > considered evidence that E-W had the agreement, and East had forgotten, > > so there was no damage? > > You seem to forget possibility: east is aware that EW play support doubles > but decided that 2H gave a better description of his hand than a support > double. xxx/AKxxxxx/x/Ax comes to mind. I play support doubles with my most frequent partners, but I sometimes have to correct explanations like West's here. To me, playing support doubles does *not* automatically imply that non-doubles deny three-card support. Passing denies three-card support, yes; but if I have some other feature that I feel needs to be shown before the support, such as a very good 6-card minor or a one-and-a-half notrump hand, I will do so. Some people have the agreement that opener *must* make a support double with 3-card support. I really dislike playing that way. So in this case, one of the things TD has to find out is what their actual agreement is, if they have one---does a rebid deny support, does it not deny support, or did they just agree on "support doubles" without discussing the issue? You're right, of course, it's possible that E-W had an agreement that 2H denies support, and East decided to violate it. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 26 01:53:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 01:53:01 +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 BAA07813 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 01:52:54 +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 LAA09606 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:52:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:52:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199909251552.LAA12969@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (henk@ripe.net) Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk RIPE-NCC writes: > On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, David Grabiner wrote: >> Example (from the club last night): >> S W N E >> P P P 1H >> P 1S 2D 2H! >> P 3H P 4H >> X P P P > You seem to forget possibility: east is aware that EW play support doubles > but decided that 2H gave a better description of his hand than a support > double. xxx/AKxxxxx/x/Ax comes to mind. This is a case which the director should have considered, but here it was clear that East thought they were not being played. In a situation like this, in which East violates an agreement deliberately, and has justification for doing so, the director should presume niether misinformation nor misbid. -- David Grabiner, grabine@bgnet.bgsu.edu (note new Email; math has problems) http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine 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 Sep 26 03:07:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 03:07:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com [139.134.5.164]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA08115 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 03:07:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za328041 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 03:03:53 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-220-236.tmns.net.au ([139.134.220.236]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Grotesque-MailRouter V2.5 7/335176); 26 Sep 1999 03:03:53 Message-ID: <003e01bf0806$e08e2060$ecdc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: L63B Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 03:07:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I am pleased to see that my long-held dislike of L25B has been >displaced at last at number one. The wording from Malta was so strange >that I gave up trying to understand it, and presumed I knew what it >meant. However, reading it for the fifth time in the train on the way >to an L&EC meeting I suddenly realised what it meant - and now I hate >L63B [assuming we follow the Malta interpretation] more than L25B. >Please can we go back to a violation of L61B establishes the revoke? > We should hate L63B and L43B2(b) equally, since the latter says the same. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 26 03:37:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 03:37:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA08145 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 03:37:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06503 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:36:59 +0200 Received: from ip88.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.88), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda06500; Sat Sep 25 19:36:55 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A big one Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:36:55 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <3.0.6.32.19990916114505.00797100@eiu.edu> <19990918125449.3245.qmail@hotmail.com> <37E49760.42ED3B3A@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37E49760.42ED3B3A@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 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 DAA08146 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 09:57:20 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Hear then what happened to me yesterday. > >Declarer, upon the sight of dummy, complains to partner for >not going to slam. He plays two tricks to inspect foul >breaks and then puts his cards back in the board and says, >"thirteen tricks". > >I trust him, still do, and I don't want to inspect. >I ask him about my club ace and he points to the void in >dummy (which does have quite a lot of trumps). My partner >has no obvious trick either. > >Sadly it is barometer scoring, so there is no travelling >sheet upon which to check either the layout or what other >tables have scored. >Also sadly it is not the last board of our round, so that I >could leave the table and check without embarrassing him. >(besides, he's a far better player than I am) I find it sad that it is considered embarassing to ask a player to follow the correct procedure (L68C) when claiming. But the laws are not as helpful here as they might be: as far as I can see, there is no law that requires the claimer to show his hand if the claim is not contested. I think that might be a good idea to add to L68C - perhaps even with a stronger word than "should". Or, even better, a rule that requires all four players to show their remaining cards when a claim is made (and the claimer's partner does not immediately object), even when the claim is not contested. It happens regularly that a declarer who claims would like to know how the cards are distributed between the opponents, in order to estimate whether his score is good or bad - in practice, he asks and is told, but I cannot find a law that gives him a right to know. It also sometimes happens that revokes go undiscovered because the hand ends in a claim and the cards are put away without being shown. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 26 05:15:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA08503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 05:15:03 +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 FAA08498 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 05:14:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-220-177.s431.tnt5.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.220.177]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id PAA19281 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 15:14:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002501bf078a$37fef400$b1dc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.19990916114505.00797100@eiu.edu> <19990918125449.3245.qmail@hotmail.com> <37E49760.42ED3B3A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: A big one Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 15:14:33 -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: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, September 25, 1999 1:36 PM Subject: Re: A big one > On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 09:57:20 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >Hear then what happened to me yesterday. > > > >Declarer, upon the sight of dummy, complains to partner for > >not going to slam. He plays two tricks to inspect foul > >breaks and then puts his cards back in the board and says, > >"thirteen tricks". > > > >I trust him, still do, and I don't want to inspect. > >I ask him about my club ace and he points to the void in > >dummy (which does have quite a lot of trumps). My partner > >has no obvious trick either. > > [snip] > > I find it sad that it is considered embarassing to ask a player > to follow the correct procedure (L68C) when claiming. > L68C does not require a player to reveal his cards. It does require a statement of clarification. There does not appear to be a requirement to face the cards until the claim is challenged, in which case the TD requires the cards to be faced. > But the laws are not as helpful here as they might be: as far as > I can see, there is no law that requires the claimer to show his > hand if the claim is not contested. I think that might be a > good idea to add to L68C - perhaps even with a stronger word than > "should". > [snip] Take a look at 66D, which allows the played and unplayed cards to be inspected for the specific purposes of settling a claim or revoke, or number of tricks won. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 26 05:36:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA08572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 05:36:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from serv4.vossnet.co.uk (serv4.vossnet.co.uk [212.70.130.254]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA08567 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 05:36:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 1853 invoked from network); 25 Sep 1999 19:36:33 -0000 Received: from pool-196.vossnet.co.uk (HELO hassanfa) (195.188.90.206) by serv4.vossnet.co.uk with SMTP; 25 Sep 1999 19:36:33 -0000 Message-ID: <000901bf078d$33b13d60$477ffea9@hassanfa> From: "Damian Hassan" To: References: <01bf060b$c2daf680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 20:36:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Anne Jones > > That's good enough for me. While it seems strange that everyone else's > behaves OK in my Outlook , I am happy to accept that it is not a problem > if I am the only one with difficulties. > Sorry Adam for thinking it was your fault. Thanks Craig and Pam Thanks > Roger Pewick for reducing my unthreaded mail by 50%. > Anne > I've just checked my own inbox for the last four months. I use Outlook Express 5. Adam's first reply to a thread always starts a new thread. Subsequent replies from everyone thread normally (except Roger's previous software). I can't see why this should be, but count me on your side, Anne. Damian Hassan From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 26 08:54:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 08:54:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09006 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 08:54:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07182 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:53:58 +0200 Received: from ip252.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.252), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb07177; Sun Sep 26 00:53:49 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:53:49 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <01bf060b$c2daf680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <000901bf078d$33b13d60$477ffea9@hassanfa> In-Reply-To: <000901bf078d$33b13d60$477ffea9@hassanfa> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id IAA09008 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 25 Sep 1999 20:36:01 +0100, "Damian Hassan" wrote: >I've just checked my own inbox for the last four months. I use Outlook >Express 5. Adam's first reply to a thread always starts a new thread. >Subsequent replies from everyone thread normally (except Roger's previous >software). I can't see why this should be, but count me on your side, Anne. This is undoubtedly because Adam's mail program incorrectly adds a space character at the end of the subject line. Mail programs can thread using different data: (a) The subject line: most programs believe that two messages belong to the same thread if they have the (exact!) same subject. (b) The "In-Reply-To" header: a mail program can use this header to identify the precise message it is a reply to. (c) The "References" header: a mail program can use this header to identify several messages of the thread to which it belongs. Because of (a), you should never change the subject line in any way whatsoever (except for the automatically added "Re: " prefix) when replying to a message. Because of (b) and (c), you should always use the "Reply" or "Reply to all" function of your mail program when replying to a message, not the "New message" function. Correspondingly, when creating a new thread, use the "New message" function (or whatever it is called), not "Reply", and make up a subject line that is unlikely to clash with that of another thread. Adam's program generates an "In-Reply-To" header like the following: >In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:33:18 PDT." > <01bf0539$b41f7b20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In my mail program (Forté Agent, which a combined Usenet news and e-mail program sold from http://www.forteinc.com), Adams messages thread perfectly: they are shown not only as belonging to the correct thread, but indented below the specific message they are a reply to. This is because Agent uses the "In-Reply-To" header (which many programs, including Outlook, unfortunately does not generate). But Adam's messages have a space character added at the end of the subject line. This is undoubtedly what makes programs (such as Outlook) that cannot use the "In-Reply-To" header thread them incorrectly. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 26 08:54:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 08:54:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09005 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 08:54:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07181 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:53:58 +0200 Received: from ip252.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.252), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda07177; Sun Sep 26 00:53:47 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: A big one Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:53:47 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <3.0.6.32.19990916114505.00797100@eiu.edu> <19990918125449.3245.qmail@hotmail.com> <37E49760.42ED3B3A@village.uunet.be> <002501bf078a$37fef400$b1dc7ad1@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <002501bf078a$37fef400$b1dc7ad1@hdavis> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 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 IAA09007 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 25 Sep 1999 15:14:33 -0400, "Hirsch Davis" wrote: >From: Jesper Dybdal >> But the laws are not as helpful here as they might be: as far as >> I can see, there is no law that requires the claimer to show his >> hand if the claim is not contested. I think that might be a >> good idea to add to L68C - perhaps even with a stronger word than >> "should". > >Take a look at 66D, which allows the played and unplayed cards to be >inspected for the specific purposes of settling a claim or revoke, or number >of tricks won. The problem with L66D is that it is useful only in situations where there is doubt about the number of tricks and a player wants to admit that he doubts the number of tricks. That can still be a problem: sometimes (as in Herman's case) a player does not want to say explicitly that he doubts the number of tricks; sometimes a player would like to know the distribution even though he is not in doubt about the number of tricks; sometimes a revoke would be discovered if the hands were shown, even though the claim is (apart from the penalty for an undisclosed revoke) obviously correct. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 26 09:26:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 09:26:04 +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 JAA09101 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 09:25:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.38] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11V1CO-000Jas-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:25:49 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bf07ad$49db2ae0$265208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Gray twilight poured on dewy pastures Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:24:45 +0100 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, 26 Sep 1999 19:57:42 +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 FAA11062 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 05:57:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id FAA29857 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 05:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 05:57:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909260957.FAA29857@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: Computer dealt hands Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Let us get this straight. You believe that the effect of L80E is that > the SO can make any regulation, even one in conflict with the Laws and > it applies? Any regulation concerning bidding and play, yes, as long as they declare that "special conditions" apply to the event. > perfectly legal to give an artificial score instead of an assigned score > if the TD is too lazy to assign because L80E permits it if the SO says > so? This doesn't concern bidding or play, so I don't believe its legality is affected by regulation. (As you may recall, I believe it is legal, although a terrible idea. In no way should this be read as condoning the practice.) > You mean that all the complaints about the ACBL regulating natural > bidding are worth nothing because they can regulate natural bidding as > much as they like under L80E? Yes, I believe this is legal, again if the contest is advertised as one with "special conditions." Isn't this what the EBU "Level 1" is? > You mean that they can amend any single > Law and say it is amended under L80E? As long as it concerns bidding and play. I don't think changing the revoke penalty, for example, would be legal, but it would be legal to change what constitutes a revoke. For example, I've heard of allowing the club deuce to be played on any trick. I don't think this is a game I'd want to play very often, but it is said to be an interesting change of pace: very reasonable for a "special contest." Other examples deleted; I think the readers will see the point. > I am sorry, but that is not an interpretation of L80E that I accept. As long as players know in advance whether the game is "regular bridge" or a "special contest," the SO can do whatever it wants. Of course one or the other may be more popular, and I know which one I prefer in general. Do you think L80E applies to nothing other than screen regulations and bidding procedure? That isn't what it says, although those are the only examples given. Come to think of it, I'm surprised those examples are in 80E; such regulations could perfectly well come under 80F. Am I imagining the Lille interpretation that said "not in conflict" applies only to L80F? (I'm not at home, and it's hard for me to access my usual web resources from here.) > Oh? when have I argued with a "literal reading that makes sense and > causes no problems"? Heh! Don't let's go through that again. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 26 20:07:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:07:48 +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 UAA10287 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:07:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id GAA11082 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 06:07:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id GAA29877 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 06:06:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 06:06:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909261006.GAA29877@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L63B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Now [L63B] means that [a] the revoker substitutes a legal card, plays > the hand out, and each side makes a number of tricks and [b] the > Director goes back to the point of the revoke, lets the revoke stand, > plays the hand out for himself from there as though the revoke is > established, and applies the revoke laws to that imaginary play. He > calculates the penalty from that then applies it to the actual score. Where does part b come from? I am not saying you are wrong, but I don't see it on my simple-minded reading. (This is precisely the question I addressed in another thread, where I came to a different conclusion, although admittedly with some doubt.) > Let us see an example. Hearts are trumps. Declarer has already made > 8 tricks. > > A Dummy cashes the SA, West revokes > x by ruffing, East says "No spades", > x L63B applies, West's heart is > x - x replaced by a spade, declarer draws > x J the trump and cashes the CA. The > A - revoke has cost declarer nothing. > - x x > A Now the Director does the > - imaginary play bit. If the revoke > A had been established, West would > have won the revoke trick, led the > DA ruffed by East with the HJ, making two tricks. The penalty > for the established revoke would be two tricks, since the > revoker [West] won the revoke trick, and East-West won a > subsequent trick. So two tricks are transferred to declarer, > who now makes thirteen tricks. If you take the real play, OS have won no tricks after the revoke, so none is transferred. Nevertheless, I agree with David that L63B could stand another look. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 26 20:47:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:47:20 +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 UAA10368 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:47:09 +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 GAA11173 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 06:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id GAA29936 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 06:46:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 06:46:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909261046.GAA29936@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > In a situation like this, in which East violates an agreement > deliberately, and has justification for doing so, the director should > presume niether misinformation nor misbid. Careful here. The TD always _presumes_ MI but looks for evidence to rebut the presumption. Having found evidence -- in this case two marked convention cards and a logical justification for violating the agreement -- the TD might _conclude_ a deliberate deviation from the agreement. This is legal, of course, but if it happens a lot, it creates a new agreement, and the opponents are entitled to be informed of that. The TD will want to inquire, I should think. In the actual case, it seems the pair had agreed to play support doubles, i.e., that a double would promise three-card support. Apparently they had NOT agreed that other calls, or at least other bids, _denied_ three card support. If they did not have this agreement, telling the opponents that they did was MI. I don't think the alert was wrong, but the explanation should have made clear what the pair had and had not agreed. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 26 22:16:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:16:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from loger.inter.net.il (loger.inter.net.il [192.116.192.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10588 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:15:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-4-106.access.net.il [213.8.4.106] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16750 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:14:50 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37EE0E78.AB6756D0@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:15:52 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends - September 99 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML members Here is the 13th release of the new famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). The list will include lovely dogs who go on their existence at Rainbow Bridge , thinking about their lovely human friends. D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST (cats) Linda Trent - Panda , Gus (none) Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) Irv Kostal - Sammy (3) Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) Nutmeg , Lucky Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) Eric Landau - Wendell (4) Bill Seagraves - Zoe {RB-5/1999} (none) Jack Kryst - Darci (2) Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) Jan Peter Pals - Turbo (none) Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) Roger Pewick - Louie (none) Phillip Mendelshon- Visa , Mr. Peabody (none) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 9 years old black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 26 22:51:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:51:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from loger.inter.net.il (loger.inter.net.il [192.116.192.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10675 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:51:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-1-63.access.net.il [213.8.1.63] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23091; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:50:17 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37EE16C8.FF70F9FD@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:51:20 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grabiner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909241728.NAA27831@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear David I think that the hands are important for an estimation about ruling , by the members of H-BLML.......(human)..!!!! As Henk and Adam pointed in their answers , there are hands where with 3 cards supp. , the opener has good reasons (at least at his Bridge Level or skill) to bid any other bid . I know specific notes , when the supp. double shows a limited hand or some other kinds of information , denying length in the first suit or whatever - the TD has to find the evidence from the CC , players' remarks and the cards (what a pity , we play bridge with cards...). FOR THIS FORUM - IMPORTANT General Remark I think that here were too many speculations about "what the poet's intention was , intentional or inadvertent , drunk or sane ...etc." I believe that the initiators of this forum tried to build up a stage to discuss laws and real problems....... My suggestion is to present the cases in "full disclosure" in order to let us all express our opinions based on facts , figures and TFLB. It doesn't exclude humor , neither sarcastic (but polite) remarks , but I suggest to avoid speculations as much as possible. Dany David Grabiner wrote: > > What standard should the TD expect in order to be convinced that a call > was a misbid rather than a misexplanation? > > Example (from the club last night): > > S W N E > P P P 1H > P 1S 2D 2H! > P 3H P 4H > X P P P > > West alerted 2H: "We play support doubles, so the 2H rebid denies three > spades." In fact, East had three spades. The explanation was UI to > East, but it couldn't have affected East's bidding; South claimed that > she would not have doubled 4H and both N and S would have defended > differently.) > > The E-W convention cards had support doubles marked, and East did not > correct the explanation at the end of the auction. Would this be > considered evidence that E-W had the agreement, and East had forgotten, > so there was no damage? > > The hands are not included because the issue was moot on the actual > hands. > > -- > David Grabiner, grabine@bgnet.bgsu.edu (note new Email; math has problems) > http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine > 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 Sep 27 01:00:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 01:00:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA10974 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 01:00:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehgn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.23]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA19491 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 11:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990926105747.012b3460@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:57:47 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <199909261046.GAA29936@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:46 AM 9/26/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: David Grabiner >> In a situation like this, in which East violates an agreement >> deliberately, and has justification for doing so, the director should >> presume niether misinformation nor misbid. > >Careful here. The TD always _presumes_ MI but looks for evidence to >rebut the presumption. Having found evidence -- in this case two marked >convention cards and a logical justification for violating the agreement >-- the TD might _conclude_ a deliberate deviation from the agreement. >This is legal, of course, but if it happens a lot, it creates a new >agreement, and the opponents are entitled to be informed of that. The >TD will want to inquire, I should think. > >In the actual case, it seems the pair had agreed to play support >doubles, i.e., that a double would promise three-card support. >Apparently they had NOT agreed that other calls, or at least other >bids, _denied_ three card support. If they did not have this >agreement, telling the opponents that they did was MI. I don't think >the alert was wrong, but the explanation should have made clear what >the pair had and had not agreed. > Sorry, but I think this is less cut-and-dried than you have indicated. The problem is that there is often a disagreement between partners about what they have or have not agreed to, and this is particularly true for first-time partnerships. This case illustrates the problem pretty well, actually. The first time I play with someone, I'll be grateful if we get into as much detail as "support doubles through 2S", never mind a more detailed discussion of exactly what kinds of 3-card support might be suppressed. These are matters of style which cannot be realistically be shaped into "agreements" without considerable partnership experience. The way I play support doubles, a failure to double or raise denies 3 trumps, period, bearing in mind that partner is free to exercise his judgement in every situation. I would expect some near variant of this treatment to be the standard for anyone using this convention with a relatively new partner. For better or worse, the ACBL requires that I alert all sequences connected with this treatment. And when I am asked to explain, what should my answer be? "Denies three-card support" seems like the right answer. Perhaps it would be helpful to qualify this response by pointing out that this is a relatively new partnership, but it's not clear that this either is or should be required. So this pair agreed to play this method, and West duly alerted and explained what he (correctly, I think) understood to be the standard inference from his partner's action. Whether East forgot the agreement, which is fairly common, or had some other reason for his action, the fact that they had their convention cards properly marked is all the evidence that the TD should need to conclude that there was no MI, legal presumptions notwithstanding. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 02:05:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 02:05:27 +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 CAA11240 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 02:05:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.21]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA03268 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 12:05:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 12:05:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199909261605.MAA08607@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199909260957.FAA29857@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Sun, 26 Sep 1999 05:57:31 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Fw: Computer dealt hands Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> From: David Stevenson >> Let us get this straight. You believe that the effect of L80E is that >> the SO can make any regulation, even one in conflict with the Laws and >> it applies? > Any regulation concerning bidding and play, yes, as long as they declare > that "special conditions" apply to the event. A good example is the rule in individual tournaments that you may look at your own convention card. This violates the Laws, but it is necessary in order to make individual tournaments playable when people have different ideas of standard systems. -- David Grabiner, grabine@bgnet.bgsu.edu (note new Email; math has problems) http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine 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 Sep 27 03:36:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 03:18:50 +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 DAA11350 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 03:18:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.161] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11VHwQ-000GvO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 18:18:26 +0100 Message-ID: <005701bf0843$21565400$a15208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: warning Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 18:04:35 +0100 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; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 03:18:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.161] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11VHwR-000GvO-00; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 18:18:27 +0100 Message-ID: <005801bf0843$220ef5a0$a15208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Whetting the appetite. Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 18:15:26 +0100 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 Date: 29 August 1999 16:43 Subject: Re: Known psychers and UI >In my opinion, a psyche is such a gross misstatement, that >only a L75B ruling is possible. I refuse to call a psyche >an understanding, which is why I don't want to use L40C. > +=+ I am barred from revealing the outcome of group discussions just completed in Lausanne until Zones have received them. I may say, without such revelation, that one or two issues raised in 1999 blml discussions are covered. Please be patient, even if the dog is straining at the leash. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 05:22:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 05:22:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.math.uga.edu (alpha.math.uga.edu [128.192.3.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA11618 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 05:22:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from jupiter.math.uga.edu (jupiter [128.192.3.113]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA27923 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 15:18:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by jupiter.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA00220 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 15:23:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 15:23:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199909261923.PAA00220@jupiter.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: TiPXINZsKWmn4PF41YgX3A== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > It is not just a question of mathematics anyway. You can quote all > the mathematics you like, but the first time you lose a k/o match by 6 > imps trying for a 1 imp gain and losing 13 imps you have lost team- > mates. ... and the first time you lose a k/o match by 1 IMP because you *didn't* risk 13 IMPs for an overtrick, teammates probably won't notice, because there'll have been several other opportunities to save that IMP. That may be true, if you have the wrong teammates. And teammates who will bawl you out for doing your best to win the match *are* the wrong teammates. I'd feel pretty uncomfortable if I came across one of these decisions where I knew it was right (mathematically) to try for the overtrick, and I deliberately reduced our chance of winning the match just to make sure I wouldn't have to do any explaining to teammates. And if we're playing in a competition with anti-dumping regulations ... Jeremy. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 06:37:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA11758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 06:37:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA11753 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 06:36:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 16:29:52 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199909251532.LAA12739@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <199909250337.XAA29105@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:37:23 -0400 (EDT)) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 16:30:01 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The answer in this case was that E-W were playing for the first time, >and neither one had had a chance to forget it. (In the car on the way to the game) Partner: go over transfers over 1NT again. Me: 2D is a transfer to hearts, etc. (at the table, 20 minutes later) Partner: 1NT Me: 2D Partner: Pass 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/AwUBN+6D3L2UW3au93vOEQLeBQCgrZQaF3KtrMJFZevWV1dfA4qThjoAoOGC XADptA8h8PssILVw0T11t1Wt =PAZm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 06:46:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA11797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 06:46:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA11792 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 06:46:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 16:39:48 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199909261046.GAA29936@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 16:36:14 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Steve Willner writes: >In the actual case, it seems the pair had agreed to play support >doubles, i.e., that a double would promise three-card support. >Apparently they had NOT agreed that other calls, or at least other >bids, _denied_ three card support. If they did not have this >agreement, telling the opponents that they did was MI. I don't think >the alert was wrong, but the explanation should have made clear what >the pair had and had not agreed. I daresay it's entirely possible they'd agreed to play support doubles, and one player _assumed_ that meant that other bids deny 3 card support, and the other did not make that assumption. Granted this isn't good, but I bet it happens fairly often, especially with non-expert pairs. 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/AwUBN+6GK72UW3au93vOEQLuUgCeLUUl1q2UfPW4KFLxY0dyuLiogbkAoLC1 yo4GR+jD9HX5nlGOesxJTjQX =cXlk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 06:52:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA11812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 06:52:11 +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 GAA11807 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 06:52:00 +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 QAA18712 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 16:51:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA00372 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 16:51:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 16:51:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909262051.QAA00372@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SW>In the actual case, it seems... SW>Apparently... SW>If... > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Sorry, but I think this is less cut-and-dried than you have indicated. That's hard to imagine, given the qualifying language I used. I think the rules are pretty clear, but obviously any comment about what happened at the table is pure speculation on my part. I meant to make that obvious in my post; apologies if I failed. > problem is that there is often a disagreement between partners about what > they have or have not agreed to, and this is particularly true for > first-time partnerships. This case illustrates the problem pretty well, > actually. Yes, indeed it does, but we seem to disagree about what that implies. > The first time I play with someone, I'll be grateful if we get into as much > detail as "support doubles through 2S", never mind a more detailed > discussion of exactly what kinds of 3-card support might be suppressed. Fine. You are not required to have further agreements. > For better or worse, the ACBL requires that I alert all sequences connected > with this treatment. I agree with that, as I said. > And when I am asked to explain, what should my answer > be? "Denies three-card support" seems like the right answer. Not to me, it doesn't. As you said above, you haven't agreed whether failure to make the support double denies three-card support, so why are you telling opponents an agreement you don't have? How about "He could have made a support double to show three card support, but we have no agreements about when he is required to do so?" Or maybe "We play support doubles, and in many partnerships, failing to make one denies three-card support, but we haven't agreed whether or not that's the case in our partnership." Your explanation seems to me a perfect example of MI. > Perhaps it > would be helpful to qualify this response by pointing out that this is a > relatively new partnership, but it's not clear that this either is or > should be required. I agree with this sentiment. In practice, I usually mention if we are a first-time partnership. > the fact > that they had their convention cards properly marked is all the evidence > that the TD should need to conclude that there was no MI, legal > presumptions notwithstanding. I hope you agree that the TD should investigate all the relevant facts before ruling. The TD needs to know the actual agreement (or lack thereof) and what was told to the opponents and see whether the two match. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 07:11:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 07:11:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA11866 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 07:11:37 +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 11VLZu-0008td-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 21:11:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 21:21:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Gray twilight poured on dewy pastures References: <000701bf07ad$49db2ae0$265208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <000701bf07ad$49db2ae0$265208c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >Grattan------------------------------------------------------------ >+=+ Grattan has returned home to a >mountain of snail mail and email +=+ Great! Now for an outpouring of wisdom. PWD [Nobody should tell one of my former regular partners that I got 23.016%] -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 27 07:43:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 07:43:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.mail.gxn.net [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA11903 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 07:43:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from p02s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.3] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11VM4W-00067J-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:43:05 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:15:07 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0864$3559e9a0$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: Damian Hassan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, September 25, 1999 8:56 PM Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook > >From: Anne Jones > >> >> That's good enough for me. While it seems strange that everyone else's >> behaves OK in my Outlook , I am happy to accept that it is not a problem >> if I am the only one with difficulties. >> Sorry Adam for thinking it was your fault. Thanks Craig and Pam Thanks >> Roger Pewick for reducing my unthreaded mail by 50%. >> Anne >> > >I've just checked my own inbox for the last four months. I use Outlook >Express 5. Adam's first reply to a thread always starts a new thread. >Subsequent replies from everyone thread normally (except Roger's previous >software). I can't see why this should be, but count me on your side, Anne. Thank you for this. I have just been able to cancel my psychictric clinic appointment:-) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 08:41:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:41:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11957 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:41:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10259 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:41:04 +0200 Received: from ip23.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.23), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb10254; Mon Sep 27 00:40:56 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:40:56 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199909261923.PAA00220@jupiter.math.uga.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909261923.PAA00220@jupiter.math.uga.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 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 IAA11958 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 15:23:08 -0400 (EDT), Jeremy Rickard wrote: >That may be true, if you have the wrong teammates. And teammates who will bawl >you out for doing your best to win the match *are* the wrong teammates. I would certainly not expect my team mates to mind losing 13 IMPs on a board because I followed the mathematical odds. But I would expect myself to be so irritated over losing a game that I could have won that it would cost something on the following boards as well. And my team mates would be quite justified in not liking that. Therefore I require very much better odds than the mathematically necessary ones before I will risk a game contract for the sake of an overtrick. On the actual hand I would never dream of finessing unless RHO had shown out. But I am sure that there are many players who are so much better than me at forgetting a hand when they go on to the next one that it is reasonable for them to follow the mathematical odds. I expect that it would be advantageous for most top players to follow the mathematical odds. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 10:12:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:12:38 +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 KAA12069 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:12:25 +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 11VOOh-000F9n-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:12:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:59:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909261046.GAA29936@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990926105747.012b3460@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990926105747.012b3460@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >The first time I play with someone, I'll be grateful if we get into as much >detail as "support doubles through 2S", never mind a more detailed >discussion of exactly what kinds of 3-card support might be suppressed. >These are matters of style which cannot be realistically be shaped into >"agreements" without considerable partnership experience. The way I play >support doubles, a failure to double or raise denies 3 trumps, period, >bearing in mind that partner is free to exercise his judgement in every >situation. I would expect some near variant of this treatment to be the >standard for anyone using this convention with a relatively new partner. Experience shows this to be wrong. A lot of people play conventions their own way: in fact the same may be said of you, since you are detailing as your expectation a usage which is not universal. >For better or worse, the ACBL requires that I alert all sequences connected >with this treatment. And when I am asked to explain, what should my answer >be? "Denies three-card support" seems like the right answer. Perhaps it >would be helpful to qualify this response by pointing out that this is a >relatively new partnership, but it's not clear that this either is or >should be required. If you do not make the disclaimer then you have said "Denies three card support" with a partner with whom you have no such agreement, and who may have three card support. You have certainly misinformed your opponents. No doubt your motives are pure, but your actions are flawed, and an adjustment would be automatic if there was damage. >So this pair agreed to play this method, and West duly alerted and >explained what he (correctly, I think) understood to be the standard >inference from his partner's action. Whether East forgot the agreement, >which is fairly common, or had some other reason for his action, the fact >that they had their convention cards properly marked is all the evidence >that the TD should need to conclude that there was no MI, legal >presumptions notwithstanding. I am quite sure that he should _not_ describe it in the "standard" way when he has no such agreement. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 27 10:12:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:12:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12070 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:12:28 +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 11VOOh-000G0b-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:12:06 +0000 Message-ID: <$CFr1$C$Er73EwLz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:50:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents References: <199909261923.PAA00220@jupiter.math.uga.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909261923.PAA00220@jupiter.math.uga.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> It is not just a question of mathematics anyway. You can quote all >> the mathematics you like, but the first time you lose a k/o match by 6 >> imps trying for a 1 imp gain and losing 13 imps you have lost team- >> mates. > >... and the first time you lose a k/o match by 1 IMP because you *didn't* risk >13 IMPs for an overtrick, teammates probably won't notice, because there'll have >been several other opportunities to save that IMP. > >That may be true, if you have the wrong teammates. And teammates who will bawl >you out for doing your best to win the match *are* the wrong teammates. > >I'd feel pretty uncomfortable if I came across one of these decisions where I >knew it was right (mathematically) to try for the overtrick, and I deliberately >reduced our chance of winning the match just to make sure I wouldn't have to do >any explaining to teammates. Perhaps what you say is true, but it is not what I was saying, and thus irrelevant. I do not believe that the mathematical expectation of winning a match is the same as the expectancy of your score on the hand. In other words, if you gain 1 imp on 15 occasions to losing 13 imps on one occasion, then I consider to go for the imp is mathematically wrong and a losing 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 Mon Sep 27 10:12:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:12:37 +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 KAA12068 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:12:25 +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 11VOOh-000F9o-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:12:08 +0000 Message-ID: <1SmpBHDyQr73EwK2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 01:02:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L63B References: <199909261006.GAA29877@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909261006.GAA29877@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 >> Now [L63B] means that [a] the revoker substitutes a legal card, plays >> the hand out, and each side makes a number of tricks and [b] the >> Director goes back to the point of the revoke, lets the revoke stand, >> plays the hand out for himself from there as though the revoke is >> established, and applies the revoke laws to that imaginary play. He >> calculates the penalty from that then applies it to the actual score. > >Where does part b come from? I am not saying you are wrong, but I don't >see it on my simple-minded reading. (This is precisely the question I >addressed in another thread, where I came to a different conclusion, >although admittedly with some doubt.) This is the Endicott-Kooijman-some others statement from Malta. I do not suggest it is clear from the Law itself. >> Let us see an example. Hearts are trumps. Declarer has already made >> 8 tricks. >> >> A Dummy cashes the SA, West revokes >> x by ruffing, East says "No spades", >> x L63B applies, West's heart is >> x - x replaced by a spade, declarer draws >> x J the trump and cashes the CA. The >> A - revoke has cost declarer nothing. >> - x x >> A Now the Director does the >> - imaginary play bit. If the revoke >> A had been established, West would >> have won the revoke trick, led the >> DA ruffed by East with the HJ, making two tricks. The penalty >> for the established revoke would be two tricks, since the >> revoker [West] won the revoke trick, and East-West won a >> subsequent trick. So two tricks are transferred to declarer, >> who now makes thirteen tricks. > >If you take the real play, OS have won no tricks after the revoke, so >none is transferred. And that is what Endicott, Kooijman et al said you do not do. >Nevertheless, I agree with David that L63B could stand another look. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 27 10:30:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:30:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12161 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:30:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehb6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.102]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA13802 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990926202704.012a659c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:27:04 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <199909262051.QAA00372@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:51 PM 9/26/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >Michael wrote: >> The problem is that there is often a disagreement between partners about what >> they have or have not agreed to, and this is particularly true for >> first-time partnerships. This case illustrates the problem pretty well, >> actually. > >Yes, indeed it does, but we seem to disagree about what that implies. > >> The first time I play with someone, I'll be grateful if we get into as much >> detail as "support doubles through 2S", never mind a more detailed >> discussion of exactly what kinds of 3-card support might be suppressed. > >Fine. You are not required to have further agreements. We are not required to have them, no. But I will play parter for fewer than 3 spades on this auction, and therefore I am obliged to alert and explain what I understand to be our "agreement", based on what I regard to be the standard inferences about support doubles. I assume that it is _not_ your position that I am allowed to skip the alert in this instance, rationalizing that since we have had no explicit discussion about follow-on sequences, we cannot be said to have any particular agreement. >> And when I am asked to explain, what should my answer >> be? "Denies three-card support" seems like the right answer. > >Not to me, it doesn't. As you said above, you haven't agreed whether >failure to make the support double denies three-card support, so why are >you telling opponents an agreement you don't have? How about "He could >have made a support double to show three card support, but we have no >agreements about when he is required to do so?" Or maybe "We play >support doubles, and in many partnerships, failing to make one denies >three-card support, but we haven't agreed whether or not that's the case >in our partnership." > >Your explanation seems to me a perfect example of MI. Your explanations are, indeed, much more careful, and are representative of a broader class of Artful Dodges that prudent players have adopted to take care of exactly this problem. Typically, the explanation is hedged by the phrase "tends to", as in "tends to deny 3-card support." This caters to all possibilities. You have informed the opponents about the nature of your agreement, and at the same time taken out insurance against an MI claim when partner strays, for whatever reason. And best of all, your explanation cannot be challenged, since "tends to" is so vague that even if partner _always_ has the indicated hand (as indeed you expect him to), nobody can find fault with your explanation! Maybe it is a good idea to protect yourself in this manner, but I am not entirely comfortable with it, and am slightly revolted that the Laws should effectively encourage such disingenuousness. If I will confidently play partner for a particular holding, based on our "agreements", then the opponents are entitled to a clear explanation of that treatment, and not to be misled by carefully worded hedges. >I hope you agree that the TD should investigate all the relevant facts >before ruling. The TD needs to know the actual agreement (or lack >thereof) and what was told to the opponents and see whether the two >match. Well it probably won't hurt to ask questions, gently. Perhaps East will blurt out that they actually discussed this problem in some detail, and so we will discover that it really was a case of MI. But I doubt it. The most likely result of our inquiry will be something vague and confusing such as "I wasn't sure whether support doubles applied in this situation," or "I didn't know that passing denied 3-card support," or something else equally useless. The question is not whether the TD should ask, but how he should rule in the face of the following findings: 1. That E/W had agreed to play support doubles, with little additional discussion. 2. That East was unclear about or unaware of the inferences to be drawn from a failure to double. You seem to arguing that, on the one hand, West is obliged to alert and explain the inferences but that on the other hand to do so is to commit MI, unless he qualifies his explanation with a sufficiently impressive straddle. My own view is that if E/W have agreed to play "support doubles" then without further agreement this carries with it the standard inference that East's failure to double denies 3-card support. West should not be penalized for alerting and correctly explaining the standard meaning of this agreement, even if his partner is clueless. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 10:59:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:59:01 +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 KAA12229 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:58:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from pf1s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.242] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11VP7a-0006Iv-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 01:58:27 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Double deception. Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 02:03:03 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0884$0cc1dc80$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 National competition. Direct entry. E/W game. Dealer E. Q87 AK976 T53 K6 JT532 A98 32 T84 Q6 72 QJ97 T5432 K4 QJ5 AKJ984 A8 Contract 6H by N. Table result 6H-1 Lead AS followed by 2D. Trick 2 won in dummy with Ace. Declarer now played 8 rounds ending in hand. Declarer played the 10D and claimed that East failed to follow smoothly causing her to take a finesse that she would not have taken. (East held 7D and 10C 5C) East denied that she hesitated with her singleton, but subsequently admitted that her fingers were sticky, and that she fumbled. TD ruled L73F2, but said that it considered that a L12C3 ruling might be appropriate, and took the decision to appeal under L83. East cried and said it had not hesitated. West accused North of being "unsporting" North wanted its pound of flesh. South declined to comment.It had not noticed anything. The sexes of all concerned have been disguised to protect my reputation (established by Dany) of being anti feminist-chauvinist!!!) Your comments please. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 11:03:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:03:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12247 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:02:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei6u.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.222]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA32674 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 21:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990926210026.012b67d4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 21:00:26 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-Reply-To: <$CFr1$C$Er73EwLz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <199909261923.PAA00220@jupiter.math.uga.edu> <199909261923.PAA00220@jupiter.math.uga.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:50 AM 9/27/99 +0100, David wrote: > Perhaps what you say is true, but it is not what I was saying, and >thus irrelevant. I do not believe that the mathematical expectation of >winning a match is the same as the expectancy of your score on the hand. >In other words, if you gain 1 imp on 15 occasions to losing 13 imps on >one occasion, then I consider to go for the imp is mathematically wrong >and a losing policy. > I am not sure what this means. I know we have wandered far off topic in this thread, but I am intrigued: do you mean to say that it is mathematically wrong because matches are finite in length, i.e. we are less-likely to win a (relatively) short match following the 1-IMP approach? This conclusion seems to be borne out by the Monte Carlo studies described earlier by Adam (I think). But it misses the point. With sufficient work, we can effectively estimate the probability of winning a match following either strategy, under appropriate assumptions. The argument of the scientists (Jeremy, et al) is that when that mathematical probability is higher for the 1-IMP strategy, then that is the "best" strategy to employ. While it is true that this is not solely a function of mathematical expectations (in IMPs) of each approach, the work Adam describes indicates that these are not so far off in predicting the relative probabilities of victory. I wouldn't want to argue with Jesper's argument concerning his own emotional reaction to the possible failure of the 1-IMP plan. But I must say, it strongly resembles my wife's reluctance to employ Restricted Choice. In the canonical situation of looking to pick up a suit missing QJxx, she will refuse the finesse after winning RHO's honor with dummy's A. Why? Even though she understands the theoretical significance of the situation, she would feel much worse losing to the doubleton QJ than she would losing to a "bad" trump break. Go figure. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 17:06:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:06:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12655 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:06:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.20.68] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11VUrS-0007B1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:06:10 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01bf08b6$9f4a9b00$4414063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <01bf0884$0cc1dc80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Double deception. Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:05:02 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Anne Jones wrote: [snip of hand] > Declarer played the 10D and claimed that East failed to follow > smoothly causing her to take a finesse that she would not have > taken. (East held 7D and 10C 5C) > East denied that she hesitated with her singleton, but subsequently > admitted that her fingers were sticky, and that she fumbled. > The sexes of all concerned have been disguised to protect my reputation > (established by Dany) of being anti feminist-chauvinist!!!) With disguises like that... From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 17:16:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:16:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12679 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:15:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from jppals (DHCP-ivip-121.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.121]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA26383 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:15:43 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199909270715.JAA26383@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:14:42 +0200 Subject: Dummy reversal Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bidding: N S - 1D 1H 2NT 3NT 4H end *West* makes the opening lead, North faces his cards and everybody thinks they are playing and defending 3NT. South makes nine tricks, but when he's about to write down the score, North says: "Wait a minute, the contract was four hearts, and *I* would have made eleven tricks!" Ruling, please...... From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 17:25:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:25:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12703 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:25:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.20.68] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11VVAN-0000HS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:25:44 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bf08b9$5a9bdfc0$4414063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199909261923.PAA00220@jupiter.math.uga.edu><199909261923.PAA00220@jupiter.math.uga.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990926210026.012b67d4@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:24:36 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 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 It seems to me that the reason people don't risk contracts to take mathematically correct plays for an overtrick has to do with utility factors. Unassailably, it is "correct" to risk a 13 IMP swing for the chance of gaining 1 IMP if the odds in favour of the play for the extra trick exceed 13/1. If you do this all your life, you will go to your grave having won more IMPs than you would otherwise have done. Whether you will have won more matches is not so clear, but I am prepared to take the "Monte Carlo" simulations on trust. However, people do not live their lives according to sound mathematical principles. From the time we start to play rubber bridge or IMPs, the overriding principle that governs all our actions is that a plus score is better than a minus score. Subjectively, the difference between plus 600 and -100 is considerably more than 13 times as important as the difference between plus 630 and plus 600. I do not think that this is unnatural. I have often been in two-card endings where dummy has a major tenace and I have a complete count on the hand; I have on many of those occasions rejected the finesse for the overtrick just in case I have miscounted. Now, without wishing to seem immodest, the odds that I have miscounted are considerably greater than 13/1 - yet I do not believe that any of my partners or team-mates would do more than smile tolerantly at my play. In the case in point, it is not conceivable to me that any declarer would actually take a second-round heart finesse that was "unproven" to the extent that this one was. To argue that finessing would be "rational" because the odds that East had opened a weak two on Jxxx instead of xxx are somehow quantifiable seems to me to misapply the concept of "rationality"; despite the mathematical odds, no human declarer would have any "reason" at all to finesse. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 17:46:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:46:28 +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 RAA12772 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:46:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA28453; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:45:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA12892; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:45:39 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:45:39 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Reply-To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Jan Peter Pals cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy reversal In-Reply-To: <199909270715.JAA26383@hera.frw.uva.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > Bidding: S N 1 D - 1 H 2 N - 3 N 4 H - P > *West* makes the opening lead, North faces his cards and everybody > thinks they are playing and defending 3NT. South makes nine tricks, but > when he's about to write down the score, North says: "Wait a minute, > the contract was four hearts, and *I* would have made eleven tricks!" > Ruling, please...... The contract is 4H. West led out of turn and south became declarer when north started to spread his hand. In first order, south has made 9 tricks, except that it is possible that he ruffed a trick without anybody noticing it, then accepted the lead out of turn from the person who thought he had won the trick. In that case, all players have simply miscounted their tricks and that has to be corrected. So, try to reconstruct play and see how many tricks south has actually made in 4H. If that's not possible, I believe south gets the 9 tricks he actually made. After all this is over, order a couple of rounds of coffee for the table. 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 Sep 27 18:37:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:37:37 +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 SAA12841 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:37:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from pdes06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.223] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11VWHc-0000nf-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:37:17 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Dummy reversal Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:41:56 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf08c4$28008c40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Jan Peter Pals To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 8:30 AM Subject: Dummy reversal >Bidding: > >N S >- 1D >1H 2NT >3NT 4H >end > >*West* makes the opening lead, North faces his cards and >everybody thinks they are playing and defending 3NT. South >makes nine tricks, but when he's about to write down the score, >North says: "Wait a minute, the contract was four hearts, and *I* >would have made eleven tricks!" > >Ruling, please...... West has lead out of turn. North has accepted lead by spreading dummy. South has misplayed a 4H contract. (for whatever reason). Result 4H-1 Anne > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 19:19:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:19:56 +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 TAA12921 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:19:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa1s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.162] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11VWwZ-0001pS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:19:36 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Dummy reversal Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:24:17 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf08ca$128fe760$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: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) To: Jan Peter Pals Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 9:03 AM Subject: Re: Dummy reversal >On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > >> Bidding: > >S N >1 D - 1 H >2 N - 3 N >4 H - P > > >> *West* makes the opening lead, North faces his cards and everybody >> thinks they are playing and defending 3NT. South makes nine tricks, but >> when he's about to write down the score, North says: "Wait a minute, >> the contract was four hearts, and *I* would have made eleven tricks!" > >> Ruling, please...... > >The contract is 4H. West led out of turn and south became declarer when >north started to spread his hand. In first order, south has made 9 >tricks, except that it is possible that he ruffed a trick without anybody >noticing it, then accepted the lead out of turn from the person who >thought he had won the trick. In that case, all players have simply >miscounted their tricks and that has to be corrected. So, try to >reconstruct play and see how many tricks south has actually made in 4H. >If that's not possible, I believe south gets the 9 tricks he actually >made. They have agreed 9 tricks. Do you look for ruffs before the players ask you to? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 20:26:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:26:28 +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 UAA13067 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:26:19 +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 11VXz0-000DJX-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:26:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 03:04:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909262051.QAA00372@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990926202704.012a659c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990926202704.012a659c@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 04:51 PM 9/26/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >>Michael wrote: >>> The problem is that there is often a disagreement between partners about >what >>> they have or have not agreed to, and this is particularly true for >>> first-time partnerships. This case illustrates the problem pretty well, >>> actually. >> >>Yes, indeed it does, but we seem to disagree about what that implies. >> >>> The first time I play with someone, I'll be grateful if we get into as much >>> detail as "support doubles through 2S", never mind a more detailed >>> discussion of exactly what kinds of 3-card support might be suppressed. >> >>Fine. You are not required to have further agreements. > >We are not required to have them, no. But I will play parter for fewer than >3 spades on this auction, and therefore I am obliged to alert and explain >what I understand to be our "agreement", based on what I regard to be the >standard inferences about support doubles. I assume that it is _not_ your >position that I am allowed to skip the alert in this instance, >rationalizing that since we have had no explicit discussion about follow-on >sequences, we cannot be said to have any particular agreement. > >>> And when I am asked to explain, what should my answer >>> be? "Denies three-card support" seems like the right answer. >> >>Not to me, it doesn't. As you said above, you haven't agreed whether >>failure to make the support double denies three-card support, so why are >>you telling opponents an agreement you don't have? How about "He could >>have made a support double to show three card support, but we have no >>agreements about when he is required to do so?" Or maybe "We play >>support doubles, and in many partnerships, failing to make one denies >>three-card support, but we haven't agreed whether or not that's the case >>in our partnership." >> >>Your explanation seems to me a perfect example of MI. > >Your explanations are, indeed, much more careful, and are representative of >a broader class of Artful Dodges that prudent players have adopted to take >care of exactly this problem. Typically, the explanation is hedged by the >phrase "tends to", as in "tends to deny 3-card support." This caters to all >possibilities. You have informed the opponents about the nature of your >agreement, and at the same time taken out insurance against an MI claim >when partner strays, for whatever reason. And best of all, your explanation >cannot be challenged, since "tends to" is so vague that even if partner >_always_ has the indicated hand (as indeed you expect him to), nobody can >find fault with your explanation! > >Maybe it is a good idea to protect yourself in this manner, but I am not >entirely comfortable with it, and am slightly revolted that the Laws should >effectively encourage such disingenuousness. If I will confidently play >partner for a particular holding, based on our "agreements", then the >opponents are entitled to a clear explanation of that treatment, and not to >be misled by carefully worded hedges. I do not think you have got the point. The somewhat unethical player will do what he will, and we shall attempt to control him by rulings. However, the majority of players err through ignorance not malice. Furthermore, I do not believe you understand the point of the "hedges". The reason that most people say "tends to" is because it is not always true. You are revolted that the Laws suggest you tell the truth: I am revolted that players would wish to do otherwise. If a support double guarantees three card support then of course you do not say tends to: that is lying. But failure to double rarely denies three-card support: so you should not say that it does, unless you know that you and this partner have such an arrangement. >>I hope you agree that the TD should investigate all the relevant facts >>before ruling. The TD needs to know the actual agreement (or lack >>thereof) and what was told to the opponents and see whether the two >>match. > >Well it probably won't hurt to ask questions, gently. Perhaps East will >blurt out that they actually discussed this problem in some detail, and so >we will discover that it really was a case of MI. > >But I doubt it. The most likely result of our inquiry will be something >vague and confusing such as "I wasn't sure whether support doubles applied >in this situation," or "I didn't know that passing denied 3-card support," >or something else equally useless. The question is not whether the TD >should ask, but how he should rule in the face of the following findings: > >1. That E/W had agreed to play support doubles, with little additional >discussion. >2. That East was unclear about or unaware of the inferences to be drawn >from a failure to double. > >You seem to arguing that, on the one hand, West is obliged to alert and >explain the inferences but that on the other hand to do so is to commit MI, >unless he qualifies his explanation with a sufficiently impressive straddle. > >My own view is that if E/W have agreed to play "support doubles" then >without further agreement this carries with it the standard inference that >East's failure to double denies 3-card support. West should not be >penalized for alerting and correctly explaining the standard meaning of >this agreement, even if his partner is clueless. It is not a standard agreement, and you should not be saying so. You may double after 1H P 1S 2C with a 3=10=0=0, but I can assure you that you are in a minority. For the vast majority, any call other than double tends to deny three card support, so that is an honest explanation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 27 20:26:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:26:24 +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 UAA13065 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:26:16 +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 11VXyw-000DIz-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:26:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 03:12:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Double deception. References: <01bf0884$0cc1dc80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf0884$0cc1dc80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > National competition. Direct entry. > > E/W game. Dealer E. > > Q87 > AK976 > T53 > K6 >JT532 A98 >32 T84 >Q6 72 >QJ97 T5432 > K4 > QJ5 > AKJ984 > A8 >Contract 6H by N. >Table result 6H-1 > >Lead AS followed by 2D. Trick 2 won in dummy with Ace. >Declarer now played 8 rounds ending in hand. >Declarer played the 10D and claimed that East failed to follow >smoothly causing her to take a finesse that she would not have >taken. (East held 7D and 10C 5C) >East denied that she hesitated with her singleton, but subsequently >admitted that her fingers were sticky, and that she fumbled. That's a hesitation. Rule 6H=. >TD ruled L73F2, but said that it considered that a L12C3 ruling >might be appropriate, and took the decision to appeal under L83. I really see no reason for a TD to appeal. This is just unsuitable. TDs need to appeal only in special cases where they have to uphold the integrity of the event, not because they would like one side to save its deposit. There is nothing wrong in the TD explaining the possibility of L12C3, but leave it to the players to appeal. >East cried and said it had not hesitated. Shame. >West accused North of being "unsporting" Disciplinary penalty for West. Fine him/her 3 imps. >North wanted its pound of flesh. Why not? >South declined to comment.It had not noticed anything. Fine. The ruling is quite routine. West's remarks are out of order and should be dealt with. There is no reason to encourage an appeal. L12C3 does apply, so an AC might easily give a split score - and probably should. >The sexes of all concerned have been disguised to protect my reputation >(established by Dany) of being anti feminist-chauvinist!!!) I quote from above: >East denied that she hesitated with her singleton I bet East is female! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 27 21:26:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:26:42 +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 VAA13196 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:26:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc2s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.195] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11VYvH-0007bT-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:26:24 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Double deception. Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:31:07 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf08db$ca56a800$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, September 27, 1999 11:54 AM Subject: Re: Double deception. >>West accused North of being "unsporting" > > Disciplinary penalty for West. Fine him/her 3 imps. I've wanted to do this to this particular person many times. All I ever do is say that her comment is out of order, and tell her not to repeat it. If she did I would use L90B6. What is her offence? What Law allows me to fine her 3imps. Do I apply it to the board. The provisions of L90A do not seem to cover this. If this type of thing happened away from the table, but in the playing room would you fine similarly in VPs applied to the final score. What is the maximum such fine you would consider before asking a player to leave.L91A. My attempt at humour in posting this failed. Blame the spirits. All 5 involved were of course female. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 21:44:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:44:36 +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 VAA13243 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:44:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-224.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.224]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA09025 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:43:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37EF1ED5.B9A0E803@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:37:57 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Double deception. References: <01bf0884$0cc1dc80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > Table result 6H-1 > > Lead AS followed by 2D. Trick 2 won in dummy with Ace. > Declarer now played 8 rounds ending in hand. > Declarer played the 10D and claimed that East failed to follow > smoothly causing her to take a finesse that she would not have > taken. (East held 7D and 10C 5C) > East denied that she hesitated with her singleton, but subsequently > admitted that her fingers were sticky, and that she fumbled. > TD ruled L73F2, but said that it considered that a L12C3 ruling > might be appropriate, and took the decision to appeal under L83. > East cried and said it had not hesitated. > West accused North of being "unsporting" > North wanted its pound of flesh. > South declined to comment.It had not noticed anything. > North is bridge-lawyering. I believe East rather than North. one down. However, just another case of "you had to be there". > The sexes of all concerned have been disguised to protect my reputation > (established by Dany) of being anti feminist-chauvinist!!!) > I find the "it" protection even more disturbing. I have never once used "her", "she" or whatever in describing a case, unless the players were known, but have always used masculine pronouns, even when I knew they were females. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 27 22:40:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:23:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13388 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:23:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-92.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.92]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA16466 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 14:23:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37EF5DC6.A8488747@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 14:06:30 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Double deception. References: <01bf0884$0cc1dc80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Anne Jones wrote: > > National competition. Direct entry. > > > > E/W game. Dealer E. > > > > Q87 > > AK976 > > T53 > > K6 > >JT532 A98 > >32 T84 > >Q6 72 > >QJ97 T5432 > > K4 > > QJ5 > > AKJ984 > > A8 > >Contract 6H by N. > >Table result 6H-1 > > > >Lead AS followed by 2D. Trick 2 won in dummy with Ace. > >Declarer now played 8 rounds ending in hand. > >Declarer played the 10D and claimed that East failed to follow > >smoothly causing her to take a finesse that she would not have > >taken. (East held 7D and 10C 5C) > >East denied that she hesitated with her singleton, but subsequently > >admitted that her fingers were sticky, and that she fumbled. > > That's a hesitation. Rule 6H=. > David, have you ever known anyone that would really hesitate in playing from queen-small before KJXXX at the table ? Do you really believe North that he thought the hesitation showed the queen ? really now ! > >TD ruled L73F2, but said that it considered that a L12C3 ruling > >might be appropriate, and took the decision to appeal under L83. > > I really see no reason for a TD to appeal. This is just unsuitable. > TDs need to appeal only in special cases where they have to uphold the > integrity of the event, not because they would like one side to save its > deposit. There is nothing wrong in the TD explaining the possibility of > L12C3, but leave it to the players to appeal. > > >East cried and said it had not hesitated. > > Shame. > > >West accused North of being "unsporting" > > Disciplinary penalty for West. Fine him/her 3 imps. > Well, give me a penalty as well then. > >North wanted its pound of flesh. > > Why not? > whyever so. Easiest way of finding a queen : play quickly, notice a 'hesitation', finesse and call the director. Works all the time ! > >South declined to comment.It had not noticed anything. > > Fine. > > The ruling is quite routine. West's remarks are out of order and > should be dealt with. There is no reason to encourage an appeal. L12C3 > does apply, so an AC might easily give a split score - and probably > should. > > >The sexes of all concerned have been disguised to protect my reputation > >(established by Dany) of being anti feminist-chauvinist!!!) > > I quote from above: > >East denied that she hesitated with her singleton > > I bet East is female! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 01:09:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:09:54 +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 BAA13779 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:09:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb3s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.180] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11VcPF-0001fN-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:09:33 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bf08fa$3bfac680$b4a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Gray twilight poured on dewy pastures Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:09:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 September 1999 22:24 Subject: Re: Gray twilight poured on dewy pastures > [Nobody should tell one of my former regular partners that I got >23.016%] > +=+ Oh, that's very understandable; you were surely playing in a novice event and had no idea what was going on. ~G~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 01:11:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:11:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA13796 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:11:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.99.47.41] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11VcQ2-0004RQ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:10:22 +0100 Message-ID: <001201bf08fa$3efd5820$292f63c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: A defensive problem Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:09:06 +0100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Your hand is: A43 62 1074 AJ652 RHO opens 1S, LHO bids 2S, RHO bids 4S. Your opponents are playing four-card majors, but will only open one of those if they have a balanced hand too strong for a 14-16 no trump. You lead H6, and dummy is: QJ102 873 Q863 K9 A43 62 1074 AJ652 The first heart goes 6, 3, queen, king. Declarer leads S5, 3, 10, 6. Declarer leads SQ from dummy, 7, 8, ace. Your partner's order of cards in the trump suit means nothing (it is not suit preference). You can conclude that declarer has at least a balanced 17 hcp with four spades and fewer than four hearts. With a four-card minor, he would open 1S on these values, so you can conclude nothing more about his shape. What do you lead to trick four? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 01:31:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:31:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA13849 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:31:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA17592; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:30:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-229.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.229) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma017380; Mon Sep 27 10:30:07 1999 Message-ID: <004301bf08fd$7d8b6a20$e584d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:32:16 -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 -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan >David Stevenson wrote: > >> It is not just a question of mathematics anyway. You can quote all >> the mathematics you like, but the first time you lose a k/o match by 6 >> imps trying for a 1 imp gain and losing 13 imps you have lost team- >> mates. > >Well, if your teammates are David desJardins and someone else who is >familiar with the actual facts, you probably won't lose them---they'll >tell you you made the right play and just got unlucky. > >The flip side is that you may lose a K/O match by 1 or 2 IMPs because >(among other things) you *didn't* try for the 1 IMP gain when the >mathematics say you should have. This will happen more often than >losing a match by trying for a 1 IMP gain; but this time, it won't be >obvious to your teammates why the match was lost, so they'll chalk it >up to bad luck. This doesn't seem right to me. It's essentially >saying, "I'm going to make a play that decreases my chance of winning >the match, and I'm doing it because if it does lose the match, I'll be >able to avoid blame because my teammates will never figure out that it >was my play that cost the match." > >If you're willing to lose more matches to avoid having to find new >teammates, I guess that's your choice. I'm not sure I'd have that >problem, since I can say "I've looked into the mathematics of it and >run a computer simulation, and I found that the safety play loses more >matches than it wins in this type of situation"; hopefully, even if my >teammates weren't convinced, they would at least understand that I did >what I thought was best and had good reasons for doing what I did. > > -- Adam Granting you your premise for purposes of argument (while not fully accepting it) there remains the consideration at Swiss at least, that losing a couple of matches by an IMP or two may still not VP out as badly as losing one by 12 or 13 IMPS. There is also the demoralising effect of going for a number over an ot, on you, your partner and your teammates. You don't waste a much time on the if only's over a one IMP loss as over a debacle; you can clear-headedly an confidently go out and win the next match without feeling beaten or foolish. That factor of looking foolish may come into play here...this was a pro playing with a client. You don't want to go for a big number in that situation. It is, on the other hand easy to make the one IMP loss tie into a playing lesson on safety plays, noting the big number that could have resulted in the other case...and it is great to look like a genius when you WIN big. I have long believed that mathematicians don't win matches...players do. Bean counters seldom excel in any competitive endeavour. If DdJ would disagree with me it would maintain our nearly perfect record. I shall miss his sarcastic rejoinders until I have the time to wade through rgb again. -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 01:48:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:48:24 +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 BAA13877 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:48:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07297; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:47:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199909271547.IAA07297@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Craig Senior" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:32:16 PDT." <004301bf08fd$7d8b6a20$e584d9ce@host> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:47:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: > Granting you your premise for purposes of argument (while not fully > accepting it) there remains the consideration at Swiss at least, that losing > a couple of matches by an IMP or two may still not VP out as badly as losing > one by 12 or 13 IMPS. I haven't attempted to do any simulations about the effects on Swiss matches with any type of scoring (won-loss, 20-pt VP, 30-pt VP); the results would be interesting. However, it should be pointed out that when playing at VP's, refusing to play for an overtrick has a significant likelihood of costing a VP, even if it doesn't cost the whole match. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 01:53:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:53:15 +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 BAA13903 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:53:01 +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 IAA07364; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:52:07 -0700 Message-Id: <199909271552.IAA07364@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Jesper Dybdal cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:53:49 PDT." Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:52:07 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > This is undoubtedly because Adam's mail program incorrectly adds > a space character at the end of the subject line. Ah ha! Thanks for catching this. I wouldn't have thought to check for trailing spaces. I'll look into the problem--it should be fixable. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 01:58:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:58:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.math.uga.edu (alpha.math.uga.edu [128.192.3.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA13929 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:58:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from pluto.math.uga.edu (pluto [128.192.3.110]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA20009 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:54:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA01791 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:43:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:43:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199909271543.LAA01791@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: vn/Slh+0Z/V33gu8G0R8uQ== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Perhaps what you say is true, but it is not what I was saying, and >thus irrelevant. I do not believe that the mathematical expectation of >winning a match is the same as the expectancy of your score on the hand. >In other words, if you gain 1 imp on 15 occasions to losing 13 imps on >one occasion, then I consider to go for the imp is mathematically wrong >and a losing policy. Sorry. I thought you were saying that your reasons for not going for the overtrick were not mathematical. But I don't understand the basis for your mathematical belief. Suppose that, in the situation you describe, a drawn match would be awarded to your team, by whatever tie-breaking method is in effect (this is just for simplicity, so we don't need to bother about draws). Consider 16 million such matches. In 15 million of these, you would gain 1 IMP by going for the overtrick; in 1 million, you would lose 13 IMPs. In the 15 million, going for the overtrick will win you the match if the IMP score on the other boards is exactly -1 IMP. In the 1 million, going for the overtrick will lose you the match if the IMP score on the other boards is 0, +1, +2, ... or +12 IMPs. So in order that going for the overtrick will lose the match as often as it wins the match, a score of 0 to +12 IMPs (13 possible scores) must be 15 times as likely as a score of -1 IMP (one possible score). I don't understand why this should be at all. What's particularly unlikely about a -1 IMP score compared to a 0 IMP, +1 IMP, ... or +12 IMP score? Mike Dennis wrote: > I am not sure what this means. I know we have wandered far off topic in > this thread, but I am intrigued: do you mean to say that it is > mathematically wrong because matches are finite in length, i.e. we are > less-likely to win a (relatively) short match following the 1-IMP approach? > This conclusion seems to be borne out by the Monte Carlo studies described > earlier by Adam (I think). No, I don't think so. I hope Adam will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his studies were concerned with how much the figures are affected if one team is ahead in the match or is significantly better than the other team. If you're 20 IMPs ahead against an equal team, then a score of +12 IMPs will be (a little) more likely than a score of -1 IMP, as on average the final score will be +20 IMPs, and scores near the average will be more likely. There'll be a similar effect if you're starting a match against a worse team and *expect* to win by 20 IMPs on average. Adam's studies showed that, even in fairly extreme cases, this effect was relatively small. If you're level in a match against an equal team, then a final score of -1 IMP will be (very slightly) more likely than a score of +12 IMPs, so going for the overtrick will win the match a little *more* often than the IMP expectation suggests. Jeremy. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 02:17:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 02:17:06 +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 CAA14179 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 02:16:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa9s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.170] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11VdS6-0003Iq-00; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:16:34 +0100 Message-ID: <003001bf0903$98b4c980$b4a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Double deception. Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:03:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Date: 27 September 1999 08:34 Subject: Re: Double deception. >With disguises like that... > +=+ I bet 'her' name is Simon =+=. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 02:43:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:59:22 +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 BAA13944 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:59:13 +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 11VdB6-0002lO-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 15:59:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:21:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy reversal References: <199909270715.JAA26383@hera.frw.uva.nl> In-Reply-To: <199909270715.JAA26383@hera.frw.uva.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: >Bidding: > >N S >- 1D >1H 2NT >3NT 4H >end > >*West* makes the opening lead, North faces his cards and >everybody thinks they are playing and defending 3NT. South >makes nine tricks, but when he's about to write down the score, >North says: "Wait a minute, the contract was four hearts, and *I* >would have made eleven tricks!" > >Ruling, please...... Everyone buys a drink for the Director. All LOOTs have been condoned, so that is no problem. Just go through the actual play and check up how many tricks were won with trumps and give them to the side that actually won them. Work out the result and go on to the next hand. The players will nag this one for about two weeks: take no notice. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 28 03:00:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:00:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA14271 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:00:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:59:40 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990927185954.007a64f0@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, 27 Sep 1999 18:59:54 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Dummy reversal In-Reply-To: References: <199909270715.JAA26383@hera.frw.uva.nl> <199909270715.JAA26383@hera.frw.uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:21 27.09.99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jan Peter Pals wrote: >>Bidding: >> >>N S >>- 1D >>1H 2NT >>3NT 4H >>end >> >>*West* makes the opening lead, North faces his cards and >>everybody thinks they are playing and defending 3NT. South >>makes nine tricks, but when he's about to write down the score, >>North says: "Wait a minute, the contract was four hearts, and *I* >>would have made eleven tricks!" >> >>Ruling, please...... > > Everyone buys a drink for the Director. > > All LOOTs have been condoned, so that is no problem. Just go through >the actual play and check up how many tricks were won with trumps and >give them to the side that actually won them. Work out the result and >go on to the next hand. The players will nag this one for about two >weeks: take no notice. > I love this! Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 03:32:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:32:21 +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 DAA14434 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:32:11 +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 11Ved8-000CKO-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:32:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:31:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dummy reversal In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes snip > >The contract is 4H. West led out of turn and south became declarer when >north started to spread his hand. In first order, south has made 9 >tricks, except that it is possible that he ruffed a trick without anybody >noticing it, then accepted the lead out of turn from the person who >thought he had won the trick. In that case, all players have simply >miscounted their tricks and that has to be corrected. So, try to >reconstruct play and see how many tricks south has actually made in 4H. >If that's not possible, I believe south gets the 9 tricks he actually >made. The score was not agreed, so we need to do all this. > >After all this is over, order a couple of rounds of coffee for the table. and fine the table a beer (Morte Subite seems appropriate) for the long suffering TD John > >Henk -- 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 Sep 28 03:33:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:33:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com [139.134.5.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA14448 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:33:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ua883578 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:29:07 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-220-121.tmns.net.au ([139.134.220.121]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Terrific-MailRouter V2.5 15/2490977); 28 Sep 1999 03:29:07 Message-ID: <017a01bf099c$a89ef0c0$565f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: A defensive problem Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:31:43 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Your hand is: > >A43 >62 >1074 >AJ652 > >RHO opens 1S, LHO bids 2S, RHO bids 4S. Your opponents are playing >four-card majors, but will only open one of those if they have a >balanced hand too strong for a 14-16 no trump. You lead H6, and dummy >is: > > QJ102 > 873 > Q863 > K9 >A43 >62 >1074 >AJ652 > >The first heart goes 6, 3, queen, king. Declarer leads S5, 3, 10, 6. >Declarer leads SQ from dummy, 7, 8, ace. Your partner's order of cards >in the trump suit means nothing (it is not suit preference). You can >conclude that declarer has at least a balanced 17 hcp with four spades >and fewer than four hearts. With a four-card minor, he would open 1S >on these values, so you can conclude nothing more about his shape. >What do you lead to trick four? > I lead H2, but not if partner hesitated before playing HQ, because I have logical alternatives and the fumble suggests HAQ. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 03:46:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:35:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA14464 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:34:52 +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 11Vefj-0004gC-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:34:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:33:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dummy reversal In-Reply-To: <01bf08c4$28008c40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf08c4$28008c40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jan Peter Pals >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 8:30 AM >Subject: Dummy reversal > > >>Bidding: >> >>N S >>- 1D >>1H 2NT >>3NT 4H >>end >> >>*West* makes the opening lead, North faces his cards and >>everybody thinks they are playing and defending 3NT. South >>makes nine tricks, but when he's about to write down the score, >>North says: "Wait a minute, the contract was four hearts, and *I* >>would have made eleven tricks!" >> >>Ruling, please...... > >West has lead out of turn. North has accepted lead by spreading >dummy. South has misplayed a 4H contract. (for whatever reason). >Result 4H-1 > >Anne er what? Did South ruff anything? We have to check for this. >> >> >> > -- 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 Sep 28 04:03:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:59:26 +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 BAA13948 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:59:17 +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 11VdB6-000Pek-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 15:59:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:23:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy reversal References: <01bf08ca$128fe760$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf08ca$128fe760$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) >To: Jan Peter Pals >Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 9:03 AM >Subject: Re: Dummy reversal > > >>On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Jan Peter Pals wrote: >> >>> Bidding: >> >>S N >>1 D - 1 H >>2 N - 3 N >>4 H - P >> >> >>> *West* makes the opening lead, North faces his cards and everybody >>> thinks they are playing and defending 3NT. South makes nine tricks, but >>> when he's about to write down the score, North says: "Wait a minute, >>> the contract was four hearts, and *I* would have made eleven tricks!" >> >>> Ruling, please...... >> >>The contract is 4H. West led out of turn and south became declarer when >>north started to spread his hand. In first order, south has made 9 >>tricks, except that it is possible that he ruffed a trick without anybody >>noticing it, then accepted the lead out of turn from the person who >>thought he had won the trick. In that case, all players have simply >>miscounted their tricks and that has to be corrected. So, try to >>reconstruct play and see how many tricks south has actually made in 4H. >>If that's not possible, I believe south gets the 9 tricks he actually >>made. > >They have agreed 9 tricks. Do you look for ruffs before the players ask >you to? Yes. L81C6. In fact, I presume you have been called to sort it out and so you are clearly required 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 Tue Sep 28 05:29:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 05:29:51 +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 FAA14729 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 05:29:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11VgSo-000NHE-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:29:31 +0000 Message-ID: <2ACECbAZx673Ew63@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:41:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents In-Reply-To: <199909271543.LAA01791@pluto.math.uga.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199909271543.LAA01791@pluto.math.uga.edu>, Jeremy Rickard writes >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Perhaps what you say is true, but it is not what I was saying, and >>thus irrelevant. I do not believe that the mathematical expectation of >>winning a match is the same as the expectancy of your score on the hand. >>In other words, if you gain 1 imp on 15 occasions to losing 13 imps on >>one occasion, then I consider to go for the imp is mathematically wrong >>and a losing policy. > snip > >If you're level in a match against an equal team, then a final score of -1 IMP >will be (very slightly) more likely than a score of +12 IMPs, so going for the >overtrick will win the match a little *more* often than the IMP expectation >suggests. I said originally that the event was Butler imps. We are considering places gained or lost probably (or master points possibly). If the odds demand it the finesse becomes mandatory IMO, as we're not involved in a win/loss decision. In fact we're also playing for a high score on the ladder, so every imp counts. In other words when we are about to get a high score we want a VERY high score, middlingly high scores are no use - as they won't help us win the ladder (12 results from a possible maximum 48 to count) I'm now convinced the hook is a likely proposition, far above any threshold delineated by 'irrational'. chs john > > Jeremy. > -- 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 Sep 28 05:57:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 05:57:47 +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 FAA14796 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 05:57:36 +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 11Vgtp-000Ovh-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:57:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:00:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A defensive problem References: <001201bf08fa$3efd5820$292f63c3@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001201bf08fa$3efd5820$292f63c3@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Your hand is: > >A43 >62 >1074 >AJ652 > >RHO opens 1S, LHO bids 2S, RHO bids 4S. Your opponents are playing >four-card majors, but will only open one of those if they have a >balanced hand too strong for a 14-16 no trump. You lead H6, and dummy >is: > > QJ102 > 873 > Q863 > K9 >A43 >62 >1074 >AJ652 > >The first heart goes 6, 3, queen, king. Declarer leads S5, 3, 10, 6. >Declarer leads SQ from dummy, 7, 8, ace. Your partner's order of cards >in the trump suit means nothing (it is not suit preference). You can >conclude that declarer has at least a balanced 17 hcp with four spades >and fewer than four hearts. With a four-card minor, he would open 1S >on these values, so you can conclude nothing more about his shape. >What do you lead to trick four? H2. To beat this I need either two diamond tricks or the HA and a heart ruff. What do I need for two diamond tricks? KJ9 from partner or better, giving declarer Kxxx AKJ Axx Qxx What do I need for the heart ruff? Declarer will have Kxxx KJx AKJ Qxx Both are just possible. So why do I lead a heart? Because if I am wrong declarer will still usually go off with the second hand by misjudging the endplay. Did someone hesitate? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 28 05:57:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 05:57:47 +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 FAA14797 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 05:57:38 +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 11Vgtq-0003PP-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:57:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:49:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Double deception. References: <01bf08db$ca56a800$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf08db$ca56a800$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >>>West accused North of being "unsporting" >> Disciplinary penalty for West. Fine him/her 3 imps. >I've wanted to do this to this particular person many times. All I ever do >is say that her comment is out of order, and tell her not to repeat it. If >she >did I would use L90B6. >What is her offence? What Law allows me to fine her 3imps. Do I apply it to >the board. The provisions of L90A do not seem to cover this. "The Director, ... may also assess penalties for any offence that .... inconveniences other contestants, ...." However, I actually said a Disciplinary Penalty [L91A] rather than a Procedural one [L90A]. "In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the Director is specifically empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points, ...." >If this type of thing happened away from the table, but in the playing room >would you fine similarly in VPs applied to the final score. It really makes little difference to the score whether it is a PP or a DP. You do not apply it to the board and the opponent does not gain from it. If it is a VP tourney then fine 0.5 VP rather than 3 imps. > What is the >maximum such fine you would consider before asking a player to leave.L91A. It is a matter fo judgemnet. for a remark of this sort I would actually probably never go beyond a 0.5 VP fine, unless the bad behaviour was continuous. >My attempt at humour in posting this failed. Blame the spirits. >All 5 involved were of course female. Of course [?]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 28 06:43:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA14916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 06:43:12 +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 GAA14910 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 06:43:03 +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 NAA11519; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:42:19 -0700 Message-Id: <199909272042.NAA11519@mailhub.irvine.com> To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A defensive problem In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:00:11 PDT." Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:42:20 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > QJ102 > > 873 > > Q863 > > K9 > >A43 > >62 > >1074 > >AJ652 > >What do you lead to trick four? > > H2. > > To beat this I need either two diamond tricks or the HA and a heart > ruff. > > What do I need for two diamond tricks? KJ9 from partner or better, > giving declarer > > Kxxx > AKJ > Axx > Qxx > > What do I need for the heart ruff? Declarer will have > > Kxxx > KJx > AKJ > Qxx > > > Both are just possible. So why do I lead a heart? Because if I am > wrong declarer will still usually go off with the second hand You mean the first hand, right? > by misjudging the endplay. Pardon me for perhaps being dense, but I don't see any endplay even if you give declarer the 10 of clubs. I don't see any logical alternative to leading a heart. I don't see how any other lead could create any tricks you're not going to get anyhow. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 06:49:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA14951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 06:49:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from serv4.vossnet.co.uk (serv4.vossnet.co.uk [212.70.130.254]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA14946 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 06:49:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 2994 invoked from network); 27 Sep 1999 20:48:55 -0000 Received: from pool-195.vossnet.co.uk (HELO hassanfa) (195.188.90.205) by serv4.vossnet.co.uk with SMTP; 27 Sep 1999 20:48:55 -0000 Message-ID: <000901bf0929$a12181a0$e1e5fea9@hassanfa> From: "Damian Hassan" To: References: <017a01bf099c$a89ef0c0$565f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: A defensive problem Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:47:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Your hand is: > > > >A43 > >62 > >1074 > >AJ652 > > > >RHO opens 1S, LHO bids 2S, RHO bids 4S. Your opponents are playing > >four-card majors, but will only open one of those if they have a > >balanced hand too strong for a 14-16 no trump. You lead H6, and dummy > >is: > > > > QJ102 > > 873 > > Q863 > > K9 > >A43 > >62 > >1074 > >AJ652 > > > >The first heart goes 6, 3, queen, king. Declarer leads S5, 3, 10, 6. > >Declarer leads SQ from dummy, 7, 8, ace. Your partner's order of cards > >in the trump suit means nothing (it is not suit preference). You can > >conclude that declarer has at least a balanced 17 hcp with four spades > >and fewer than four hearts. With a four-card minor, he would open 1S > >on these values, so you can conclude nothing more about his shape. > >What do you lead to trick four? > > > > I lead H2, but not if partner hesitated before playing HQ, because I have > logical alternatives and the fumble suggests HAQ. > > This is probably a stupid question - no surprise there ;) - but what logical alternatives are there to the second heart lead? We know that partner has at most 4 HCP. We need two more defensive tricks. One possibility is that partner ducked the opening lead with AQxx(x) of hearts, and we can get ther heart ruff - in this case we must lead our second heart immediately. Declarer could have, for example, K985, KJx, AKJx, Qx, and will make 3 spades, 2 hearts, 4 diamonds and 1 club without the ruff. Alternatively, partner could have KJ of diamonds, and we will get get two diamonds to go with our two black aces. However, I have failed to construct a hand where we must switch to a diamond now to ensure our tricks - indeed if partner does not have the 9D then a diamond switch could be fatal. So a heart lead can gain, and I cannot see how it can lose, so for me there are no logical alternatives. What am I missing? Damian Hassan From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 07:00:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA14974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:00:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from medusa.mminternet.com (IDENT:root@medusa.mminternet.com [207.175.72.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA14969 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 06:59:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from phillipm (adsl-gte-la-216-86-197-143.mminternet.com [216.86.197.143]) by medusa.mminternet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA24590 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:53:27 -0700 Message-ID: <008401bf092b$406ea520$8fc556d8@mminternet.com> From: "Phillip Mendelsohn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Stevenson Shock! Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:59:55 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk BTW, the Directors who beat Itabashi and Walsh were Patty Holmes, Las Vegas, NV, and Gary Zeiger, Phoenix, AZ. They were playing an old-fashioned Standard system with no conventions, strong two-bids, etc. Just thought it would be nice to name the winners rather than refer to them generically, since you did name Itabashi and Walsh. Ms. Holmes and Mr. Zeiger went on to win the Continuous Pairs event at the Hollywood Park Regional in Inglewood, California. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 07:16:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:16:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from alpha.math.uga.edu (alpha.math.uga.edu [128.192.3.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA14999 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:15:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from pluto.math.uga.edu (pluto [128.192.3.110]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA06600 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:12:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA04716 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:01:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:01:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199909272101.RAA04716@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim after psyche by opponents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: pURuuZGCZYHClpuzV1d6nQ== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > Jeremy Rickard writes: > > > >If you're level in a match against an equal team, then a final score of -1 IMP > >will be (very slightly) more likely than a score of +12 IMPs, so going for the > >overtrick will win the match a little *more* often than the IMP expectation > >suggests. > > I said originally that the event was Butler imps. We are considering > places gained or lost probably (or master points possibly). If the odds > demand it the finesse becomes mandatory IMO, as we're not involved in a > win/loss decision. > > In fact we're also playing for a high score on the ladder, so every imp > counts. In other words when we are about to get a high score we want a > VERY high score, middlingly high scores are no use - as they won't help > us win the ladder (12 results from a possible maximum 48 to count) Yes, if you need a "VERY high score", then the sort of risky play for an overtrick we're talking about becomes more attractive, and will sometimes be correct even if it loses IMPs on average. However, it may well not become *as much* more attractive as you think: the other side of the coin to Adam's Monte Carlo simulation. Jeremy. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 09:25:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA15199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:25:34 +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 JAA15194 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:25:27 +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 11Vk8y-000F6q-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:25:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:24:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: A defensive problem In-Reply-To: <017a01bf099c$a89ef0c0$565f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <017a01bf099c$a89ef0c0$565f868b@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes >David Burn wrote: > >>Your hand is: >> >>A43 >>62 >>1074 >>AJ652 >> >>RHO opens 1S, LHO bids 2S, RHO bids 4S. Your opponents are playing >>four-card majors, but will only open one of those if they have a >>balanced hand too strong for a 14-16 no trump. You lead H6, and dummy >>is: >> >> QJ102 >> 873 >> Q863 >> K9 >>A43 >>62 >>1074 >>AJ652 >> >>The first heart goes 6, 3, queen, king. Declarer leads S5, 3, 10, 6. >>Declarer leads SQ from dummy, 7, 8, ace. Your partner's order of cards >>in the trump suit means nothing (it is not suit preference). You can >>conclude that declarer has at least a balanced 17 hcp with four spades >>and fewer than four hearts. With a four-card minor, he would open 1S >>on these values, so you can conclude nothing more about his shape. >>What do you lead to trick four? >> > >I lead H2, but not if partner hesitated before playing HQ, because I have >logical alternatives and the fumble suggests HAQ. > Aren't I playing pard for the HA, or the DKJ? If he held HQxxx why did he play the Q? He knows I have nothing in the suit. I set out for a heart ruff and to switch now to a diamond seems to me to be saying "Let's give declarer a shot at all the finesses". On a hesitation with the HQ? hmmm. Probably I'd adjust, but an appeal wouldn't be frivolous, and I could be overturned 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 Sep 28 10:28:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:28:20 +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 KAA15275 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:28:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from p82s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.131] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Vl7i-0008CZ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:28:03 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A defensive problem Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:31:18 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0948$c7c78420$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 4:27 PM Subject: A defensive problem >Your hand is: > >A43 >62 >1074 >AJ652 > >RHO opens 1S, LHO bids 2S, RHO bids 4S. Your opponents are playing >four-card majors, but will only open one of those if they have a >balanced hand too strong for a 14-16 no trump. You lead H6, and dummy >is: > > QJ102 > 873 > Q863 > K9 >A43 >62 >1074 >AJ652 > >The first heart goes 6, 3, queen, king. Declarer leads S5, 3, 10, 6. >Declarer leads SQ from dummy, 7, 8, ace. Your partner's order of cards >in the trump suit means nothing (it is not suit preference). You can >conclude that declarer has at least a balanced 17 hcp with four spades >and fewer than four hearts. With a four-card minor, he would open 1S >on these values, so you can conclude nothing more about his shape. >What do you lead to trick four? I think dec probably has AJ of hearts. If I lead a heart dec will play small towards CK. I think we've only got 1 Club trick, so I win and exit with a club leaving dec to get the diamonds wrong. Part. has possibly another 5 points. maybe QC,KD or KJ D or maybe the HA and then I will get a ruff. If I exit with a S, then if dec has AJ of hearts it is the same, and I will never get a ruff anyway but if part has AH there is a possibility that we will take AS,AH,H ruff, and maybe dec will get the diamonds wrong. I'm never playing the Ds. My choices are AC and another club.4S or 2H. All I think are no loss playsThe 2H may gain. The others cannot. That is my decision. I am playing the 2H. I assume partner has hesitated with AH. I have been mindful of my L16 responsibility. Where I have a choice of 3 actions, none of which are likely to cost,one of which may gain, I do not think I have another logical alternative. Anne > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 10:30:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:30:38 +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 KAA15290 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:30:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11Vl9t-00003J-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 02:30:17 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990928022542.00b0c100@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 02:25:42 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk i have a very interesting problem. (perhaps) the bidding goes: hand 23 D S W N E S P P P 1NT P P/2C At this moment the TD is summonded at the table. W holds: K754 AT875 J653 I was asked for a ruling under either 25A or 25B I took the W player from the table and asked for his intention. He told me he replaced the pass for 2C without pause and no action was taken after it. So, leagally the requirements of 25A are fulfilled. I checked with the the player what happened (taking him away from the tqble), he confirmed that he never intended to pass and his bidding of 2C was without pause. The opponents dont think that this is a 24A case. Your ruling please (before sunday) 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 Tue Sep 28 10:51:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:51:06 +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 KAA15379 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:50:56 +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 RAA15702; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:50:15 -0700 Message-Id: <199909280050.RAA15702@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A defensive problem In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:24:15 PDT." Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:50:17 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > On a hesitation with the HQ? hmmm. Probably I'd adjust, but an appeal > wouldn't be frivolous, and I could be overturned One thing to note: Some players, including myself, try to make a habit of hesitating on the first trick as third hand, particularly if the dummy comes down and delcarer plays from dummy immediately. The theory is that third hand has the right to take some time to plan the defense of the whole hand upon seeing dummy for the first time. I try to do this even if I have a nothing hand with nothing to think about. So before we rule "hesitation", the TD needs to find out if third hand is one of those players, and if he does this consistently. Of course, if he usually plays quickly after dummy comes down, then this is certainly UI (although I still don't think there are any logical alternatives to a heart continuation). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 11:26:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:26:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15428 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:26:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from liszt (liszt.chem.utas.edu.au [131.217.55.158]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA15738 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:26:31 +1000 (EST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:25:21 +1000 Message-ID: <01BF09A4.26667A80.mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au> From: Mark Abraham To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:25:20 +1000 Organization: University of Tasmania X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tuesday, September 28, 1999 10:26 AM, Anton Witzen [SMTP:a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl] wrote: > i have a very interesting problem. > (perhaps) > > the bidding goes: > hand 23 > D S > > W N E S > P > P P 1NT P > P/2C > > At this moment the TD is summonded at the table. > W holds: > K754 > AT875 > J653 > > I was asked for a ruling under either 25A or 25B > > I took the W player from the table and asked for his intention. > He told me he replaced the pass for 2C without pause and no action was > taken after it. > So, leagally the requirements of 25A are fulfilled. > I checked with the the player what happened (taking him away from the > tqble), he confirmed that he never intended to pass and his bidding of 2C > was without pause. > The opponents dont think that this is a 24A case. If the fact of no pause was agreed by both sides then the opponents thinking this is not a L25A case means they haven't read the titles of L25A and L25B. If the director is satisfied that the call was indeed inadvertent (which is prerequisite before consideration of whether or not the player paused for thought) then since the fact of no pause for thought is agreed, then under L25A the substituted call is legal and stands. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 11:50:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:50:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from loger.inter.net.il (loger.inter.net.il [192.116.192.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15483 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:50:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-4-146.access.net.il [213.8.4.146] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA23015; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:48:47 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37F01EBF.F3A10AE8@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:49:51 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anton Witzen CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: References: <3.0.2.32.19990928022542.00b0c100@mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I understand that the apparent offender is void Club....or void spade ....??? Any case , there is no bridge judgment when he'll pass . If the AO didn't go to the buffet and came back to change the call it the is the most obvious case of 25A. Dany P.S. I'd ask DWS to find a better definition (and shortcut...) for what I call Apparent Offender..... Anton Witzen wrote: > > i have a very interesting problem. > (perhaps) > > the bidding goes: > hand 23 > D S > > W N E S > P > P P 1NT P > P/2C > > At this moment the TD is summonded at the table. > W holds: > K754 > AT875 > J653 > > I was asked for a ruling under either 25A or 25B > > I took the W player from the table and asked for his intention. > He told me he replaced the pass for 2C without pause and no action was > taken after it. > So, leagally the requirements of 25A are fulfilled. > I checked with the the player what happened (taking him away from the > tqble), he confirmed that he never intended to pass and his bidding of 2C > was without pause. > The opponents dont think that this is a 24A case. > Your ruling please (before sunday) > 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 Tue Sep 28 11:57:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:57:58 +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 LAA15503 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:57:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from cuda.jcu.edu.au (cuda.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.28]) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA30115; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:57:47 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 Received: (from mosaic@localhost) by cuda.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA06108; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:57:47 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:57:47 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199909280157.LAA06108@cuda.jcu.edu.au> X-Authentication-Warning: cuda.jcu.edu.au: mosaic set sender to sci-lsk@jcu.edu.au using -f To: Anton Witzen Reply-To: Laurence.Kelso@jcu.edu.au Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au References: <3.0.2.32.19990928022542.00b0c100@mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990928022542.00b0c100@mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.10 X-Originating-IP: 202.80.71.118 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quoting Anton Witzen : > I have a very interesting problem. > (perhaps) > > the bidding goes: > hand 23 > D S > > W N E S > P > P P 1NT P > P/2C > > At this moment the TD is summonded to the table. > W holds: > K754 > AT875 > J653 I presume the void is in Clubs? Is the NT weak or strong? > I was asked for a ruling under either 25A or 25B > > I took the W player from the table and asked for his intention. > He told me he replaced the pass for 2C without pause and no action was > taken after it. > So, leagally the requirements of 25A are fulfilled. > I checked with the the player what happened (taking him away from the > table), he confirmed that he never intended to pass and his bidding of 2C > was without pause. > The opponents dont think that this is a 25A case. > Your ruling please (before sunday) If the 1NT is strong then I would probably rule under 25A. With a weak NT (which I guess this probably is) then it is conceivable that he at least contemplated passing, which makes the situation more interesting. I think I have to be there to decide for sure, but if he convinces you that he never *intended* to pass (that is after all what he is saying) then this is also 25A. Laurie (In Australia) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 13:18:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:18:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot0-49.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-49.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.49]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15666 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:17:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-49.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA01894 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:17:04 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: slot0-49.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net: moorebj owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:17:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id NAA15667 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Most amusing. I've examined articles in this thread from Adam, Anne, and Jesper. All three messages contain a space at the end of the subject line. If anyone is tabulating, I convert BLML messages to news and post them to my local spool ;-). I read them with tin. As long as folks don't change the subject line things work well. "In-reply-to" headers groups messages that belong together closer in the thread, but this is only a small bonus. Bruce Jesper Dybdal wrote: : On Sat, 25 Sep 1999 20:36:01 +0100, "Damian Hassan" : wrote: :>I've just checked my own inbox for the last four months. I use Outlook :>Express 5. Adam's first reply to a thread always starts a new thread. :>Subsequent replies from everyone thread normally (except Roger's previous :>software). I can't see why this should be, but count me on your side, Anne. : This is undoubtedly because Adam's mail program incorrectly adds : a space character at the end of the subject line. : Mail programs can thread using different data: : (a) The subject line: most programs believe that two messages : belong to the same thread if they have the (exact!) same subject. : (b) The "In-Reply-To" header: a mail program can use this header : to identify the precise message it is a reply to. : (c) The "References" header: a mail program can use this header : to identify several messages of the thread to which it belongs. : Because of (a), you should never change the subject line in any : way whatsoever (except for the automatically added "Re: " prefix) : when replying to a message. : Because of (b) and (c), you should always use the "Reply" or : "Reply to all" function of your mail program when replying to a : message, not the "New message" function. : Correspondingly, when creating a new thread, use the "New : message" function (or whatever it is called), not "Reply", and : make up a subject line that is unlikely to clash with that of : another thread. : Adam's program generates an "In-Reply-To" header like the : following: :>In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:33:18 PDT." :> <01bf0539$b41f7b20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> : In my mail program (Forté Agent, which a combined Usenet news and : e-mail program sold from http://www.forteinc.com), Adams messages : thread perfectly: they are shown not only as belonging to the : correct thread, but indented below the specific message they are : a reply to. This is because Agent uses the "In-Reply-To" header : (which many programs, including Outlook, unfortunately does not : generate). : But Adam's messages have a space character added at the end of : the subject line. This is undoubtedly what makes programs (such : as Outlook) that cannot use the "In-Reply-To" header thread them : incorrectly. : -- : Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . : http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 13:19:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:19:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot0-49.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-49.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.49]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15683 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:19:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-49.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA01911 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:18:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:18:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I beg your pardon. If my actual agreement with partner is that I will usually double with three card support, but on occasion will make a bid I feel to be more descriptive, then how should he explain? He usually explains "tends to deny ..." or "usually denies ...". Are you suggesting that he should misexplain by saying "denies ..."? This doesn't seem to be accurately disclosing our methods. Bruce bridge-laws wrote: [snip] : Your explanations are, indeed, much more careful, and are representative of : a broader class of Artful Dodges that prudent players have adopted to take : care of exactly this problem. Typically, the explanation is hedged by the : phrase "tends to", as in "tends to deny 3-card support." This caters to all : possibilities. You have informed the opponents about the nature of your : agreement, and at the same time taken out insurance against an MI claim : when partner strays, for whatever reason. And best of all, your explanation : cannot be challenged, since "tends to" is so vague that even if partner : _always_ has the indicated hand (as indeed you expect him to), nobody can : find fault with your explanation! : Maybe it is a good idea to protect yourself in this manner, but I am not : entirely comfortable with it, and am slightly revolted that the Laws should : effectively encourage such disingenuousness. If I will confidently play : partner for a particular holding, based on our "agreements", then the : opponents are entitled to a clear explanation of that treatment, and not to : be misled by carefully worded hedges. [snip] : Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 13:39:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:39:04 +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 NAA15722 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:38:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh6q.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.218]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA00801 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:38:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990927162624.012b1ed0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:26:24 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990926202704.012a659c@pop.mindspring.com> <199909262051.QAA00372@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990926202704.012a659c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:04 AM 9/27/99 +0100, David S. wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>My own view is that if E/W have agreed to play "support doubles" then >>without further agreement this carries with it the standard inference that >>East's failure to double denies 3-card support. West should not be >>penalized for alerting and correctly explaining the standard meaning of >>this agreement, even if his partner is clueless. > > It is not a standard agreement, and you should not be saying so. You >may double after 1H P 1S 2C with a 3=10=0=0, but I can assure you that >you are in a minority. For the vast majority, any call other than >double tends to deny three card support, so that is an honest >explanation. > Let me get this straight. You are called to the table when the opponents are concerned about MI. One player has failed to make the support double holding 3-card support and a 10-card heart suit "on the side." His partner's explanation, "denies 3-card support", was not adequately hedged with the pro forma "tends to". And you're prepared to rule against him for overstating the nature of the partnership agreement? No, of course not. You did not say so, and I should not attribute this position to you. But you do seem to suggest that an explanation without the requisite hedge is subject to penalty whenever partner's action varies from the agreement, even for demonstrably clear-cut reasons. It should go without saying (literally) that _every_ agreement that a partnership could conceivably make is subject to at-the-table judgement. This is just bridge. If my partner and I agree that a failure to double denies three-card support, we both understand that this agreement is subject to occasional deliberate violation, even for less obvious considerations than your extreme case. That doesn't mean that an unqualified statement such as "denies 3-card support" is inaccurate. Rather that description, like any other, carries with it the implicit understanding that no bidding agreement is inviolate. So I will stand by my earlier claim: as far as I know, the treatment that the pass in the original auction "denies" three trumps is the standard one (not the "universal" one, a characterization you mistakenly attributed to me) for players utilizing Support Doubles. Players will continue to employ the "tends to" dodge to protect themselves from the BL's, but it adds nothing to the information imparted to the opponents. It does have the effect of communicating uncertainty about the reliability of the inference, particularly to weaker opponents: uncertainty which will generally not trouble the explainer, who really does have a pretty high confidence in the inference. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 14:03:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:03:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15778 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:03:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from liszt (liszt.chem.utas.edu.au [131.217.55.158]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA00543 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:03:37 +1000 (EST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:02:27 +1000 Message-ID: <01BF09BA.18FCA200.mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au> From: Mark Abraham To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:02:26 +1000 Organization: University of Tasmania X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tuesday, September 28, 1999 11:58 AM, Laurence Kelso1 [SMTP:Laurence.Kelso@jcu.edu.au] wrote: > Quoting Anton Witzen : > > > I have a very interesting problem. > > (perhaps) > > > > the bidding goes: > > hand 23 > > D S > > > > W N E S > > P > > P P 1NT P > > P/2C > > > > At this moment the TD is summonded to the table. > > W holds: > > K754 > > AT875 > > J653 > > I presume the void is in Clubs? Is the NT weak or > strong? > > > I was asked for a ruling under either 25A or 25B > > > > I took the W player from the table and asked for his > intention. > > He told me he replaced the pass for 2C without pause > and no action was > > taken after it. > > So, leagally the requirements of 25A are fulfilled. > > I checked with the the player what happened (taking > him away from the > > table), he confirmed that he never intended to pass > and his bidding of 2C > > was without pause. > > The opponents dont think that this is a 25A case. > > Your ruling please (before sunday) > > If the 1NT is strong then I would probably rule under > 25A. With a weak NT (which I guess this probably is) > then it is conceivable that he at least contemplated > passing, which makes the situation more interesting. Conceivable, but the Laws don't ask us to conceive reasons for the bidder to have contemplated other actions - merely that the call originally made was not the intended call and that there was no pause for thought before the intended call was susbtituted. I do not consider the conditions of the hand or system to be important. > I think I have to be there to decide for sure, but if > he convinces you that he never *intended* to pass (that > is after all what he is saying) then this is also 25A. According to L25A, a player may think for a time about two different calls, A and B, and decide on B. Thus B is his intended action. If he bids A and without pause for thought, substitutes his intended B, and we are satisfied that B was indeed his intention, then B stands. The criterion to be applied is that the intended call of B was inadvertently replaced by A, *not* that A was *never* considered. In my opinion the question of a criterion that we might use to become satisfied that B was indeed the intention should be entirely dissociated from the hand. As soon as we look at a player's hand and try to work out what may have been going on in their heads we are in the business of mind-reading which we will rarely win. I cannot think of an objective criterion that can be applied to judging inadvertency - either we have to subjectively judge the earnestness and honesty with which the player convinces us that the substituted call was the one intended, or we have to subjectively judge that the new call must have been the players intention rather than the original call. Time to choose a poison... Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 15:52:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:52:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com [139.134.5.164]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA15923 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:52:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba374791 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:49:50 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-222-190.tmns.net.au ([139.134.222.190]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Grotesque-MailRouter V2.5 7/700585); 28 Sep 1999 15:49:49 Message-ID: <011c01bf0a04$1f16d440$82dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: A defensive problem Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:51:39 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Damian Hassan wrote: >> Peter Gill wrote in response to (<<<) David Burn: >> >Your hand is: >> > >> >A43 >> >62 >> >1074 >> >AJ652 >> > >> >RHO opens 1S, LHO bids 2S, RHO bids 4S. Your opponents are playing >> >four-card majors, but will only open one of those if they have a >> >balanced hand too strong for a 14-16 no trump. You lead H6, and dummy >> >is: >> > >> > QJ102 >> > 873 >> > Q863 >> > K9 >> >A43 >> >62 >> >1074 >> >AJ652 >> > >> >The first heart goes 6, 3, queen, king. Declarer leads S5, 3, 10, 6. >> >Declarer leads SQ from dummy, 7, 8, ace. Your partner's order of cards >> >in the trump suit means nothing (it is not suit preference). You can >> >conclude that declarer has at least a balanced 17 hcp with four spades >> >and fewer than four hearts. With a four-card minor, he would open 1S >> >on these values, so you can conclude nothing more about his shape. >> >What do you lead to trick four? >> > >> >> I lead H2, but not if partner hesitated before playing HQ, because I have >> logical alternatives and the fumble suggests HAQ. >> >> >This is probably a stupid question - no surprise there ;) - but what >logical alternatives are there to the second heart lead? ...SNIP... >So a heart lead can gain, and I cannot see how it can lose, so for me there >are no logical alternatives. What am I missing? > Declarer could have: Kxxx OR Kxxx AKJ AKJ AJ Axx Q1073 Q10x (less likely for the jump to game) I think a third trump is a logical alternative which many players at the table would find. I have sent the hand to an online "Bidding Forum" to check. Readers who dislike convoluted analysis should skip to the paragraph beginning "And I". One disadvantage of the second heart is that it may give declarer information about the heart suit which may help him make his contract, whereas playing the third spade gives him information which may help him fail. The spade gives declarer immediate information that you have more spade cards than partner; the heart tends to tell him you probably have a doubleton heart and thus less "known" cards than partner. On both hands above, if you play a third spade declarer may therefore reason that East is more likely to have the club jack, so he may finesse to your club jack. On the first hand he may think the club finesse is needed as there's only one trump in dummy for two club losers; on the second hand finding CJ sets up endplay possibilities so is not a totally impossible play (e.g. if desperately playing for a swing). If declarer does this losing finesse at Trick 5, you gain an overtrick on the first hand (relative to the later ruffing club finesse) and you send declarer two down on the second hand when you switch to D10. Not very good declarer play I admit, but how many of your opponents play perfectly? If you play a heart, the position is different; when declarer now plays a trump to dummy he may expect your H6-2 to be a doubleton and so think you have the long clubs so he is more likely to finesse your CJ. This could be crucial if declarer has CQ1043 and has to guess CJ to make. Another small advantage of the third trump may be that it puts declarer in dummy earlier than he might otherwise want to be. Technically there's no diamond endplay on partner to be prevented, but recent email suggests that there's more to bridge than maths and technique. Say declarer has Kxxx, AKJ, Ax, Q843. You play H2 at Trick 4. Declarer wins, draws the trump, plays a club to the king (C7 from partner), and a third heart. Now a diamond to the 8 and J. Partner plays C10, queen, ace and you're nor sure what to do. Declarer is playing the hand like a man who began with DA9x so it seems you can't broach diamonds. Partner couldn't afford to drop C10 under the king (else there's a simple ruffing finesse) so he could have two or three clubs. If two, you exit a diamond. If three, you exit a club, which you try due to declarer's apparent intent. Curtains, you've conceded a beatable contract. Partner tells you that had you switched to a diamond or even a low club at Trick 4, you may well have beaten the contract! And I haven't even mentioned that with HQJxxx, partner may well falsecard, realising that declarer has HAK10 so it's relatively costfree. Even if your heart continuation doesn't cost a trick or two (e.g. declarer has Kxxx, AK10, AKxx, Qx and wins a S or D exit, plays a club towards the king which you duck, cashes all the pointed suit winners then throws you with CA to lead away fom your marked HJ), the effect on partner's morale of your destructive heart play may cost later. I think that an in-tempo HQ is more likely to be from HQJxxx than HAQxxx, because with the latter partner may give a telltale fumble as he considers whether declarer can have a stiff king. Of course, declarer's slightly unexpected play of HK (instead of the more normal HA) must be considered, and against a crafty declarer one should consider whether there are any implications of such deliberate informatory play. In an earlier posting on either rgb or BLML several BLMLers suggested that West should never pause for more than about 4 minutes. I also think that if it takes West as many ltrains of thought as it took Anne and others to decide that a heart could never cost, then some of the alternatives must have been logical because some players like to follow Law 73A2 in their tempo and would therefore play a card before all the possibilities had been considered fully, i.e. while some of the other possibilities are still logical. My point is that for one person to try to analyse a potentially complex hand and conclude that there's no logical alternatives is a dangerous business. Some players delve more deeply into the logic of the play, while to other more simple folk playing a trump back may be logical because partner could never ever have HA and not play it at Trick 1. I seem to be going overboard on what could be a tangent to David Burn's original question. And I'm almost as qualified as DWS to give my opinion, as I once scored 27% at pairs. Peter Gill. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 15:57:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:57:24 +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 PAA15969 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:57:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from saratoga.jcu.edu.au (saratoga.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.5]) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA13783 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:57:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by saratoga.jcu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA04926 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:57:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: saratoga.jcu.edu.au: sci-lsk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:57:12 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso Reply-To: Laurie Kelso To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: In-Reply-To: <01BF09BA.18FCA200.mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Mark Abraham wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 28, 1999 11:58 AM, Laurie Kelso > [SMTP:Laurence.Kelso@jcu.edu.au] wrote: > > Quoting Anton Witzen : > > > > > I have a very interesting problem. > > > (perhaps) > > > > > > the bidding goes: > > > hand 23 > > > D S > > > > > > W N E S > > > P > > > P P 1NT P > > > P/2C > > > > > > At this moment the TD is summonded to the table. > > > W holds: > > > K754 > > > AT875 > > > J653 > > > > I presume the void is in Clubs? Is the NT weak or > > strong? > > > > > I was asked for a ruling under either 25A or 25B > > > > > > I took the W player from the table and asked for his > > intention. > > > He told me he replaced the pass for 2C without pause > > and no action was > > > taken after it. > > > So, leagally the requirements of 25A are fulfilled. > > > I checked with the the player what happened (taking > > him away from the > > > table), he confirmed that he never intended to pass > > and his bidding of 2C > > > was without pause. > > > The opponents dont think that this is a 25A case. > > > Your ruling please (before sunday) > > > > If the 1NT is strong then I would probably rule under > > 25A. With a weak NT (which I guess this probably is) > > then it is conceivable that he at least contemplated > > passing, which makes the situation more interesting. > > Conceivable, but the Laws don't ask us to conceive reasons for the bidder > to have contemplated other actions - merely that the call originally made > was not the intended call and that there was no pause for thought before > the intended call was susbtituted. I do not consider the conditions of the > hand or system to be important. > > > I think I have to be there to decide for sure, but if > > he convinces you that he never *intended* to pass (that > > is after all what he is saying) then this is also 25A. > > According to L25A, a player may think for a time about two different calls, > A and B, and decide on B. Thus B is his intended action. If he bids A and > without pause for thought, substitutes his intended B, and we are satisfied > that B was indeed his intention, then B stands. The criterion to be applied > is that the intended call of B was inadvertently replaced by A, *not* that > A was *never* considered. > > In my opinion the question of a criterion that we might use to become > satisfied that B was indeed the intention should be entirely dissociated > from the hand. As soon as we look at a player's hand and try to work out > what may have been going on in their heads we are in the business of > mind-reading which we will rarely win. I agree with all you have said above. However..... > I cannot think of an objective criterion that can be applied to judging > inadvertency - either we have to subjectively judge the earnestness and > honesty with which the player convinces us that the substituted call was > the one intended, or we have to subjectively judge that the new call must > have been the players intention rather than the original call. Time to > choose a poison... The average bridge player is essentially honest. At the table I would have very little trouble determining what the players intent was. Simple questions (asked away from the table) like "why did you pass?" and "what were you thinking about when you passed?" usually elicit very revealing responses. As I said before, Anton's situation looks like a 25A situation, but it is the director on site who asks the questions, and he is the one in the best position to judge. Laurie (Australia) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 19:56:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA16245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:56:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (root@omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA16240 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:55:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA17906 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:58:10 +0200 Message-ID: <37F090AF.6DFF0A22@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:55:59 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski 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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <3.0.1.32.19990926202704.012a659c@pop.mindspring.com> <199909262051.QAA00372@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990926202704.012a659c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990927162624.012b1ed0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: >Your explanations are, indeed, much more careful, and are representative of >a broader class of Artful Dodges that prudent players have adopted to take >care of exactly this problem. Typically, the explanation is hedged by the >phrase "tends to", as in "tends to deny 3-card support." This caters to all >possibilities. You have informed the opponents about the nature of your >agreement, and at the same time taken out insurance against an MI claim >when partner strays, for whatever reason. And best of all, your explanation >cannot be challenged, since "tends to" is so vague that even if partner >_always_ has the indicated hand (as indeed you expect him to), nobody can >find fault with your explanation! I think I know what you are afraid of, Michael. Suppose the bidding has gone W N E S 1H P 1S 2D BID 3D P 3NT P P P where BID is any bid other than double. You, South, learn that the opponents play support doubles. You therefore make the assumption that West does not hold 3 spades and misplay the hand as he did have 3 of them. Now you are afraid that if East when explainig his partner's rebid said "the BID _tends to_ deny 3 spades" rather than "the BID denies three spades" there is nothing you can do - they can always get away with murder: "Come on we've never said that the BID denies 3 spades, have we?". I think you're wrong about it. If a bid suggests/tends to show (deny) some specific holding it does not mean that it is _randomly_ made with or without it. It means it promises (denies) this holding _unless a player has a good reason to make a violation_. Therefore, being a TD if West did not make a support double with xxx AKQJxx Axx x (BID=2H) or xxx AKxxx --- AKQJx (BID=3C) or xxx AQxxx KQJ10 x (BID=pass) ...then I would let the result stand. On the other hand if he rebid 2H on Kxx AJxxxx xx Ax ...I would adjust - IMHO the last hand does not qualify to the "tends to deny three card support" category. ********************************************************************** - One school believes that high taxes are the most profitable for the poor as there is more money in the budget for social purposes. The other one claims that low taxes are better for the poor as the rich ones can keep more money for investments that give work to the unemployed ones etc. Which side does your party support? - Both of these schools are right but we reject both viewpoints. ( from a TV debate before the elections in a certain European country ) Konrad Ciborowski From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 28 22:19:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:19:49 +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 WAA16532 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:19:39 +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 11VwEE-000GpY-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:19:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 02:53:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: References: <3.0.2.32.19990928022542.00b0c100@mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990928022542.00b0c100@mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >i have a very interesting problem. >(perhaps) > >the bidding goes: >hand 23 >D S > >W N E S > P >P P 1NT P >P/2C > >At this moment the TD is summonded at the table. >W holds: >K754 >AT875 >J653 > >I was asked for a ruling under either 25A or 25B > >I took the W player from the table and asked for his intention. >He told me he replaced the pass for 2C without pause and no action was >taken after it. >So, leagally the requirements of 25A are fulfilled. I assume you checked this with the other three people? The without pause and the no action thereafter are things which are better checked at the table not away from it because you need to decide what happened from everyone's evidence. >I checked with the the player what happened (taking him away from the >tqble), he confirmed that he never intended to pass and his bidding of 2C >was without pause. OK, no-one is suggesting a pause, no-one else has called, the only problem is whether the pass was inadvertent. What do you think? You were the best able to judge. I am not sure why you have shown us the hand. The ruling should certainly be made without looking at the hand. On the evidence you have given us, I expect it was inadvertent, so I would allow a change under L25A. >The opponents dont think that this is a 24A case. The opponents' views are nothing to do with it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 00:03:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:03:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (Salamix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA16814 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:02:56 +1000 (EST) From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13565 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:02:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA225767361; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:02:42 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA107217360; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:02:40 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:02:30 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Law 25 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 AAA16815 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >i have a very interesting problem. >(perhaps) > >the bidding goes: >hand 23 >D S > >W N E S > P >P P 1NT P >P/2C > >At this moment the TD is summonded at the table. >W holds: >K754 >AT875 >J653 > >I was asked for a ruling under either 25A or 25B > [Laval Dubreuil] Hi all, Similar to the case I submitted recently on subject "Law 25 - an other case" 1N - P - 2H - P 2H announced as "transfer" P/2S ACBL-land My ruling was that the opener always intended to bid 2S (as announced) and never not changed his mind (25A). Question of table feeling. See the above answer from chief directors: _______________________________________________________ The facts you present indicate (actually shout!!!) that this is a slip of the mind or change of mind but defintely not an inadvertant call. Therefore the table result stands for both sides (However many tricks South takes at 2H). It is too late for a purposeful correction under Law 25 B since North's LHO has called. It is one thing to be liberal on mechanical errors, but it can hardly be a mechanical error to play the pass card rather than the 2S card. Gary Blaiss, ACBL Chief director ___________________________________________________________ It took some time for it to be realised that the "obvious" advice that calls from a different part of the box could not be inadvertent was wrong. The TD should treat every case on its merits and ignore this bit of advice that has been quoted in a number of places [including here within the last four weeks!]. -- David Stevenson ____________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 00:49:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:49:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f268.hotmail.com [207.82.251.159]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA16902 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:49:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 93676 invoked by uid 0); 28 Sep 1999 14:49:12 -0000 Message-ID: <19990928144912.93675.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:49:11 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A defensive problem Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:49:11 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >To: "Bridge Laws" >Subject: A defensive problem >Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:09:06 +0100 > >Your hand is: > >A43 >62 >1074 >AJ652 > >RHO opens 1S, LHO bids 2S, RHO bids 4S. Your opponents are playing >four-card majors, but will only open one of those if they have a >balanced hand too strong for a 14-16 no trump. You lead H6, and dummy >is: > > QJ102 > 873 > Q863 > K9 >A43 >62 >1074 >AJ652 > >The first heart goes 6, 3, queen, king. Declarer leads S5, 3, 10, 6. >Declarer leads SQ from dummy, 7, 8, ace. Your partner's order of cards >in the trump suit means nothing (it is not suit preference). You can >conclude that declarer has at least a balanced 17 hcp with four spades >and fewer than four hearts. With a four-card minor, he would open 1S >on these values, so you can conclude nothing more about his shape. >What do you lead to trick four? > > > I lead a Heart, for two reasons. One, it looks right to continue, because partner might have the Ace and give me a ruff; two, as my dear old mother used to say, 'Every time you change suits in defence it costs a trick.' This time, she might actually have been right. Now, what if partner has given it a bit of a fumble before playing the Queen? Well, I've read with interest what the learned people on this list have to say, and I must admit, they all seem to be right. Logical alternatives and all that, coupled with deep thought. Splendid. However, at the level that I play at, we don't really go in for that very much. My problem is this: Say two of my players venture into the big wide world, and a situation like this arises when they are defending. The director is very properly called, and my people don't really have much of a leg to stand on between the two of them. If they're ruled against, and decide to appeal, would they be able to claim that they'd continued Hearts not because they'd selected the Heart as a logical choice, not because they'd seen their partner fumble and thought they'd take advantage of this, but simply because it was what their mother had told them to do, lo those many years ago? And if this is true, should they really be penalised? Just a thought Norman (going for the establishment of the 'Norms Mum Ruling' as a precedent) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 01:20:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 01:20:59 +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 BAA16967 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 01:20:49 +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 IAA27459; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 08:20:08 -0700 Message-Id: <199909281520.IAA27459@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A defensive problem In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:51:39 PDT." <011c01bf0a04$1f16d440$82dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 08:20:08 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > >> > QJ102 > >> > 873 > >> > Q863 > >> > K9 > >> >A43 > >> >62 > >> >1074 > >> >AJ652 > >> > > >> >The first heart goes 6, 3, queen, king. Declarer leads S5, 3, 10, 6. > >> >Declarer leads SQ from dummy, 7, 8, ace. . . . > >So a heart lead can gain, and I cannot see how it can lose, so for me there > >are no logical alternatives. What am I missing? > > > > Declarer could have: > Kxxx OR Kxxx > AKJ AKJ > AJ Axx > Q1073 Q10x (less likely for the jump to game) > > I think a third trump is a logical alternative which many players at the > table would find. I have sent the hand to an online "Bidding Forum" to > check. A third trump isn't going to defeat the contract if declarer has the hand on the left. Declarer gets three spades, one club, a club ruff, two diamonds, and three hearts. You get your two aces and the king of diamonds. No club or diamond finesse is necessary. You could have given declarer a small diamond instead of the jack. However, in that case, I believe declarer probably would have tried for two club ruffs, rather than drawing trumps immediately. > Technically there's no diamond endplay on partner to be prevented, but > recent email suggests that there's more to bridge than maths and technique. > Say declarer has Kxxx, AKJ, Ax, Q843. You play H2 at Trick 4. . . . On this hand, even moreso than on the above hand, declarer would be leading clubs, not trumps, at trick 2. Your following text describes a declarer who pulls off a nice subtle deception by leading a low diamond to the 8; this kind of thoughtful play doesn't seem consistent with a declarer who would botch the hand by leading trumps at tricks two and three. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 01:41:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 01:41:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA17013 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 01:40:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA20717; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:40:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-150.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.150) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020652; Tue Sep 28 10:39:31 1999 Message-ID: <005101bf09c7$f9536fc0$9684d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: A defensive problem Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:41:43 -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 >And I'm almost as qualified as DWS to give my opinion, as I once scored 27% >at pairs. > >Peter Gill. This is depressing...DWS and now you have broken what my partner and I believed was a world record with our 27.43% sectional debacle a dozen years ago. We still speak to each other and on occasion play something resembling bridge. :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 01:43:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 01:43:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (Salamix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA17033 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 01:43:05 +1000 (EST) From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14869 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:42:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA288203375; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:42:55 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA138323373; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:42:53 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:42:39 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Law 25 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 BAA17034 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Laval Dubreuil] Hi all, Similar to the case I submitted recently on subject "Law 25 - an other case" 1N - P - 2H - P 2H announced as "transfer" P/2S ACBL-land My ruling was that the opener always intended to bid 2S (as announced) and never not changed his mind (25A). Question of table feeling. [Laval Dubreuil] What a typo....... should be: ........and never changed his mind... Laval Du Breuil From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 03:14:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 03:14:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA17432 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 03:14:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04314 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:14:19 +0200 Received: from ip218.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.218), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda04311; Tue Sep 28 19:14:08 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Attempt to use outlook Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:14:08 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 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 DAA17433 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Warning: this is only for those who are interested in the e-mail technicalities! On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:17:03 -0400 (EDT), "Bruce J. Moore" wrote: >Most amusing. I've examined articles in this thread from Adam, Anne, >and Jesper. All three messages contain a space at the end of the >subject line. Yes, because Adam's extra space is preserved when the rest of us reply to Adam's posts. My own contribution, for instance, can be traced as follows: (a) It has Message-ID and is a reply to (b) Damian's post <000901bf078d$33b13d60$477ffea9@hassanfa>, which is a reply to (c) Anne's post <01bf060b$c2daf680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, which is a reply to (d) Craig's post <005401bf05f4$757627a0$2c84d9ce@host>, which is a reply to (e) Adam's post <199909222302.QAA16386@mailhub.irvine.com>, which is a reply to (f) Anne's post <01bf0539$b41f7b20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, which is a reply to (g) Adam's post <199909221453.HAA08677@mailhub.irvine.com>, which is a reply to (h) Anne's post <01bf0499$379544e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, which is a reply to (i) Roger's post <19990914175633.44017.qmail@hotmail.com>, which started the thread. All the messages (a)-(g) has the extra space, which was originally created by Adam's mail program in (g). (h) and (i) have no extra space. Since there is only one extra space character in (a)-(e), whose subject lines have been twice through Adam's program, we can deduce that it only adds a space to subject lines that do not already end in a space. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 03:40:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 03:20:57 +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 DAA17459 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 03:20:46 +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 11W0vX-000HH0-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:20:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:49:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: References: <3.0.2.32.19990928022542.00b0c100@mail.a2000.nl> <199909280157.LAA06108@cuda.jcu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <199909280157.LAA06108@cuda.jcu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurence Kelso1 wrote: >If the 1NT is strong then I would probably rule under >25A. With a weak NT (which I guess this probably is) >then it is conceivable that he at least contemplated >passing, which makes the situation more interesting. Laurie: are you going to look at the player's 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 Wed Sep 29 04:37:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 03:20:57 +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 DAA17460 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 03:20:46 +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 11W0vX-000HGz-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:20:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:46:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce J. Moore wrote: >I beg your pardon. > >If my actual agreement with partner is that I will usually double >with three card support, but on occasion will make a bid I feel >to be more descriptive, then how should he explain? > >He usually explains "tends to deny ..." or "usually denies ...". >Are you suggesting that he should misexplain by saying "denies ..."? >This doesn't seem to be accurately disclosing our methods. What is worse, is anyone here actually going to come out and say in public that his makes Bruce's partner a BL and a liar? This is the inference from other posts in this thread. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 29 04:49:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 03:20:55 +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 DAA17455 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 03:20:41 +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 11W0vR-000HH2-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:20:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:44:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <3.0.1.32.19990926202704.012a659c@pop.mindspring.com> <199909262051.QAA00372@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990926202704.012a659c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990927162624.012b1ed0@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990927162624.012b1ed0@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 03:04 AM 9/27/99 +0100, David S. wrote: >>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>>My own view is that if E/W have agreed to play "support doubles" then >>>without further agreement this carries with it the standard inference that >>>East's failure to double denies 3-card support. West should not be >>>penalized for alerting and correctly explaining the standard meaning of >>>this agreement, even if his partner is clueless. >> >> It is not a standard agreement, and you should not be saying so. You >>may double after 1H P 1S 2C with a 3=10=0=0, but I can assure you that >>you are in a minority. For the vast majority, any call other than >>double tends to deny three card support, so that is an honest >>explanation. >> > >Let me get this straight. You are called to the table when the opponents >are concerned about MI. One player has failed to make the support double >holding 3-card support and a 10-card heart suit "on the side." His >partner's explanation, "denies 3-card support", was not adequately hedged >with the pro forma "tends to". And you're prepared to rule against him for >overstating the nature of the partnership agreement? > >No, of course not. You did not say so, and I should not attribute this >position to you. But you do seem to suggest that an explanation without the >requisite hedge is subject to penalty whenever partner's action varies from >the agreement, even for demonstrably clear-cut reasons. > >It should go without saying (literally) that _every_ agreement that a >partnership could conceivably make is subject to at-the-table judgement. >This is just bridge. If my partner and I agree that a failure to double >denies three-card support, we both understand that this agreement is >subject to occasional deliberate violation, even for less obvious >considerations than your extreme case. That doesn't mean that an >unqualified statement such as "denies 3-card support" is inaccurate. Rather >that description, like any other, carries with it the implicit >understanding that no bidding agreement is inviolate. > >So I will stand by my earlier claim: as far as I know, the treatment that >the pass in the original auction "denies" three trumps is the standard one >(not the "universal" one, a characterization you mistakenly attributed to >me) for players utilizing Support Doubles. Players will continue to employ >the "tends to" dodge to protect themselves from the BL's, but it adds >nothing to the information imparted to the opponents. It does have the >effect of communicating uncertainty about the reliability of the inference, >particularly to weaker opponents: uncertainty which will generally not >trouble the explainer, who really does have a pretty high confidence in the >inference. I don't agree. If a pair plays it as denying 3-card support then they play it as denying 3-card support. OK, I gave an example and you are not impressed, so what am I meant to do? Go on giving examples while you talk about something different. The reason that people say "tends to deny 3-card support" is because it only tends to deny it and does not actually deny it. If they play it as denying it then they are required to say so. You seem to assume that everyone is dishonest. Well, they aren't, but the more people assume it, the more the honest people are going to be driven into a corner. Now don't produce another red herring about people deliberately violating an agreement: that has nothing to do with it. *I* assume that people who say they play "tends to deny 3-card support" are playing that way. You are treating them as liars, and to make it worse you are suggesting the rules of the game makes them liars. The rules of bridge do not encourage people to lie, and a majority of people do not lie to gain advantage at bridge. People that play a failure to double as denying three card support are required to explain it as "denying three card support". People that play a failure to double as tending to deny three card support are required to explain it as "tending to deny three card support". In my view they 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 Wed Sep 29 05:15:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 05:15:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from serv4.vossnet.co.uk (serv4.vossnet.co.uk [212.70.130.254]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA17744 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 05:15:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 8443 invoked from network); 28 Sep 1999 19:15:28 -0000 Received: from pool-195.vossnet.co.uk (HELO hassanfa) (195.188.90.205) by serv4.vossnet.co.uk with SMTP; 28 Sep 1999 19:15:28 -0000 Message-ID: <003101bf09e5$bbf639a0$7e3efea9@hassanfa> From: "Damian Hassan" To: References: <001201bf08fa$3efd5820$292f63c3@davidburn> Subject: Re: A defensive problem Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:14:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've read Peter's response to my first posting, and would admit that you could probably construct hands where the spade lead, with its misleading inferential count, will give declarer more problems than a heart lead. However, when I am playing I try to maintain a reasonably constant tempo. I am pretty sure that I could work out quickly at the table that: 1. partner has at most 4 more HCP 2. either AH, or possibly KJ(9) of diamonds will beat the contract 3. that if diamonds will beat the contract, there is no pressing need for a switch. I would therefore lead a heart. I am afraid that I would not think of the possibility of misleading declarer as to the count on the hand. I am reminded of the admonishment when playing chess - when you find a good move, stop and look for a better one. Unfortunately (?), the time constraints are different between the games, and I know that I would not think of Peter's hands at the table. I still think that playing partner for AH is clearly best, but there might be hands where another switch would work better. Question: do my logical alternatives include only those plays that I will find at the table, or do they also include lines that when shown subsequently to me, I concede might work better - i.e. I can see the logic behind them? Damian Hassan From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 05:28:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 05:28:31 +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 FAA17820 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 05:28:18 +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 PAA13287 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:28:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA02309 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:28:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909281928.PAA02309@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Your explanations are, indeed, much more careful, and are representative of > a broader class of Artful Dodges that prudent players have adopted to take > care of exactly this problem. Typically, the explanation is hedged by the > phrase "tends to", as in "tends to deny 3-card support." This caters to all > possibilities. I don't like the "artful dodges" any better than you do, but I fail to see how telling the opponents exactly what your agreements are can be wrong. See below. > Well it probably won't hurt to ask questions, gently. Perhaps East will > blurt out that they actually discussed this problem in some detail, and so > we will discover that it really was a case of MI. I think you have things backwards. If they have discussed it, and they agreed always to show three-card support, and they don't have a history of forgetting, then the simple explanation is _not_ MI. > But I doubt it. The most likely result of our inquiry will be something > vague and confusing such as "I wasn't sure whether support doubles applied > in this situation," or "I didn't know that passing denied 3-card support," In these cases, there is MI (assuming that "denies three" was in fact what was said). > 1. That E/W had agreed to play support doubles, with little additional > discussion. > 2. That East was unclear about or unaware of the inferences to be drawn > from a failure to double. The question is whether or not the explanation matches the agreements. If the explanation given was simply "denies three," case 1 above is surely MI. I think case 2 probably is MI as well, but just possibly you could convince me otherwise. Of course if there was no discussion, case 2 is just a subset of case 1: MI. > You seem to arguing that, on the one hand, West is obliged to alert and > explain the inferences but that on the other hand to do so is to commit MI, > unless he qualifies his explanation with a sufficiently impressive straddle. No qualification and no straddle. Explain the agreements; nothing more or less. All this seems completely obvious to me. Let me give another example in case others are having a hard time understanding. Suppose a new partner and I agree to play 1NT=12-14 without further discussion. The auction goes 1m-1M-1NT. Now I alert and confidently explain that this shows 15-17. Even though we have never discussed it, all systems I know of have this agreement. (In practice, being the pedant I am, I usually explain that we play weak NT and have not discussed this auction, but that it shows 15-17 in all systems I know about.) Later, our auction goes 1H-1S-1NT. I alert, of course, but this time my explanation is that we play weak NT and have not discussed this auction. The difference is that I know of some systems where this shows 15-17, others where it shows a minimum opener, and still others where it is wide-range. > From: "Bruce J. Moore" > If my actual agreement with partner is that I will usually double > with three card support, but on occasion will make a bid I feel > to be more descriptive, then how should he explain? Bruce wasn't asking me, but my suggestion is "Denies three card support _unless_ he thinks his actual bid is much more descriptive of the overall nature of his hand." (Possibly you could indicate how rare or common the exception is, depending on how much discussion and experience you have.) > He usually explains "tends to deny ..." or "usually denies ...". Your "tends to deny" is a little vague. Why not tell the opponents your actual agreement? > Are you suggesting that he should misexplain by saying "denies ..."? Of course not. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 06:33:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 06:33:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f31.hotmail.com [207.82.250.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA17955 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 06:33:48 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 31842 invoked by uid 0); 28 Sep 1999 20:33:10 -0000 Message-ID: <19990928203310.31841.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:33:10 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:33:10 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Bruce J. Moore wrote: > >I beg your pardon. > > > >If my actual agreement with partner is that I will usually double > >with three card support, but on occasion will make a bid I feel > >to be more descriptive, then how should he explain? > > > >He usually explains "tends to deny ..." or "usually denies ...". > >Are you suggesting that he should misexplain by saying "denies ..."? > >This doesn't seem to be accurately disclosing our methods. > >What is worse, is anyone here actually going to come out and say in >public that his makes Bruce's partner a BL and a liar? This is the >inference from other posts in this thread. > I know that "most" players are ethical, and give correct information, at least as much as they think they need to (there are a lot of players around here who think that "standard" is full disclosure, and even though their "standard" weak 2 won't contain (or will contain) a side 4-card major, no voids, AKQxxx as valid as KJxxxx and an outside AJx, and they know this, they don't understand that they are being incomplete unless they explain that when asked - and don't know why anyone would want to know this, either, to be fair to them (to be unfair to them, they are very likely to declaim that they can't see why anyone would want to know it either)). I also know that there are those who explain "no agreement" when they actually can tell you what partner has to within a card or so. I think Mike is worried about the latter, and I think that DWS is right to assume that most players don't do it. What I would say, in this situation, is my agreement, as complete as it is: "Partner could double here to show 3 spades. We value fits highly in competitive situations, so he would only choose bid over double with 3 spades if he had a very good reason." If asked about what "very good reason" is, I'd probably say (and we're just learning about support doubles, so ICBW) "A very good suit he wants led, say AQT9xxx or better" (that's the only example I can think of - with 3=10=0=0, I wouldn't bid 2H after 1H-1S(2D); I'd think about 5NT, 4D, 5D or 4H depending on exactly what cards I'm missing. With 3=5=0=5, or 3=5=1=4, I'd only bid 3C over double with weak hearts and strong clubs). I have found explaining these hands by explaining the negative inferences useful in the past (for example, after 1NT(EHAA), 2C! is explained as "Stayman, at least game-invitational. Please note that with very few exceptions, all hands that cannot place the contract immediately go through 2C." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 06:41:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 06:41:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA18001 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 06:41:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehnj.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.243]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA06115 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990928163853.012c5e84@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:38:53 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <37F090AF.6DFF0A22@omicron.comarch.pl> References: <3.0.1.32.19990926202704.012a659c@pop.mindspring.com> <199909262051.QAA00372@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990926202704.012a659c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990927162624.012b1ed0@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:55 AM 9/28/99 +0200, Konrad wrote: >"Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > >>Your explanations are, indeed, much more careful, and are representative of >>a broader class of Artful Dodges that prudent players have adopted to take >>care of exactly this problem. Typically, the explanation is hedged by the >>phrase "tends to", as in "tends to deny 3-card support." This caters to all >>possibilities. You have informed the opponents about the nature of your >>agreement, and at the same time taken out insurance against an MI claim >>when partner strays, for whatever reason. And best of all, your explanation >>cannot be challenged, since "tends to" is so vague that even if partner >>_always_ has the indicated hand (as indeed you expect him to), nobody can >>find fault with your explanation! > > I think I know what you are afraid of, Michael. Suppose the bidding has gone > >W N E S >1H P 1S 2D >BID 3D P 3NT >P P P > > where BID is any bid other than double. You, South, learn that the opponents > >play support doubles. You therefore make the assumption that West does not >hold 3 spades and misplay the hand as he did have 3 of them. > Now you are afraid that if East when explainig his partner's rebid said >"the BID _tends to_ deny 3 spades" rather than "the BID denies three spades" >there is nothing you can do - they can always get away with murder: "Come on >we've never said that the BID denies 3 spades, have we?". > I think you're wrong about it. If a bid suggests/tends to show (deny) >some specific holding it does not mean that it is _randomly_ made with >or without it. It means it promises (denies) this holding _unless a player >has a good reason to make a violation_. Therefore, being a TD if West >did not make a support double with > >xxx >AKQJxx >Axx >x > >(BID=2H) > >or > >xxx >AKxxx >--- >AKQJx > >(BID=3C) > >or > >xxx >AQxxx >KQJ10 >x > >(BID=pass) > > ...then I would let the result stand. On the other hand if he rebid 2H on > >Kxx >AJxxxx >xx >Ax > > ...I would adjust - IMHO the last hand does not qualify to the "tends to >deny >three card support" category. > So your adjustment would be based on what, exactly? Your judgement about West's bidding judgement? East has described a method, vaguely and with no specificity as to when and where partner might tend to avoid a double. And because you would not choose to bid as West has you're prepared to rule that this explanation is MI? What do you think has happened in this situation? Both players have "support doubles" marked on their card. Both confirm that their agreement is that a failure to double "tends to deny 3-card support". Maybe West forgot, or was confused, or misread/misheard his RHO's bid, or decided this hand just wasn't good enough to encourage partner. Is East's explanation MI? What is East supposed to say in this situation to avoid running afoul of the Laws? Or suppose this, as in the original, is a first-time partnership, and it turns out that West was just plain ignorant of the inferences normally associated with support doubles. East has been careful to hedge his explanation, as Steve and David would like him to do. He has described what he understands to be the inferential agreement concerning his partner's call. Was he supposed to do something else? Your posting is worthwhile, because it cuts to the chase of the real issue, IMO, which is not whether it is legal/ethical/desirable to couch your explanations in tentative language, but how we are to judge the situation when an explanation of an inferential agreement seems inconsistent with partner's interpretation. Perhaps any solid principle is unavailing in these cases, and we are left with basic case-by-case evaluation. But in the circumstances described in the original problem, I could not rule MI, regardless of the opening bidder's actual hand, absent some compelling evidence that the pair had agreed not to employ this inference. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 07:10:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 07:10:41 +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 HAA18059 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 07:10:33 +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 OAA00498; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:09:53 -0700 Message-Id: <199909282109.OAA00498@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:33:10 PST." <19990928203310.31841.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:09:54 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > . . . with 3=10=0=0, I wouldn't bid 2H after > 1H-1S(2D); I'd think about 5NT, 4D, 5D or 4H depending on exactly what cards > I'm missing. Am I the only one that's beginning to find this example amusing? With 3=10=0=0, even if you do choose to open 1H, the chance that you will have this particular problem seems awfully slim. The real question should be, "Do you and your partner play support doubles at the 4 or 5 level?", because that's most likely where the auction will be by the time it gets back around to opener. However, I wonder whether there's any point in opening 1H---what's the chance you and partner will be able to have a constructive auction? Well, maybe you have KQx of spades you will have too much defense to open 4H, and partner won't be able to judge whether to double their 5C/5D bid or save. Which probably won't matter, because you'll probably pull his double anyway. I had the following once with a well-known international expert on my left: WKIE partner RHO me 4H dbl pass 6S 7H dbl all pass Partner didn't have enough spades for his double, and RHO, with six spades, was waiting for a chance to whack me. But LHO, with 0=10=2=1, trusted my bid, and converted +1,000,000 or so into -300. Oops . . . -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 07:30:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 07:30:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA18179 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 07:30:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehnj.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.243]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA25978 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990928172757.012b9074@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:27:57 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <199909281928.PAA02309@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:28 PM 9/28/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >All this seems completely obvious to me. Let me give another example >in case others are having a hard time understanding. Suppose a new >partner and I agree to play 1NT=12-14 without further discussion. The >auction goes 1m-1M-1NT. Now I alert and confidently explain that this >shows 15-17. And when partner shows up with a 13-count, are you guilty of MI? You haven't actually agreed to this inference, whatever you may consider to be the "standard" meaning of this sequence for weak no-trumpers (and of course I agree that this is standard). When you rule against yourself in this situation, I hope you will have the good grace not to call yourself any bad names. >Even though we have never discussed it, all systems I >know of have this agreement. (In practice, being the pedant I am, I >usually explain that we play weak NT and have not discussed this >auction, but that it shows 15-17 in all systems I know about.) Oh, but now I see, you have protected yourself with an elaborate qualification! So you will be right to rule in this instance that the opponents _were_ completely and accurately informed. No bad names necessary. BTW, I don't mean to suggest in any way that your "hedge" is unethical. I recognize that your intent is simply to give the opponents the most complete information available. My point is that the extended explanation is all well and good, but neither required nor germane to the ultimate ruling. The question is, rather, whether it is accurate or MI for you to describe your inferential agreement as showing a strong no-trump, when in fact it is not an actual explicit agreement but merely your (correct) description of the normal inferences to be drawn from your explicit agreement to "play 12-14 no-trumps." My position is that I will not rule against you here, whether you have hedged or not. You have alerted and correctly explained the normal inferences to be drawn from your non-standard agreement. That your partner is confused about or has forgotten the nature of those inferences is immaterial to the validity of your explanation. >Later, our auction goes 1H-1S-1NT. I alert, of course, but this time my >explanation is that we play weak NT and have not discussed this >auction. The difference is that I know of some systems where this >shows 15-17, others where it shows a minimum opener, and still others >where it is wide-range. Odd: you have now alerted what can only be described as a non-agreement, since you claim substantial ignorance about the meaning of partner's sequence. This is supposed to be helpful to the opponents? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 08:07:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:07:14 +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 IAA18346 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:07:07 +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 11W5Ol-000Ejv-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:07:00 +0000 Message-ID: <8eGu7JAbuT83EwyQ@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:05:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990928022542.00b0c100@mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.2.32.19990928022542.00b0c100@mail.a2000.nl>, Anton Witzen writes >i have a very interesting problem. >(perhaps) > >the bidding goes: >hand 23 >D S > >W N E S > P >P P 1NT P >P/2C > >At this moment the TD is summonded at the table. >W holds: >K754 >AT875 >J653 > >I was asked for a ruling under either 25A or 25B > >I took the W player from the table and asked for his intention. >He told me he replaced the pass for 2C without pause and no action was >taken after it. >So, leagally the requirements of 25A are fulfilled. >I checked with the the player what happened (taking him away from the >tqble), he confirmed that he never intended to pass and his bidding of 2C >was without pause. >The opponents dont think that this is a 24A case. ^^^ I had a case at Brighton where someone produced a pass card and I allowed them to change it. If he convinces me that 2C was in his mind I'll apply L25A. We do it that way in the UK. 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 Sep 29 08:11:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:11:17 +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 IAA18369 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:11:10 +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 11W5Se-0006yg-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:11:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:09:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Laurence Kelso1 wrote: > >>If the 1NT is strong then I would probably rule under >>25A. With a weak NT (which I guess this probably is) >>then it is conceivable that he at least contemplated >>passing, which makes the situation more interesting. > > Laurie: are you going to look at the player's hand? > It's quite funny - I didn't even notice a hand had been posted. Was it interesting? I ruled on the evidence alone. The ruling must be based on the evidence of the players at the table, not on the evidence of the hand. 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 Sep 29 08:59:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:59:46 +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 IAA18526 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:59:33 +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 SAA19478 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:59:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA02821 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:59:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:59:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SW>Suppose a new SW>partner and I agree to play 1NT=12-14 without further discussion. The SW>auction goes 1m-1M-1NT. Now I alert and confidently explain that this SW>shows 15-17. > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > And when partner shows up with a 13-count, are you guilty of MI? Yes, I would surely expect a MI ruling. But it _never_ happens. Unlike the situation with support doubles, nobody plays any other method here. (Well, nobody I've ever heard of, anyway.) [1H-1S-1NT!] > Odd: you have now alerted what can only be described as a non-agreement, > since you claim substantial ignorance about the meaning of partner's > sequence. This is supposed to be helpful to the opponents? We have an implicit agreement, which I think should be alerted. Or at least we have the _absence_ of the normal, non-alertable agreement that 1NT in this sequence is weak. Yes, I think most opponents will find the alert helpful. Why is this so hard to explain? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 09:08:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:08:29 +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 JAA18554 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:08:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from cuda.jcu.edu.au (cuda.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.28]) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA05886 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:08:19 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 Received: (from mosaic@localhost) by cuda.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA13120; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:08:18 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:08:18 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199909282308.JAA13120@cuda.jcu.edu.au> X-Authentication-Warning: cuda.jcu.edu.au: mosaic set sender to sci-lsk@jcu.edu.au using -f To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Reply-To: Laurence.Kelso@jcu.edu.au References: <3.0.2.32.19990928022542.00b0c100@mail.a2000.nl> <199909280157.LAA06108@cuda.jcu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.10 X-Originating-IP: 202.80.71.38 Subject: Re: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quoting David Stevenson : > Laurence Kelso1 wrote: > > >If the 1NT is strong then I would probably rule under > >25A. With a weak NT (which I guess this probably is) > >then it is conceivable that he at least contemplated > >passing, which makes the situation more interesting. > > Laurie: are you going to look at the player\'s hand? No David, I am not. I will however ask the player a couple of questions and make a decision depending on what he says. Anton did supply a hand so I made a comment about it. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 10:43:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:43:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com [139.134.5.159]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA18742 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:43:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca118276 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:41:05 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-224-87.tmns.net.au ([139.134.224.87]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Gorgeous-MailRouter V2.5 5/2625474); 29 Sep 1999 10:41:05 Message-ID: <000401bf0aa2$212adc60$57e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: A defensive problem Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:39:30 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: > >> >> > QJ102 >> >> > 873 >> >> > Q863 >> >> > K9 >> >> >A43 >> >> >62 >> >> >1074 >> >> >AJ652 >> >> > >> >> >The first heart goes 6, 3, queen, king. Declarer leads S5, 3, 10, 6. >> >> >Declarer leads SQ from dummy, 7, 8, ace. . . . > >> >So a heart lead can gain, and I cannot see how it can lose, so for me there >> >are no logical alternatives. What am I missing? >> > >> >> Declarer could have: >> Kxxx OR Kxxx >> AKJ AKJ >> AJ Axx >> Q1073 Q10x (less likely for the jump to game) >> >> I think a third trump is a logical alternative which many players at the >> table would find. I have sent the hand to an online "Bidding Forum" to >> check. > >A third trump isn't going to defeat the contract if declarer has the >hand on the left. Declarer gets three spades, one club, a club ruff, >two diamonds, and three hearts. You get your two aces and the king of >diamonds. No club or diamond finesse is necessary. > Yes, but it might help stop the overtrick, for the obscure but logical resons in my previous email. After your earlier email about the significance of the 1 imp differences, consideration of "logical alternatives" surely does not focus totally on beating/making the contract with total disregard for the one imp differences. >You could have given declarer a small diamond instead of the jack. >However, in that case, I believe declarer probably would have tried >for two club ruffs, rather than drawing trumps immediately. I actually changed DAx to DAJ as I wrote the earlier email, to prevent partner getting on lead with an impending heart ruff while declarer negotiates his two clubs ruffs. >> Technically there's no diamond endplay on partner to be prevented, but >> recent email suggests that there's more to bridge than maths and technique. >> Say declarer has Kxxx, AKJ, Ax, Q843. You play H2 at Trick 4. . . . > >On this hand, even moreso than on the above hand, declarer would be >leading clubs, not trumps, at trick 2. Your following text describes >a declarer who pulls off a nice subtle deception by leading a low >diamond to the 8; this kind of thoughtful play doesn't seem consistent >with a declarer who would botch the hand by leading trumps at tricks >two and three. I thought I chose a sequence of plays which many declarers could pull off by accident, as long as declarer decides that West would win DK if he had it. > The main point of the length and depth of my analysis is to point out that when a situation requires considerable thought, I think it's dangerous for any one person to conclude that there are no logical alternatives based on their personal assessment of the hand. In the 30 seconds to state my case at an Appeals Committee I would obviously be unable to make the long case in my previous email. Judging from the general response to David Burn's question, the AC is then likely to rule "no logical alternative". This seems wrong to me. -- Peter From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 12:47:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:47:56 +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 MAA18903 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:47:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveglt.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.189]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA11342 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990928224445.012c9cb8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:44:45 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:59 PM 9/28/99 -0400, you wrote: >SW>Suppose a new >SW>partner and I agree to play 1NT=12-14 without further discussion. The >SW>auction goes 1m-1M-1NT. Now I alert and confidently explain that this >SW>shows 15-17. > >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> And when partner shows up with a 13-count, are you guilty of MI? > >Yes, I would surely expect a MI ruling. But it _never_ happens. >Unlike the situation with support doubles, nobody plays any other >method here. (Well, nobody I've ever heard of, anyway.) But this begs the question: how should you conduct yourself so as to conform to the requirements of the Laws? Should you alert partner's bid and explain it as 15-17? You seem to be arguing that you should do so (accompanied by the "pedantic" qualifications you seem to favor), but that if partner turns up with 13 points, you will have been guilty of MI. In other words, the legality of your explanation depends fundamentally on the actual cards in partner's hand. That can't be right. MI is a mis-explanation of your agreements, not a mis-description of partner's hand, and those agreements exist (or don't) quite independently of the cards partner actually holds in this particular case. A basic tenet of any reasonable system of Laws is the presumption that individuals will be able to judge when their actions are or are not in conformance. It seems insupportable to argue that the Laws require you to act in a particular way, but that if you do, you may be guilty of an infraction based on facts not available to you at the time of your action. As to the question of the relative degree of "standardness" in the treatments we are examining, ask yourself this. If you sat down with an unfamiliar but competent partner and agreed to play support doubles, would you assume that his 2H bid in the original auction indicated a hand of fewer than 3 trumps, or would you be concerned that he might be in that "other camp" of support doublers who don't play the convention this way? I could well be wrong (NFTFT), but I would expect that the vast majority of those who play support doubles deny (all right, "tend to deny") 3 trumps in this auction. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 17:35:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA19248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:35:22 +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 RAA19243 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:35:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.98] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11WEGR-00079F-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:35:00 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01bf0a4d$1f509ec0$625108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: The devil you say...... Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 01:31:17 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan`0```````%X!````````7@$````````:`0``%@```.(`````````&@$` M``````#B`````````!H!````````Z@$````````````````````````````` M]@````````#V`````````.(`````````X@````````#B`````````.(````` M````&@$```````#J`0```````%X!``",````7@$``````````````````.H! M````````X@````````#B```````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````````````````````````Z@$````````:`0`` M``````X!```,````P)$T@^P'OP'V`````````/8`````````, $``"X```#J M`0`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````#0T-#0T-#0T-#0T-#0D@(" @(" @(" @(" @(" -#5=/4DQ$($)2 M241'12!&141%4D%424].#0T-(" @(" @(" @(" @("!^?GY^?GY^?@T-#2 @ M(" @("!#3T1%($]&(%!204-424-%#0T)"69O<@T-(" @($%04$5!3%,@($-/ M34U)5%1%15,-```````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````````````! ``'P0``'($``")! ``B@0```#] M`/L````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M`````````````````````````````````````````SXJ`01#2B0`! `$```! M! ```@0```,$```$! ``!00```8$```'! ``" 0```D$```*! ``"P0```P$ M```-! ``'@0``!\$```W! ``. 0``#D$``!0! ``400``%($``!J! ``:P0` M`'$$``!R! ``B@0``/T```````````````#]````````````````_0`````` M`````````/T```````````````#]````````````````_0`````````````` M`/T```````````````#]````````````````_0```````````````/T````` M``````````#]````````````````_0```````````````/T````````````` M``#]````````````````_0```````````````/<```````````````#W```` M````````````]P```````````````/<```````````````#W```````````` M````]P```````````````/<```````````````#W````````````````]P`` M`````````````/<```````````````#U```````````````````````````` M`````````````````````````````````````````````````0$```4```^$ MH 41A- "``$````:``0```$$```"! ```P0```0$```%! ``!@0```<$```( M! ``"00```H$```+! ``# 0```T$```>! ``'P0``#<$```X! ``.00``% $ M``!1! ``4@0``&H$``!K! ``<00``'($``"*! `````````````````````` M`````````````/P````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````````!0(!``4``!H<`!^P@BX@L,9!(; (!R*P M" *9S`"X!+@%/`````````#@` M`````````A `````````B@```$ ```@`0 ``! ```$<6D $```("!@,%! 4" M`P0#`````````````````````0````````!4`&D`;0!E`',`( !.`&4`=P`@ M`%(`;P!M`&$`;@```#46D $"``4%`0(!!P8"!0<`````````$ `````````` M````@ ````!3`'D`;0!B`&\`; ```#,FD $```(+!@0"`@("`@0#```````` M`````````````0````````!!`'(`:0!A`&P````W!I !```````````````` M`P````````````````````$`````````60!U`&,`80!T`&$`;@```"(`! #Q M"(@8``#0`@``: $`````\-$Y!OK1.0;XT3D&`0`)````$P```'$````!``$` M```$``,0`0```````````````0`!`````0`````````A`P`````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M``````````````````````````````````````````````"E!L 'M "T`( ` M,C ``````````````````(H````````````````````````````````````` M`````````````````````````````````````````````````````@`````` M__\2````````````````````$ !'`'(`80!T`'0`80!N`" `10!N`&0`:0!C M`&\`= !T`! `1P!R`&$`= !T`&$`;@`@`$4`;@!D`&D`8P!O`'0`= `````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M`````````````````````````/[_```$"@(```````````````````````$` M``#@A9_R^4]H$*N1" `K)[/9, ```'P!```1`````0```) ````"````F `` M``,```"D````! ```+ ````%````S ````<```#8````" ```.@````)```` M! $``!(````0`0``"@```"P!```+````. $```P```!$`0``#0```% !```. M````7 $```\```!D`0``$ ```&P!```3````= $```(```#D! ``'@````$` M`````',`'@````$``````',`'@```!$```!'````$0```$=R871T86X@ M16YD:6-O='0``&0`'@````(````Q`&%T'@```!,```!-:6-R;W-O9G0@5V]R M9" X+C ``$ `````=MU!`0```$ `````0*TP[ >_`4 `````$),2ZP>_`4 ` M````S#-X[ >_`0,````!`````P```!,````#````<0````,````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M``````````````````````````#^_P``! H"```````````````````````" M`````M7-U9PN&Q"3EP@`*RSYKD0````%U````!P```$1O9&]N80!L`P````$````# M`````0````,```"*`````P```&H0" `+``````````L`````````"P`````` M```+`````````!X0```!`````0`````,$ ```@```!X````&````5&ET;&4` M`P````$`````F ````,`````````( ````$````V`````@```#X````!```` M`@````H```!?4$E$7T=5240``@```.0$``!!````3@```'L`,@`R`#@`.0`S M`#(`00`P`"T`-P`S`$4`. `M`#$`,0!$`#,`+0`Y`#,`1@`Q`"T`1@`T`#4` M-@`X`#(`00`R`$,`. `S`#4`?0`````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M`````````````````````````````0````(````#````! ````4````&```` M!P```/[___\)````"@````L````,````#0````X````/````_O___Q$````2 M````$P```!0````5````%@```!<```#^____&0```!H````;````' ```!T` M```>````'P```/[____]____(@```/[____^_____O__________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M__________________________________________________]2`&\`;P!T M`" `10!N`'0`<@!Y```````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````%@`%`?__________`P````8)`@``````P ```````$8` M````P(CW@NP'OP&@6D6#[ >_`20```" `````````#$`5 !A`&(`; !E```` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````.``(`________________```````````````````````````````` M````````````````" `````0````````5P!O`'(`9 !$`&\`8P!U`&T`90!N M`'0``````````````````````````````````````````````````````!H` M`@$%````__________\````````````````````````````````````````` M`````````````! ````````%`%,`=0!M`&T`80!R`'D`20!N`&8`;P!R`&T` M80!T`&D`;P!N````````````````````````````````````* `"`0(````$ M````_____P```````````````````````````````````````````````! ` M````$ ````````4`1 !O`&,`=0!M`&4`;@!T`%,`=0!M`&T`80!R`'D`20!N M`&8`;P!R`&T`80!T`&D`;P!N```````````````X``(!________________ M````````````````````````````````````````````````& `````0```` M`````0!#`&\`;0!P`$\`8@!J```````````````````````````````````` M`````````````````````````````!(``@$!````!@```/____\````````` M````````````````````````````````````````````:@````````!/`&(` M:@!E`&,`= !0`&\`;P!L```````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````%@`!`/_______________P`````````````````` M````````H%I%@^P'OP&@6D6#[ >_`0`````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````________________```````````````````````````` M`````````````````````````````````````0```/[_________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M__________________________________________________________\! M`/[_`PH``/____\&"0(``````, ```````!&& ```$UI8W)O; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:59:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from uni-duesseldorf.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:58:54 +0200 Message-ID: <37F1C6BA.36FA7ECB@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:58:51 +0200 From: Richard Bley X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [de]C-QXW0310J (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: The devil you say...... References: <000c01bf0a4d$1f509ec0$625108c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Grattan, > Name: code of practice Title Page.doc > code of practice Title Page.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword) > Encoding: x-uuencode Thanks for that, but it was only the title page. But I would be very interested in reading the whole stuff. Could you send me a copy? Thanks a lot in advance Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 18:00:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 18:00:05 +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 RAA19305 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:59:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA20228; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:59:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA06034; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:59:11 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:59:11 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Grattan Endicott cc: bridge-laws Subject: Re: The devil you say...... In-Reply-To: <000c01bf0a4d$1f509ec0$625108c3@swhki5i6> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Grattan Endicott wrote: > begin 666 code of practice Title Page.doc .doc? Can you please repost this in a non-proprietary format? I don't want to buy a new computer just to read 1 posting. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 22:16:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:16:01 +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 WAA19919 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:15:52 +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 IAA19150 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:16:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990929081759.0070398c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:17:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:18 PM 9/27/99 -0400, Bruce wrote: >If my actual agreement with partner is that I will usually double >with three card support, but on occasion will make a bid I feel >to be more descriptive, then how should he explain? > >He usually explains "tends to deny ..." or "usually denies ...". >Are you suggesting that he should misexplain by saying "denies ..."? >This doesn't seem to be accurately disclosing our methods. Of course you shouldn't say "denies" when it doesn't. But perhaps it's best to avoid using "tends to deny" as well. With this agreement, I will usually say something like "He could have doubled to show three-card heart support, so he either lacks three hearts or decided it was more important to show his suit first" -- after a bid, of course; if pard passes, then I will say "denies three hearts", since that is our agreement. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 29 22:34:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:34:19 +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 WAA20018 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:34:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA20379 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990929083629.0068d8ac@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:36:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: A defensive problem In-Reply-To: <003101bf09e5$bbf639a0$7e3efea9@hassanfa> References: <001201bf08fa$3efd5820$292f63c3@davidburn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:14 PM 9/28/99 +0100, Damian wrote: >Question: do my logical alternatives include only those plays that I will >find at the table, or do they also include lines that when shown >subsequently to me, I concede might work better - i.e. I can see the logic >behind them? It's a judgment call, and one that TDs and ACs have to make all the time. It's easy to see the suggested play as the "only LA" when you have UI that tells you that it's the right play. We must consider the fact that without the UI you might have thought a bit longer and harder about what to play, and found an LA that you didn't consider at the table (especially if it's a clearly better play). Whether the alternative play is "within your reach" -- i.e. something you might have thought of with a bit more thought -- is a decision for the adjudicators. 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 Sep 29 22:42:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:42:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20060 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:42:38 +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 11WJ3t-0004Gx-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:42:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:21:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A defensive problem References: <19990928144912.93675.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19990928144912.93675.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norman Scorbie wrote: >I lead a Heart, for two reasons. One, it looks right to continue, because >partner might have the Ace and give me a ruff; two, as my dear old mother >used to say, 'Every time you change suits in defence it costs a trick.' This >time, she might actually have been right. > >Now, what if partner has given it a bit of a fumble before playing the >Queen? Well, I've read with interest what the learned people on this list >have to say, and I must admit, they all seem to be right. Logical >alternatives and all that, coupled with deep thought. Splendid. However, at >the level that I play at, we don't really go in for that very much. My >problem is this: Say two of my players venture into the big wide world, and >a situation like this arises when they are defending. The director is very >properly called, and my people don't really have much of a leg to stand on >between the two of them. If they're ruled against, and decide to appeal, >would they be able to claim that they'd continued Hearts not because they'd >selected the Heart as a logical choice, not because they'd seen their >partner fumble and thought they'd take advantage of this, but simply because >it was what their mother had told them to do, lo those many years ago? And >if this is true, should they really be penalised? >Just a thought >Norman (going for the establishment of the 'Norms Mum Ruling' as a >precedent) When we rule we are trying to consider what players of similar style and system would do. If you can convince a Director or AC that people of your style [the Norm's Mum style] always do this in defence then you should not get a ruling against you because you have no LA. Good luck! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 29 22:51:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:51:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20078 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:51:22 +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 IAA21915 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:52:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990929085342.006a609c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:53:42 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990928172757.012b9074@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199909281928.PAA02309@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:27 PM 9/28/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >>Later, our auction goes 1H-1S-1NT. I alert, of course, but this time my >>explanation is that we play weak NT and have not discussed this >>auction. The difference is that I know of some systems where this >>shows 15-17, others where it shows a minimum opener, and still others >>where it is wide-range. > >Odd: you have now alerted what can only be described as a non-agreement, >since you claim substantial ignorance about the meaning of partner's >sequence. This is supposed to be helpful to the opponents? Not odd, but rather entirely correct. You don't know what partner is likely to hold for his 1NT, and must guess (or hedge) -- and your opponents are in the same position. Your guess, however, will be based on the knowledge that you play weak NTs, which could easily affect your decision -- and theirs as well, so they are entitled to the same knowledge. 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 Sep 30 00:00:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 00:00:10 +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 XAA20221 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:59:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id JAA29470 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:59:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA03514 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:59:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909291359.JAA03514@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > That can't be right. MI is a mis-explanation of your agreements, not a > mis-description of partner's hand, and those agreements exist (or don't) > quite independently of the cards partner actually holds in this particular > case. I'm glad to see we agree on the principles. We must explain agreements: nothing more, nothing less. In the 1m-1M-1NT example I gave, the short explanation "15-17" is MI; no doubt about it. But if partner actually holds 15-17, it won't have done any damage. If partner actually holds something else, there may well be an adjustment. Those who offer the short explanation take that risk, but it's a tiny, tiny one. (I'd almost go so far as to say "nonexistent.") Many would accept the risk in order to shorten the explanation, and I don't think they are doing anything terrible. > As to the question of the relative degree of "standardness" in the > treatments we are examining, ask yourself this. If you sat down with an > unfamiliar but competent partner and agreed to play support doubles, would > you assume that his 2H bid in the original auction indicated a hand of > fewer than 3 trumps, or would you be concerned that he might be in that > "other camp" of support doublers who don't play the convention this way? I would _expect_ him to be in the other camp. That is, I would expect him to show three card support probably 90% of the time he has it but to suppress it when there is some other outstanding feature of the hand (in particular good hearts for a 2H bid). This is, of course, just a question of bridge judgment. It has little to do with the legal position. Many people seem happy to describe the above agreement as "tends to deny," but I prefer something more explicit. The main point, though, is that it's wrong to claim you have _any_ agreement when you do not. In the support double example, saying "denies three card support" is MI, just as the "15-17" notrump explanation is. The only difference is that the risk of adjustment is much greater in the former case, at least in my judgment. If you think the risk is tiny, go ahead and say "denies three," but don't complain if you find out partner does hold three and you receive an adjusted score. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 01:13:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:13:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA20465 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:13:05 +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 11WLPa-000Acu-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:12:55 +0000 Message-ID: <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:16:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >SW>Suppose a new >SW>partner and I agree to play 1NT=12-14 without further discussion. The >SW>auction goes 1m-1M-1NT. Now I alert and confidently explain that this >SW>shows 15-17. > >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> And when partner shows up with a 13-count, are you guilty of MI? > >Yes, I would surely expect a MI ruling. But it _never_ happens. >Unlike the situation with support doubles, nobody plays any other >method here. (Well, nobody I've ever heard of, anyway.) So why not tell them that? Why do you need to misinform? The bidding goes 1C - 1H - 1NT and an opponent says in a French/English/Dutch accent "What is the 1NT rebid?" Now you can say [1] 15 - 17 [2] Everyone I know of plays 15 - 17 here but we have not actually discussed it and it has not come up in the three board we have played together. [2] is true: [1] is a presumption of an agreement you have not got. So why not say [2]? This will keep everyone happy when you discover that both your partner and opponents are visitors from Milton Keynes where everyone plays the 1NT rebid as 15-16, or Merseyside where 12-16 or 13-17 are common. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 30 01:13:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:13:19 +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 BAA20472 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:13:12 +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 11WLPa-0003Mv-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:12:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:10:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909281928.PAA02309@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909281928.PAA02309@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >All this seems completely obvious to me. Let me give another example >in case others are having a hard time understanding. Suppose a new >partner and I agree to play 1NT=12-14 without further discussion. The >auction goes 1m-1M-1NT. Now I alert and confidently explain that this >shows 15-17. Even though we have never discussed it, all systems I >know of have this agreement. This example shows one of the dangers of telling people you have an agreement when you don't. Around here a 1NT rebid is usually 12-16 or 13-17 even with a 12-14 1NT. Suppose your unknown partner was my wife, for example, who routinely plays 12-14 opening and 12-16 rebid? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 30 01:13:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:13:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA20452 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:12:55 +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 11WLPR-000Acv-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:12:46 +0000 Message-ID: <+4eLLVBM$h83Ewwh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:18:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990928224445.012c9cb8@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990928224445.012c9cb8@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >As to the question of the relative degree of "standardness" in the >treatments we are examining, ask yourself this. If you sat down with an >unfamiliar but competent partner and agreed to play support doubles, would >you assume that his 2H bid in the original auction indicated a hand of >fewer than 3 trumps, or would you be concerned that he might be in that >"other camp" of support doublers who don't play the convention this way? I would assume that three trumps was unlikely but possible, since that is the only way I have ever played 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 Thu Sep 30 01:13:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:13:10 +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 BAA20457 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:13:00 +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 11WLPR-000Acw-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:12:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:21:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 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 >>Laurence Kelso1 wrote: >> >>>If the 1NT is strong then I would probably rule under >>>25A. With a weak NT (which I guess this probably is) >>>then it is conceivable that he at least contemplated >>>passing, which makes the situation more interesting. >> >> Laurie: are you going to look at the player's hand? >> >It's quite funny - I didn't even notice a hand had been posted. Was it >interesting? Yes, it was: it only had three suits with no indication where the void was. I think the fact that only one poster has asked where the void was is an excellent sign that people are approaching this problem in the right way. > I ruled on the evidence alone. The ruling must be based >on the evidence of the players at the table, not on the evidence of the >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 Thu Sep 30 02:22:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 02:22:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA20769 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 02:22:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA21586 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:24:59 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990929112327.007ab4a0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:23:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: A defensive problem In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990929083629.0068d8ac@pop.cais.com> References: <003101bf09e5$bbf639a0$7e3efea9@hassanfa> <001201bf08fa$3efd5820$292f63c3@davidburn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:36 AM 9/29/99 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:14 PM 9/28/99 +0100, Damian wrote: > >>Question: do my logical alternatives include only those plays that I will >>find at the table, or do they also include lines that when shown >>subsequently to me, I concede might work better - i.e. I can see the logic >>behind them? > >It's a judgment call, and one that TDs and ACs have to make all the time. >It's easy to see the suggested play as the "only LA" when you have UI that >tells you that it's the right play. We must consider the fact that without >the UI you might have thought a bit longer and harder about what to play, >and found an LA that you didn't consider at the table (especially if it's a >clearly better play). Whether the alternative play is "within your reach" >-- i.e. something you might have thought of with a bit more thought -- is a >decision for the adjudicators. > > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com I think that Eric has it basically right, but I don't agree with the form of his statement. I would prefer it this way: your LA's include those plays that _your peers_ would find at the table. It is indeed a judgement call as to whether a line of play requires such complex reasoning to discover that your peers would not find it. In haste, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 03:42:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 03:42:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA21046 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 03:42:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [130.15.118.69] (U69.N118.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.69]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29005 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:42:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:42:12 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Two scoops of 25B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Playing in a tournament last weekend (Swiss teams), the following situation arose: RHO opened 2C (strong and artificial), LHO responded 2D (waiting), and RHO passed, then quickly said "Oh dear. I forgot what I bid." I summoned the director so he could explain her Law 25B options, and he correctly navigated the maze, the upshot of which was that RHO tried to change her call to 2N, I didn't condone the change, and she then replaced her call with 2N (22-23 balanced) under the usual ave- (-3 IMP) restriction. Now LHO, in confusion, passed with an A and a K! She didn't realize what she had done until too late, so the hand was played in 2N, and scored accordingly, but what should have happened if she too had immediately said something like "Oh dear, that's not what I want to do."? Should they then play 3N under a -6 IMP restriction? And what about at matchpoints? _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 533 - 6000 - 77878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 04:05:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA21145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 04:05:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA21140 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 04:04:57 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id LAA03934 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA9017; 29 Sep 99 11:00:31 -0700 Date: 29 Sep 99 10:57:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199909291100.AA9017@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The standard around Merseyside does seem to be different than in other parts of the world; this is one of the reasons that agreeing weak NTs is normally insufficient, unless you know that partner plays the same style as you. I assume that Merseyside players use Crowhurst; US players tend to use PLOB (or, now, two-way NMF (a really nice misnomer)). I have only played a 12-16 NT rebid once, and we certainly spent enough of our 5-minute "let's fill out a card real fast" time on this; the time spent on NT rebids if the agreement is "K/S-ish? OK" is nil. It is a natural consequence of the basic system (or the system base). I have *never* started a pick-up partnership with only the agreement "Let's play weak NT" and I imagine few have in reality. Usually there is some system name involved, so that the "inferences" actually are not so much inferences as implied agreements. If you try a 1NT rebid after agreeing "K/S-ish" on 12-14 in the 1m-1M-1NT auction, you have *misbid*, whether you have discussed the particular auction specifically, or let it fall under the rubric of "K/S-ish". I rather suspect that any weak NT/wide range NT rebid system would be discussed *at least a little*, just as US players that agree weak-twos with Ogust 2NT have to check the preferred weak/strong responses. -- Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 04:10:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA21171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 04:10:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (Salamix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA21166 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 04:10:18 +1000 (EST) From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by Salamix.UQSS.Uquebec.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28625 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:10:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA282668608; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:10:09 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA154488607; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:10:08 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:10:00 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: You place that card wrong partner 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 EAA21167 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, May a palyer (dummy or defender) tell his partner he placed a card wrong side on table (won or lost) ? I remember we discussed this topic last year and think we concluded nor dummy nor a defender is allowed to so help partner count won or lost tricks. I read Laws on dummy's rights (42-43) and arrangement of tricks (65-66) and still think it is not allowed, despite the fact that dummy "may try to prevent an irregularity by declarer" (Law 42B2). I supprisingly read this on page 98 of the last ACBL Bulletin. "It is ACBL policy that one may point out a trick incorrectly turned by partner only if one does so immediately, i.e. before any cards have been played to subsequent tricks." Please comment. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 04:41:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA21312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 04:41:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA21307 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 04:41:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07200 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:40:54 +0200 Received: from ip27.virnxr3.ras.tele.dk(195.215.245.27), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda07197; Wed Sep 29 20:40:44 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L63B Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:40:44 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3FnyN=A7UimqLye0aPFn22oe=HRj@bilbo.dit.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 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 EAA21308 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:04:24 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > I am pleased to see that my long-held dislike of L25B has been >displaced at last at number one. The wording from Malta was so strange >that I gave up trying to understand it, and presumed I knew what it >meant. However, reading it for the fifth time in the train on the way >to an L&EC meeting I suddenly realised what it meant - and now I hate >L63B [assuming we follow the Malta interpretation] more than L25B. I agree with David in most of his understanding of what the Malta interpretation says. I also find it terrible. Other interpretations of L63B would be less terrible, but not good. But L25B is still my number one: L63B (in any interpretation I've ever heard of) after all has the redeeming feature that it never damages a non-offender - it only issues arbitrary penalties to the offenders. >Please can we go back to a violation of L61B establishes the revoke? Yes, please. But not as in 1987: the revoke should be truly established, and not corrected. That provides a penalty consistent with the normal revoke penalty. It is meaningless to use the L64 penalty in connection with a corrected revoke. [large snip] > Now, consider a slight change in the above scenario. Before the last >three tricks, suppose declarer had made all ten tricks. What then? >Well, according to the Malta interpretation, the revoke is corrected so >declarer makes all thirteen, then the penalty is calculated and declarer >is given two more tricks, making fifteen. So the "correct" ruling is 7H >making with two overtricks. Malta actually said about this: "The number of tricks to be transferred is limited to tricks won on and after the revoke trick when the hand is played with the legal card substituted." So the number of tricks cannot exceed 13 according to Malta. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 06:39:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 06:39:24 +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 GAA21594 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 06:39:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA29405; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:38:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-178.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.178) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029387; Wed Sep 29 15:38:07 1999 Message-ID: <004a01bf0aba$dbbdb120$b284d9ce@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:40:22 -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 Yes, it is best to differentiate between implied and actual agreements. What would be wrong in my view, thoh\ugh, would be to say nothing since there had been no specific discussion. In areas where weak 2s are uncommonly seen by the class of opponent you are facing it does not seem very ethical to be silent when you and your partner may share a presumption that the bid is 15-17. The other pair may well expect 12-16, being in the States on holiday, or may think it is 13-15 as they have always played it since 1946 in the East Oshkosh Corn Husking, Quilting and Contract Bridge Society meeting hall. And it would be abominable, if asked by opponents, to reply literally but misleadingly "we have no agreement". When my wife was taking lessons some years ago in a misbegotten attempt to learn why I found the game so fascinating we played a few times. I always felt rather strange NOT alerting the sequence 1nt/2c as a drop dead bid in clubs. Our opponents would be astounded when I would pass it. They would then be nearly apoplexic when dummy would come down xx Jx xxx QTxxxx. But I had enquired of the director before the start of the game & been told not to alert this. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 11:13 AM Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? >Steve Willner wrote: >>SW>Suppose a new >>SW>partner and I agree to play 1NT=12-14 without further discussion. The >>SW>auction goes 1m-1M-1NT. Now I alert and confidently explain that this >>SW>shows 15-17. >> >>> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >>> And when partner shows up with a 13-count, are you guilty of MI? >> >>Yes, I would surely expect a MI ruling. But it _never_ happens. >>Unlike the situation with support doubles, nobody plays any other >>method here. (Well, nobody I've ever heard of, anyway.) > > So why not tell them that? Why do you need to misinform? The bidding >goes 1C - 1H - 1NT and an opponent says in a French/English/Dutch accent >"What is the 1NT rebid?" > > Now you can say >[1] 15 - 17 >[2] Everyone I know of plays 15 - 17 here but we have not actually >discussed it and it has not come up in the three board we have played >together. > > [2] is true: [1] is a presumption of an agreement you have not got. > > So why not say [2]? > > This will keep everyone happy when you discover that both your partner >and opponents are visitors from Milton Keynes where everyone plays the >1NT rebid as 15-16, or Merseyside where 12-16 or 13-17 are common. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 30 06:41:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 06:41:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from umc-mail01.missouri.edu (umc-mail01.missouri.edu [128.206.10.216]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA21609 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 06:41:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.148.239] (mu-148239.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.148.239]) by umc-mail01.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id TZSB4N21; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:41:37 -0500 X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:49:25 -0500 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: L63B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Where can I find the Malta interpretation? I seem to have missed it. Robert E. Harris (Still no cat, just 28 cans of cat food and 70 lbs of cat litter.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 07:37:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 06:55:23 +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 GAA21649 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 06:55:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21634; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:54:33 -0700 Message-Id: <199909292054.NAA21634@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:40:22 PDT." <004a01bf0aba$dbbdb120$b284d9ce@host> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:54:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior: > Yes, it is best to differentiate between implied and actual agreements. > What would be wrong in my view, thoh\ugh, would be to say nothing since > there had been no specific discussion. In areas where weak 2s are uncommonly > seen by the class of opponent you are facing it does not seem very ethical > to be silent when you and your partner may share a presumption that the bid > is 15-17. The other pair may well expect 12-16, being in the States on > holiday, or may think it is 13-15 as they have always played it since 1946 > in the East Oshkosh Corn Husking, Quilting and Contract Bridge Society > meeting hall. And it would be abominable, if asked by opponents, to reply > literally but misleadingly "we have no agreement". You're mistaken. As far as I know, the EOCHQCBS has been playing a forcing pass relay system since 1946. You must be confusing them with the Northeast Oshkosh Corn Husking, Quilting and Contract Bridge Society. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 07:49:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 07:49:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA21776 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 07:49:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07553 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:49:14 +0200 Received: from ip45.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.45), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda07551; Wed Sep 29 23:49:03 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L63B Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:49:03 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 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 HAA21777 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Since it seems that not everybody has the text of the Malta interpretation, here is a copy of the BLML message in which I found it. (Has it been sent officially to the NCBOs? I haven't heard of the DBF receiving it, but that may of course be the DBF's fault.) On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 16:18:52 +0200, Mark Newton wrote: > To Mike Swanson > > You say : " A defender Enquirer of partner when he fails to follow to Clubs, >thereby preventing the revoke but invoking Law 63B. The defender had >attempted to ruff (Spades are trumps), but now has to follow suit and does >not win the trick nor does he win a trick subsequently with any of his Clubs. >He does, however, win a trick subsequently with his trump and his side >does win several more tricks also subsequently. What is the ruling?" > > In the further text of your message you point to the inequity if the >offending side achieves a better score as a consequence of the illegal enquiry. > >Reply:- > >This law has lost some of its shape since it was amended in 1997. There >has been some confusion and it is important to read Law 63B with some care. > Today, Saturday, June 19,1999, in Malta, I have spent some time in conference >with Ton Kooijman on the subject and we have reached an agreement which he >has authorized me to publish as an interim ruling of the WBF Laws Committee. >(We are persuaded it is unlikely to be changed when the WBFLC next convenes >but it is open to the Committee to review the ruling at that time.) > >The ruling is that, whilst a legal card is to be substituted for the revoke card, in >applying the penalty from Law 64 the Director must disregard the substitution >of a legal card and consider the revoke trick with the revoke card established. >If that card wins the trick then Law 64A1 applies. If the Director is of the opinion >that a subsequent card would then win a trick for the offending side there is a >two trick penalty. But if the revoke card would not win the trick Law 64A2 >applies and in determining the penalty the Director is to form his opinion as to >whether the offending player would subsequently win a trick with a card that >could have been played legally to the revoke trick. The number of tricks to be >transferred is limited to tricks won on and after the revoke trick when the hand >is played with the legal card substituted. > >Grattan Endicott >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee, >19 June, 1999. > >[p.s. as an expression solely of personal opinion my view is that the 1987 law >was simpler, cleaner, and to be desired. I can't think why 'x' had to disturb it >and I would return to it.] From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 08:21:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:21:18 +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 IAA21846 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:21:11 +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 PAA23171; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:20:31 -0700 Message-Id: <199909292220.PAA23171@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L63B In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:40:44 PDT." <3FnyN=A7UimqLye0aPFn22oe=HRj@bilbo.dit.dk> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:20:32 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >Please can we go back to a violation of L61B establishes the revoke? > > Yes, please. But not as in 1987: the revoke should be truly > established, and not corrected. That provides a penalty > consistent with the normal revoke penalty. It is meaningless to > use the L64 penalty in connection with a corrected revoke. It seems the way things were in 1987 *are* the way you want them. Am I missing something? 63A. A revoke becomes established: . . . 4. Attention is Illegally Drawn when there has been a violation of law 61B. 63B. Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected (except as provided in Law 62D for a revoke on the twelfth trick), and the trick on which the revoke occurred stands as played. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 10:14:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:14:56 +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 KAA22107 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:14:49 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id sBAWa15800 (3875); Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:14:03 EDT Subject: Re: L63B To: HarrisR@missouri.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0.i for Windows 95 sub 69 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robert, << (Still no cat, just 28 cans of cat food and 70 lbs of cat litter.) >> According to some midaeval theories of spontaneous generation that should produce a cat pretty soon!! Karen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 10:33:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:33:23 +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 KAA22145 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:33:16 +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 11WU9j-0002EK-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 00:33:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:30:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L63B In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , "Robert E. Harris" writes >Where can I find the Malta interpretation? I seem to have missed it. >Robert E. Harris >(Still no cat, just 28 cans of cat food and 70 lbs of cat litter.) > > have you painted the cat basket pink or blue? 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 Sep 30 10:35:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:35:21 +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 KAA22164 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:35:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from pads01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.174] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11WUBZ-0000e0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:35:02 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 00:50:23 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0ad5$6535ce00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Don Kersey To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 7:00 PM Subject: Two scoops of 25B >Playing in a tournament last weekend (Swiss teams), the following situation >arose: > >RHO opened 2C (strong and artificial), LHO responded 2D (waiting), and RHO >passed, then quickly said "Oh dear. I forgot what I bid." I summoned the >director so he could explain her Law 25B options, and he correctly >navigated the maze, the upshot of which was that RHO tried to change her >call to 2N, I didn't condone the change, and she then replaced her call >with 2N (22-23 balanced) under the usual ave- (-3 IMP) restriction. > >Now LHO, in confusion, passed with an A and a K! She didn't realize what >she had done until too late, so the hand was played in 2N, and scored >accordingly, but what should have happened if she too had immediately said >something like "Oh dear, that's not what I want to do."? Should they then >play 3N under a -6 IMP restriction? And what about at matchpoints? I will resist the temptation to tell you what I think of L25.You must agree it has given us all a lot of fun.I think this is a prob that has not been considered previously. I am sure that LHO can change her call under L25B. This is entirely seperate. I think however that the "no score greater than A-" applies, but should not be doubled up. If it could the law would say that the partnership was being fined 10% of a top for the priviledge of changing a call. That is not what it says. If it were decided that the pair were to be playing for "no better than A- -" then the max poss score would be 30%.at MPs. I think the two changes should be considered seperately. The partnership cannot achieve greater than 40% at MPs. -3imps at imps. By the way twice -3 imps (rounded) is not -6imps is it? Anne >_________________________________________________________________________ > Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 533 - 6000 - 77878 > Kingston, Ontario, Canada >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 13:10:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:10:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22462 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:10:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegnt.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.253]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA25958 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990929174935.006a72a0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:49:35 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <199909291359.JAA03514@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:59 AM 9/29/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> That can't be right. MI is a mis-explanation of your agreements, not a >> mis-description of partner's hand, and those agreements exist (or don't) >> quite independently of the cards partner actually holds in this particular >> case. > >I'm glad to see we agree on the principles. We must explain agreements: >nothing more, nothing less. > >In the 1m-1M-1NT example I gave, the short explanation "15-17" is MI; >no doubt about it. So to be absolutely clear about it, playing weak nt with a new partner, it is an infraction for you to describe his 1nt rebid as "15-17". The infraction can only be remedied by providing the opponents with additional information (not required by the Laws), to the effect that partner only _probably_ holds 15-17, even though you are virtually certain that this is what he actually does hold. Do you see why this seems upside-down to me? >But if partner actually holds 15-17, it won't have >done any damage. If partner actually holds something else, there may >well be an adjustment. Those who offer the short explanation take that >risk, but it's a tiny, tiny one. (I'd almost go so far as to say >"nonexistent.") Many would accept the risk in order to shorten the >explanation, and I don't think they are doing anything terrible. So it's prudent to hedge, even though you're virtually certain that partner actually holds the 15-17 you expect. David seems to think that this is illegal, or certainly unethical, when you are in fact confident about the nature of your agreement. It is a sure bet that it will never get you in trouble, but whether it affords the degree of protection you are looking for, as a matter of law rather than its practical effect, is debatable, IMO. That is, if I am convinced by the other evidence that you have substantially misdescribed your agreement, then the hedge won't impress me in making a ruling. The Laws require you to accurately describe your agreement, and extraneous explanatory information, however well-intentioned, cuts no ice with me. While we're on the subject of hedges here, and because I'm a weak no-trumper myself, what would you consider to be the most reliable protection from among the following: 1) "Tends to show 15-17." 2) "We play weak no-trumps, so I would expect partner to have 15-17 for his bid." 3) "Probably 15-17, although partner is free to use his judgement in these cases." As a director, would one of these more than the other two strike you as more convincing? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 13:45:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:45:37 +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 NAA22603 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:45:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:44:18 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:43:45 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Don Kersey writes: >Now LHO, in confusion, passed with an A and a K! She didn't realize what >she had done until too late, so the hand was played in 2N, and scored >accordingly, but what should have happened if she too had immediately said >something like "Oh dear, that's not what I want to do."? Should they then >play 3N under a -6 IMP restriction? And what about at matchpoints? The Law says the offending side can receive no score greater than average minus. It doesn't say they have to get a lower score. 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/AwUBN/Lcyr2UW3au93vOEQL9hQCg0HThGk0ywpzUc4eWkFKTNo1ZqVUAoIbM 363AOe9nsJdlO1Df4DsSApWz =qRI4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 17:40:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA23125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:40:23 +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 RAA23120 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:40:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.93] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Waow-0004CZ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:40:06 +0100 Message-ID: <001001bf0b16$fff203a0$5d5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:38:30 +0100 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: David Stevenson ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 29 September 1999 22:13 Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Someone said: > When my wife was taking lessons some years ago in a misbegotten attempt >to learn why I found the game so fascinating we played a few times. I always >felt rather strange NOT alerting the sequence 1nt/2c as a drop dead bid in >clubs. Our opponents would be astounded when I would pass it. They would >then be nearly apoplexic when dummy would come down xx Jx xxx QTxxxx. But I >had enquired of the director before the start of the game & been told not to >alert this. > +=+ No wonder she signed off in 2C if this is what you opened 1NT on. :-)) ~G~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 19:44:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 19:44:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (root@omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23341 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 19:44:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA19592 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 11:46:30 +0200 Message-ID: <37F330F6.36FBEEB@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 11:44:22 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski 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: Two scoops of 25B References: <01bf0ad5$6535ce00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > By the way twice -3 imps (rounded) is not -6imps is it? > Anne 2 x (-3) = -6 What is -3 rounded? Konrad Ciborowski From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 20:05:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:05:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23412 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:05:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-19-74.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.19.74]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA28186 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:05:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37F24A8E.2B72D934@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 19:21:18 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > So why not tell them that? Why do you need to misinform? The bidding > goes 1C - 1H - 1NT and an opponent says in a French/English/Dutch accent > "What is the 1NT rebid?" > > Now you can say > [1] 15 - 17 > [2] Everyone I know of plays 15 - 17 here but we have not actually > discussed it and it has not come up in the three board we have played > together. > > [2] is true: [1] is a presumption of an agreement you have not got. > > So why not say [2]? > > This will keep everyone happy when you discover that both your partner > and opponents are visitors from Milton Keynes where everyone plays the > 1NT rebid as 15-16, or Merseyside where 12-16 or 13-17 are common. > We've had this discussion before, haven't we, David ? Of course you need to inform the opponents of the correct range, and an answer "we have not discussed this" is not enough. Indeed, you need to paint the framework towards non-locals. But is there -from the point of view of the Law- really any difference between [1] and [2] ? I don't believe so. In both cases, you have told opponents that the meaning is 15-17. In both cases, your opponents will count on that. If your partner has 16, there is no problem. If your partner has 13, OTOH, there is a problem. In both cases, your partner has the same UI. In both cases, the opponents may have been damaged because they have counted on 15-17. In both cases, the TD will come. In both cases, you will tell the TD that you had no real agreement, but that you had assumed incorrectly that it was 15-17. In case [2] you will have some corroborating evidence that this is perhaps true, but do you really think that will help the TD decide? Far more important will now be what your partner can tell the TD. So, whyever should one tell more than [1]. I know your one-liner answer : because it is true. But so is [1], you should assume. Embellishments in general do not help opponents, nor do they protect from UI or MI rulings. Leave them out ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 20:23:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:23:00 +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 UAA23432 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:22:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 06:21:48 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990929174935.006a72a0@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199909291359.JAA03514@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 06:18:24 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael S. Dennis writes: >While we're on the subject of hedges here, and because I'm a weak >no-trumper myself, what would you consider to be the most reliable >protection from among the following: Are we now at such a sorry state in bridge that we must think about, and talk about, ways to cover our asses to avoid adverse rulings at the table? If so, it seems to me bridge is in much sorrier shape than I'd thought. Maybe I should switch to backgammon. Or solitaire. 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/AwUBN/M58r2UW3au93vOEQJlvACeL1cyDIrZyXc/CyM/LqX0MxixJ+cAoLU5 7BmKFCq/G5+eYlAE9LAG7bRl =YNN8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 20:41:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:41:43 +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 UAA23482 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:41:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11WdeH-000O0P-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:41:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 03:55:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: >Hi all, > >May a palyer (dummy or defender) tell his partner he placed >a card wrong side on table (won or lost) ? > >I remember we discussed this topic last year and think we >concluded nor dummy nor a defender is allowed to so help >partner count won or lost tricks. I read Laws on dummy's >rights (42-43) and arrangement of tricks (65-66) and still >think it is not allowed, despite the fact that dummy "may try >to prevent an irregularity by declarer" (Law 42B2). > >I supprisingly read this on page 98 of the last ACBL Bulletin. > >"It is ACBL policy that one may point out a trick incorrectly >turned by partner only if one does so immediately, i.e. >before any cards have been played to subsequent tricks." > >Please comment. In my opinion the ACBL have misread the Law. You may warn declarer against an infraction, thus you may attempt to stop declarer putting a card wrong until he has done so, effectively until he has let go of the card, but not thereafter. Still, it does not seem a particularly heinous regulation by the ACBL, and I think it is not unreasonable to turn a blind eye to this regulation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Sep 30 20:41:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:41:42 +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 UAA23481 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:41:30 +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 11WdeG-000O0Q-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:41:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 04:00:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L63B References: <3FnyN=A7UimqLye0aPFn22oe=HRj@bilbo.dit.dk> In-Reply-To: <3FnyN=A7UimqLye0aPFn22oe=HRj@bilbo.dit.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:04:24 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > >> I am pleased to see that my long-held dislike of L25B has been >>displaced at last at number one. The wording from Malta was so strange >>that I gave up trying to understand it, and presumed I knew what it >>meant. However, reading it for the fifth time in the train on the way >>to an L&EC meeting I suddenly realised what it meant - and now I hate >>L63B [assuming we follow the Malta interpretation] more than L25B. > >I agree with David in most of his understanding of what the Malta >interpretation says. I also find it terrible. Other >interpretations of L63B would be less terrible, but not good. > >But L25B is still my number one: L63B (in any interpretation I've >ever heard of) after all has the redeeming feature that it never >damages a non-offender - it only issues arbitrary penalties to >the offenders. > >>Please can we go back to a violation of L61B establishes the revoke? > >Yes, please. But not as in 1987: the revoke should be truly >established, and not corrected. That provides a penalty >consistent with the normal revoke penalty. It is meaningless to >use the L64 penalty in connection with a corrected revoke. > > [large snip] > >> Now, consider a slight change in the above scenario. Before the last >>three tricks, suppose declarer had made all ten tricks. What then? >>Well, according to the Malta interpretation, the revoke is corrected so >>declarer makes all thirteen, then the penalty is calculated and declarer >>is given two more tricks, making fifteen. So the "correct" ruling is 7H >>making with two overtricks. > >Malta actually said about this: > >"The number of tricks to be transferred is limited to tricks won >on and after the revoke trick when the hand is played with the >legal card substituted." > >So the number of tricks cannot exceed 13 according to Malta. In which case the Malta interpretation is definitely against the written Law. Either they accept that "as though it has been established" means dealing with the cards as played but assuming establishment, which is what I always assumed before Malta, and is a perfectly reasonable reading of the Law, ... Or they accept that "as though it has been established" means dealing with the cards the way they would have been played assuming establishment, which is what I assume was meant by Malta, and is a perfectly reasonable reading of the Law, probably more likely, .... But they cannot assume some of each, which is a totally unreasonable reading of the Law!!!!! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 21:30:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:30:37 +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 VAA23631 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:30:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc0s05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.193] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11WePa-0000Y7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:30:11 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:35:20 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0b37$e0239b80$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: Konrad Ciborowski To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B > >> By the way twice -3 imps (rounded) is not -6imps is it? >> Anne > > 2 x (-3) = -6 > > What is -3 rounded? Why do we give -3imps. It is only ever 10% of a top at MPs when the board is played 16 times. At MP pairs we should assign a 10% of a top penalty, which may or may not be 3imps. If we are able to score in units of 0.1imp then when a board is played 13 times, 10% of a top is 2.4 and if we cannot cope with fractions it may or may not be rounded to up to 3 or down to 2, dependant on the SO regulation. If it were rounded to 3, I would expect that 2 such assignments should add up to 4.8, and this should be 5 not 6! Similarly at teams of 4, where the scoring unit is 1 Imp, the adjustment is the square root of 4 x the number of times the board is played. This is about 2.8 something so twice this would be 5.7ish so 6 is not unreasonable. However many such applications would not necessarily result in the penalty being -3 x N = -3N. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 30 22:15:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:15:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23770 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:14:53 +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 IAA25551 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:15:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990930081719.006fe31c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:17:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:42 PM 9/29/99 -0400, Don wrote: >Playing in a tournament last weekend (Swiss teams), the following situation >arose: > >RHO opened 2C (strong and artificial), LHO responded 2D (waiting), and RHO >passed, then quickly said "Oh dear. I forgot what I bid." I summoned the >director so he could explain her Law 25B options, and he correctly >navigated the maze, the upshot of which was that RHO tried to change her >call to 2N, I didn't condone the change, and she then replaced her call >with 2N (22-23 balanced) under the usual ave- (-3 IMP) restriction. > >Now LHO, in confusion, passed with an A and a K! She didn't realize what >she had done until too late, so the hand was played in 2N, and scored >accordingly, but what should have happened if she too had immediately said >something like "Oh dear, that's not what I want to do."? Should they then >play 3N under a -6 IMP restriction? And what about at matchpoints? At matchpoints I wouldn't be able to resist ruling that after the 2NT correction under L25B, they would be playing for a maximum score of 40%, so they would be permitted a second L25B correction, but would then be playing for a maximum score of 40% of the matchpoints available after the first correction, or 16%. 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 Sep 30 22:40:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:40:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23838 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:40:25 +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 IAA27406 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990930084250.0070828c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:42:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990929174935.006a72a0@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199909291359.JAA03514@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:49 PM 9/29/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >While we're on the subject of hedges here, and because I'm a weak >no-trumper myself, what would you consider to be the most reliable >protection from among the following: > >1) "Tends to show 15-17." >2) "We play weak no-trumps, so I would expect partner to have 15-17 for his >bid." >3) "Probably 15-17, although partner is free to use his judgement in these >cases." > >As a director, would one of these more than the other two strike you as >more convincing? Not (1), which is virtually meaningless. I'd have a hard time believing that your partnership discussion really was "let's play a 1NT rebid as tending to show 15-17" with no further clarification. I could be convinced by either (2) or (3), but they are quite different. (2) says that your discussion was "let's play weak NTs", with no discussion of 1NT rebids, but your knowledge of your overall approach (or your partner's usual style, or whatever) leads you to expect 15-17. (3) says that your discussion was "let's play a 1NT rebid showing 15-17, but let's allow deviations whenever it feels appropriate to do so" (probably an alertable agreement in the ACBL, BTW, if not an illegal one). The correct hedge is the one that tells the truth. Your job would be to convince me that your hedge and your agreement actually matched. 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 Sep 30 23:04:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:04:46 +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 XAA23946 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:04:38 +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 JAA29657 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 09:05:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 09:07:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <37F24A8E.2B72D934@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:21 PM 9/29/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >We've had this discussion before, haven't we, David ? > >Of course you need to inform the opponents of the correct >range, and an answer "we have not discussed this" is not >enough. Indeed, you need to paint the framework towards >non-locals. > >But is there -from the point of view of the Law- really any >difference between [1] and [2] ? > >I don't believe so. > >In both cases, you have told opponents that the meaning is >15-17. >In both cases, your opponents will count on that. >If your partner has 16, there is no problem. >If your partner has 13, OTOH, there is a problem. >In both cases, your partner has the same UI. >In both cases, the opponents may have been damaged because >they have counted on 15-17. >In both cases, the TD will come. >In both cases, you will tell the TD that you had no real >agreement, but that you had assumed incorrectly that it was >15-17. >In case [2] you will have some corroborating evidence that >this is perhaps true, but do you really think that will help >the TD decide? >Far more important will now be what your partner can tell >the TD. > >So, whyever should one tell more than [1]. > >I know your one-liner answer : because it is true. Herman sure got that one right! >But so is [1], you should assume. But assuming that something is true doesn't make it so. You're describing your agreements. Aren't the opponents entitled to be told whether your presumption of truth is based on an actual agreement or an assumption? >Embellishments in general do not help opponents, nor do they >protect from UI or MI rulings. That may be, but when obligated to tell my opponents what my partner's bid means, I will tell them what my agreements are. If I don't have an explicit agreement about the actual bid, I will tell them about my agreements about other bids that I will use to make my determination as to what partner's bid probably means -- we may both be unsure of the actual meaning, but they are entitled to base their guesses on the same special knowledge that I have available. And if I believe that the latter gives me a particularly strong inference (such as my inference from our agreement to play 12-14 1NT openings that we also play 15-17 1NT rebids after 1C/1D openings), I will disclose that as well. But I will be careful to distinguish what I assume from indirect evidence (however strong I believe my presumption to be) from what I know from explicit discussion. >Leave them out ! I would prefer not to have the burden of having to decide which parts of the truth will be helpful to my opponents and which not. I'd rather take on the challenge of describing what I know (or, carefully distinguishing, what I think I know) as accurately as possible, and let them decide what's helpful. 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