From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 00:37:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:44:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23873 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:44:29 +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 IAA27757 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:45:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990930084657.006910a0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:46:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:43 PM 9/29/99 -0400, Ed wrote: >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. Perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that the law really says or intends that after the first L25B correction any additional L25B corrections are free. My reading of TFLB is that the point simply isn't covered. Another arrow in the quiver of those who want to shoot down L25B altogether. 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 Oct 1 01:55:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:55:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA24459 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:54:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from p76s12a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.172.119] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11WiXT-00000K-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 16:54:35 +0100 Message-ID: <006f01bf0b5c$03ac8d40$e38d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 16:31:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 30 September 1999 11:00 Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B > What is -3 rounded? > +=+ -8 perhaps? :-) +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 02:01:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA24001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:21:18 +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 XAA23996 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:21:10 +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 IAA20232 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:23:18 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990930082145.007a9890@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:21:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling 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 De Wael wrote: >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. Not necessarily. Suppose I am playing against David and his new partner and I hold a hand that makes it unlikely but just barely possible that David's partner holds as much as 15-17 points. (Or there may have been subsequent bidding that suggests this.) If I am told that his rebid shows 15-17, I may bid assuming this unlikely distribution exists. If I am given the hedged explanation, I may figure it out, and be able to prevent damage to my side. [Of course, if I am a BL I may not want to avoid damage to my side, but fortunately I'm not.] Or, again, perhaps opponents know my new partner's bidding habits better than mine, and will guess that he doesn't have 15-17 if I admit we have to specific agreement. >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? Why wouldn't it make a difference? I agree that it is not conclusive by itself, but I fail to see why it would be irrelevant. >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. Perhaps only philosophers care about the difference between something one knows to be true and something one thinks is very likely to be true. I, however, am a philosopher, and so I prefer the certain truth over the uncertain one. >Embellishments in general do not help opponents, nor do they >protect from UI or MI rulings. They do not generally hurt opponents, either, and they do not generally adversely affect UI or MI rulings. >Leave them out ! Put them in! :) >-- >Herman DE WAEL Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 03:05:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 03:05:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24846 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 03:05:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-72.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.72]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA01059 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 19:05:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37F3702A.7CD21F22@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 16:14:02 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm surprised to see that someone else has taken David's defense at hand, when Eric Landau wrote: > > At 07:21 PM 9/29/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >We've had this discussion before, haven't we, David ? > > > > > >I know your one-liner answer : because it is true. > > Herman sure got that one right! > I knew it ! > >But so is [1], you should assume. > > But assuming that something is true doesn't make it so. You're describing > your agreements. Yes, but you can never be sure of your agreements (sometimes you are 99.9999% certain, but even then you have been proven wrong). So you are always describing your assumptions. > Aren't the opponents entitled to be told whether your > presumption of truth is based on an actual agreement or an assumption? > I don't know why they should be _entitled_ to this. They are entitled to know your agreement. Not whether or not you know your system. That much should be clear. We have often seen rulings where the argument is "if you had been told that it was ..., wouldn't you have done exactly the same ?" and answers to that one "not if I had known that he had gotten it wrong"; to which we reply "ah, but you are not entitled to know that your opponents have had a misunderstanding !". Let's settle that one once and for all : your opponents are not _entitled_ to know that you are uncertain of what you are saying. You can be ruled against if what you say turns out to be untrue, but you will not be ruled against simply because you have failed to add that you are uncertain. > >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. > OK, but we are discussing two separate things here : uncertainty and implicit agreements. I've already dealt with the uncertainty angle. If you have a set of explicit agreements, and you deduce from this that a certain call has a certain implicitely agreed meaning, then you are obliged to tell this to the opponents. That much we agree upon, and so from the point of informing the opponents there is no difference between an implicit and an explicit agreement. Since you are obliged to tell the opponents the agreement, I find no added obligation to complement this by saying that it is only an implicit, not an explicit agreement. This holds both for a certain player and an uncertain one. > >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. > You can tell them all you want. You can tell them you are bidding a small slam on three or on four aces, if you feel like it. But I'm saying that you are not obliged to tell them more than they are entitled to know. And they are not entitled to know that you are uncertain whether or not you are on the same wavelength as partner. So you don't _have_ to tell them! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 03:59:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 03:59:24 +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 DAA24972 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 03:59:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-183.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.183]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA08517 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 19:59:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37F39B34.10AE9B72@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 19:17:40 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.6.32.19990930082145.007a9890@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > > > >In both cases, you have told opponents that the meaning is > >15-17. > >In both cases, your opponents will count on that. > > Not necessarily. Suppose I am playing against David and his new > partner and I hold a hand that makes it unlikely but just barely possible > that David's partner holds as much as 15-17 points. (Or there may have been > subsequent bidding that suggests this.) If I am told that his rebid shows > 15-17, I may bid assuming this unlikely distribution exists. If I am given > the hedged explanation, I may figure it out, and be able to prevent damage > to my side. OK, turn it around. You assume it is not 15, you play that way, it turns out there are 16 after all, and you call the director "he showed some doubt". "But he told the real hand didn't he ?". So where's your damage ? Playing an opponent for something he may have just because the partner is not certain of the explanation that he gives seems a very strange tactic to me. [Of course, if I am a BL I may not want to avoid damage to my > side, > but fortunately I'm not.] What so wrong with this ? You ask for information, and they tell you. You follow the information, and it turns out to be incorrect. You are damaged and the TD will rule in your favour. So what ? > Or, again, perhaps opponents know my new partner's > bidding habits better than mine, and will guess that he doesn't have 15-17 if > I admit we have to specific agreement. > That's another problem altogether. I find the explanation "you know my partner better than I do" a completely allowable statement. But now we are in "no agreement" territory, and that was not what I was talking of. I was speaking of "uncertain about our agreements", something totally different. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 03:59:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 03:59:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24973 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 03:59:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-183.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.183]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA08522 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 19:59:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37F39C2D.83987337@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 19:21:49 +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: L25B - needed ? References: <3.0.1.32.19990930084657.006910a0@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: (in another thread) > > Perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that the law really says or > intends that after the first L25B correction any additional L25B > corrections are free. My reading of TFLB is that the point simply isn't > covered. > > Another arrow in the quiver of those who want to shoot down L25B altogether. > I agree that L25B is still not well worded, and it must be fine-tuned, but shot down? I don't believe so. This happened to me last week : A player takes out a pass card, holds it somewhere in mid-air, puts it back and takes out the cards for 2He and places them in front of him. I am called, I rule that the Pass was made, and now we have a change of call. OK, those of you that want to shoot down L25B, what now ? FWIW, I ruled L25B, they played 4He for a 75% hand and this was the first time Brigitte had to deal with a L25B case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 07:36:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:36:57 +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 HAA25975 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:36:49 +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 17:35:40 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <37F24A8E.2B72D934@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:29:21 -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 Herman De Wael writes: >In both cases, your partner has the same UI. This is where I have a big problem with this whole thread. What UI? Whatever the partnership agreement is, surely partner is allowed to know it. Seems to me it's only UI if partner has _forgotten_ the agreement (hard to do if you don't have one) and the explanation has reminded him. Assuming, of course, that the explanation correctly describes the partnership agreement. And "most everybody plays it as 15-17" is general bridge knowledge, ain't it? (I know it, and I don't play those ranges, so they don't apply to my system.) 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/PX5r2UW3au93vOEQJJ2ACgpYNE63LIedwJSW8RhnsPBMx8BJYAoLHD 38lqYPu8azbFQLrLe4yJDLMB =cFSl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 07:43:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:43:38 +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 HAA25999 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:43:27 +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 RAA06287 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:43:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA05731 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:43:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:43:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199909302143.RAA05731@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > 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, You could rationalize the regulation by saying that players are obliged to have their cards arranged properly when they lead or play to the next trick. Up until then, they are deemed to be still arranging, even if no longer touching the card. As David says, if this were the ACBL's worst idea, no one (well, the "bridge version" of no one) would complain. In fact, the ACBL's regulation seems easier to follow than the strict interpretation. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 07:47:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:47:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA26034 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:46:58 +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 17:45:46 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990930081719.006fe31c@pop.cais.com> References: Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:43:43 -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 Eric Landau writes: >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%. Cute, but I don't buy it. The Law says they shall be awarded at most average minus. Here "average minus" refers to 40% of the theoretical top score on the board. The first time Law 25B is invoked, the most they can get is average minus. The second time it's invoked the most they can get is average minus. Oh, I suppose you could argue that "at most" gives the TD leeway to award a lesser score, but I've always read it to mean that if they get less than average minus through actual play, they get the actual result. If I'm wrong, please point me to the appropriate law or laws or appeals committee ruling. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN/PaQr2UW3au93vOEQKqoACgo+2S5eVqoHG7itGNgKYJGcwPJGkAnRwC J5jja/glTlClkDz2FrFVXrXP =Xx5x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 08:37:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:56:47 +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 HAA26075 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:56:39 +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; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:49:33 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990930084657.006910a0@pop.cais.com> References: Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:46:45 -0400 To: Eric Landau , 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 >Perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that the law really says or >intends that after the first L25B correction any additional L25B >corrections are free. My reading of TFLB is that the point simply isn't >covered. > >Another arrow in the quiver of those who want to shoot down L25B altogether. As someone else said, it may be an arrow pointing out that L25B should be clarified. I don't think it should be shot down. As to "free", well, is our purpose to punish players, or to ensure, as best we can, that equity is maintained? 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/Pcjb2UW3au93vOEQJOEQCg8s3oE3o5Il1sD2LaC8cqF/5tcIkAnRVm jlUi0Q6FEUKBaPxl+nwg81Ux =Xwvo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 08:39:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA26159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:39:06 +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 IAA26154 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:38:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-0-13.access.net.il [213.8.0.13] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02630 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 00:37:38 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37F3E67A.6553EE4@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 00:38:50 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B References: <006f01bf0b5c$03ac8d40$e38d93c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think that from one moment up - when what's going on at a bridge table is not bridge - the director should work by Law 99 and use his judgment organ........ No Book of Laws - from Hammurappi to Galactic Hirotantum - can cover multi-issued situations ......... Dany P.S. Dear Grattan , is the WBFLC ready to discuss the adition of my laws 0 & 99 ??? Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ================================ > "Butts on seats is a crude measure of enjoyment." > - radio comment, 28 Sep 99 (about a stage show). > wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww > > -----Original Message----- > From: Konrad Ciborowski > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 30 September 1999 11:00 > Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B > > > What is -3 rounded? > > > +=+ -8 perhaps? :-) +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 08:44:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA26181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:44:15 +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 IAA26176 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:44:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11015 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 00:43:56 +0200 Received: from ip153.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.153), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda11013; Fri Oct 1 00:43:47 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L63B Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 00:43:47 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <3FnyN=A7UimqLye0aPFn22oe=HRj@bilbo.dit.dk> <199909292220.PAA23171@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199909292220.PAA23171@mailhub.irvine.com> 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 IAA26177 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:20:32 PDT, Adam Beneschan wrote: >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? No, you're absolutely right. The best explanation I can offer for my stupid words above is that I must have been looking in a 1997 book in the belief that it was a 1987 book! Thanks for the correction. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 08:53:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA26213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:53:24 +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 IAA26208 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:53:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15349; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 15:52:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199909302252.PAA15349@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:46:45 PDT." Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 15:52:38 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > As someone else said, it may be an arrow pointing out that L25B should be > clarified. I don't think it should be shot down. As to "free", well, is our > purpose to punish players, or to ensure, as best we can, that equity is > maintained? Just what the heck is "equity", anyway? To me, it seems perfectly equitable that if someone makes a ridiculous call, for whatever reason, they're stuck with it no matter how bad the result. Actually, trying to soften the consequences of their inattention seems to make things inequitable, because I don't have any legal redress for all the dumb mistakes I make, such as when I lose count of trumps and an opponent ruffs in and beats a cold contract and I get a bottom. *My* stupidities result in bottoms, and someone else's stupidities don't, because they have a Law that lets them have a do-over---what's equitable about that? Should I push for a Law that says that if an opponent ruffs in when I thought I had drawn all the trumps, I get to back up the play to the point where I quit drawing trumps, and play it over again for a 40% score? Would that make the game more equitable? Rant rant rant rant rant grumble grumble grumble grumble grumble grumble grumble. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 10:44:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:44:10 +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 KAA26484 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:44:00 +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 11WqNe-000JSZ-0A; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 00:16:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:15:48 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B References: <199909302252.PAA15349@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199909302252.PAA15349@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199909302252.PAA15349@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Rant rant rant rant rant grumble grumble grumble grumble grumble >grumble grumble. > > -- Adam > Adam we love you -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 11:48:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:48:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26710 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:48:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Wro5-000PlK-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:48:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 14:21:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: List of important beings MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk List of important beings Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Adam Beneschan Mango MIA David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Pur Byantara Begung Mary Buckland Neko, Four foot two Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Ely, Nico Mary Crenshaw Dickens Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow, Tipsy Wally Farley Andrew, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Marv French Mozart Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushsh Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod Rah-Rey, Leo Irv Kostal Albert, Cleo, Sabrina, Bill RB Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat, Casey RB Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Norman Scorbie Starsky, Hutch Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen Rose Grant Sterling Big Mac David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Ritske, Beer, Miepje plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, and MIA is a cat missing in action. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/rbridge.htm Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Pictures on Catpage at ( | | ) =( + )= http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/cat_menu.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 11:48:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:48:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26711 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:48:38 +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 11Wro5-0000UX-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:48:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 11:56:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909291359.JAA03514@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990929174935.006a72a0@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990929174935.006a72a0@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 09:59 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. These things are a matter of degree, of course, and it depends in a way of what virtually certain means. But I dislike your assertion that it is not required by the Laws: the Laws require you to tell opponents the nature of your agreements. What we have been telling you is what *is* required by the Laws. >Do you see why this seems upside-down to me? No. >>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. I object strongly to people misquoting me by making things up I never said. Of course I have suggested that it may be illegal to tell lies about the nature of your agreement, but I have never suggested it is unethical. > 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. This is one of the saddest comments ever made on BLML. Are you merely looking for protection? Most of us are trying to play the game as fairly and legally as possible because that is the way one plays games. I do not give a tinker's curse about being ruled against occasionally and I am not interested in protection: I am interested in being fair. When I tell the opponents something I am trying to be fair to them not to "protect" myself. > 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. This is the bit that we cannot understand: you are requiring people to mis-describe their agreements, and saying that if they do not mis- describe them then you will rule as though they have mis-described them. >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: Protection. I don't know. Does it matter? >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." Since they mean different things, the most reliable protection [if such a thing is desirable] is the one that describes their agreement accurately. >As a director, would one of these more than the other two strike you as >more convincing? No. As a Director I would ask further questions. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 1 11:52:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:52:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26740 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:52:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei5j.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.179]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA13266 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990930205852.012b3f18@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:58:52 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990930084250.0070828c@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990929174935.006a72a0@pop.mindspring.com> <199909291359.JAA03514@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:42 AM 9/30/99 -0400, Eric wrote: >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). Hold on! My favorite partner and I play weak no-trumps. Holding Ax,QTx,K9x,KQTxx, I will feel free to exercise my judgement and treat this as a 15-count, planning to open 1C and rebid in no-trump. Moreover, I would expect my partner to do the same. And you think this is illegal? > 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. Sorry, one of these hedges may be more effective than the others, as you suggest, but there is no "correct" hedge from a legal standpoint. The Laws require only that I describe our agreements, completely and accurately. It does not require me to describe non-agreements as agreements. It does not require me to describe what I have agreed to play with other partners, or what I think other partnerships have agreed to. In no way does it require me to characterize the experience level of my partnership, or a number of other extraneous elements which have been suggested as appropriate qualifying comments by you, Steve, David and others. Some of those extraneous elements may be useful to the opponents in gauging what is happening, it is true, and I have no doubt whatsoever that as offered up by any of you, they represent an honest effort to meet the broader principles of full disclosure and active ethics, neither of which is a concept embraced within the text of the Laws. Very, well, hedge away! But as a legal matter, these well-intentioned comments have no significance. If you correctly describe your agreement, then you are clear of a charge of MI. If not, then as a legal matter, you have committed MI, regardless of how careful you may have been in trying to "hedge your bets." There remains the important and non-trivial question of determining, in the two problems which have arisen, what the "agreements" actually are. In particular, when we only have inferences from explicitly agreed-upon methods, do these constitute an agreement (which must then be explained as such) or not? My own view is that when these inferences are based on treatments which would be considered "standard", at least for the class of player and jurisdiction, then they are agreements which should be explained as such, and that such explanations should not be considered MI when they correctly reflect that "standard" treatment. If a player alerts and/or explains such an inference when his own view of "standard" is incorrect (and out of synch with his partner's treatment) then he is guilty of MI. But if we conclude that such inferences are not, in general, agreements, then it seems to me wrong to alert them and/or to characterize them, directly or otherwise, as such. >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? > You're question is rhetorical in tone, but I will answer it anyway. The answer is "No." The opponents are _entitled_ to be told your agreements, period. Anything else you offer is a gift. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 11:52:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:52:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26741 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:52:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei5j.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.179]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA13462 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:52:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990930211017.012b6e54@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:10:17 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990929174935.006a72a0@pop.mindspring.com> <199909291359.JAA03514@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:18 AM 9/30/99 -0400, Ed wrote: >-----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 > My apologies, Ed. Sometimes my tongue gets lodged just a bit too firmly in my cheek. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 17:25:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA27371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:25:48 +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 RAA27366 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:25:40 +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 HAA19528 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:24:58 GMT Message-ID: <37F461CD.36F9CBC0@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 09:25:01 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <37F3702A.7CD21F22@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 : > > Yes, but you can never be sure of your agreements (sometimes > you are 99.9999% certain, but even then you have been proven > wrong). So you are always describing your assumptions. > > > Aren't the opponents entitled to be told whether your > > presumption of truth is based on an actual agreement or an assumption? > > > > I don't know why they should be _entitled_ to this. > They are entitled to know your agreement. Not whether or > not you know your system. > That much should be clear. > > We have often seen rulings where the argument is "if you had > been told that it was ..., wouldn't you have done exactly > the same ?" and answers to that one "not if I had known that > he had gotten it wrong"; to which we reply "ah, but you are > not entitled to know that your opponents have had a > misunderstanding !". > > Let's settle that one once and for all : your opponents are > not _entitled_ to know that you are uncertain of what you > are saying. You can be ruled against if what you say turns > out to be untrue, but you will not be ruled against simply > because you have failed to add that you are uncertain. > L75C: "... through partnership agreement or partnership experience". I think uncertainty comes with partnership experience and should be disclosed. If you know partner forgot this particular agreement last time you used it, opponents are entitled to this piece of information, as they are entitled to know if your partner psyched the same bid one month ago. Furthermore, i think all this is good for protection and good for fairness: what could be better? JP Rocafort > -- > 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 Fri Oct 1 20:42:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:42:02 +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 UAA27538 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:41:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from p3ds06a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.86.62] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11X08B-0000fr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:41:40 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L25B - needed ? Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:47:00 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0bfa$4a4db780$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: Thursday, September 30, 1999 10:39 PM Subject: L25B - needed ? >Eric Landau wrote: (in another thread) >> > >> Perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that the law really says or >> intends that after the first L25B correction any additional L25B >> corrections are free. My reading of TFLB is that the point simply isn't >> covered. >> >> Another arrow in the quiver of those who want to shoot down L25B altogether. >> > >I agree that L25B is still not well worded, and it must be >fine-tuned, but shot down? I don't believe so. > >This happened to me last week : > >A player takes out a pass card, holds it somewhere in >mid-air, puts it back and takes out the cards for 2He and >places them in front of him. > >I am called, I rule that the Pass was made, and now we have >a change of call. >OK, those of you that want to shoot down L25B, what now ? How about a major penalty call to be left face up on the table and played at the first legal opportunity:-))) > > >FWIW, I ruled L25B, they played 4He for a 75% hand and this >was the first time Brigitte had to deal with a L25B case. I'm sure you mean they played in 4He for a 40% hand while their opps got 25%. > > >-- Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 22:26:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 22:26:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27750 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 22:26:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-5.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.5]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15542 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:26:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37F4A737.918637C8@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:21:11 +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 Ed Reppert wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Herman De Wael writes: > > >In both cases, your partner has the same UI. > > This is where I have a big problem with this whole thread. What UI? > Whatever the partnership agreement is, surely partner is allowed to know > it. Seems to me it's only UI if partner has _forgotten_ the agreement (hard > to do if you don't have one) and the explanation has reminded him. > Assuming, of course, that the explanation correctly describes the > partnership agreement. And "most everybody plays it as 15-17" is general > bridge knowledge, ain't it? (I know it, and I don't play those ranges, so > they don't apply to my system.) > > Regards, > > Ed > exactly my point, Ed. If the explanation is correct, there is no UI (except perhaps that partner is in doubt - just one more reason not to say so) If the explanation is incorrect, there is UI, and just the same whether or not you have expressed doubt. So why express the doubt ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 23:01:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 23:01:55 +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 XAA27875 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 23:01:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11X2JV-000Ntl-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:01:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 05:06:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B References: <199909302252.PAA15349@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199909302252.PAA15349@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Just what the heck is "equity", anyway? To me, it seems perfectly >equitable that if someone makes a ridiculous call, for whatever >reason, they're stuck with it no matter how bad the result. Actually, >trying to soften the consequences of their inattention seems to make >things inequitable, because I don't have any legal redress for all the >dumb mistakes I make, such as when I lose count of trumps and an >opponent ruffs in and beats a cold contract and I get a bottom. *My* >stupidities result in bottoms, and someone else's stupidities don't, >because they have a Law that lets them have a do-over---what's >equitable about that? Should I push for a Law that says that if an >opponent ruffs in when I thought I had drawn all the trumps, I get to >back up the play to the point where I quit drawing trumps, and play it >over again for a 40% score? Would that make the game more equitable? >Rant rant rant rant rant grumble grumble grumble grumble grumble >grumble grumble. Or, to put in English, the Laws restore equity, except when they don'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 Oct 1 23:01:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 23:01:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27876 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 23:01:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11X2JV-000Ntk-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:01:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 05:03:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B References: <01bf0b37$e0239b80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf0b37$e0239b80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >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. You really must read TFLB, not assume logical inferences therefrom. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 1 23:02:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 23:02:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27893 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 23:02:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11X2Jq-000Nx7-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:01:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 05:04:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B References: <3.0.1.32.19990930081719.006fe31c@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Cute, but I don't buy it. The Law says they shall be awarded at most >average minus. Here "average minus" refers to 40% of the theoretical top >score on the board. The first time Law 25B is invoked, the most they can >get is average minus. The second time it's invoked the most they can get is >average minus. Oh, I suppose you could argue that "at most" gives the TD >leeway to award a lesser score, but I've always read it to mean that if >they get less than average minus through actual play, they get the actual >result. If I'm wrong, please point me to the appropriate law or laws or >appeals committee ruling. :-) C'mon, fellas, we really cannot argue with this! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 1 23:01:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 23:01:54 +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 XAA27874 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 23:01:43 +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 JAA04928 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 09:02:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 09:04:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <37F3702A.7CD21F22@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:14 PM 9/30/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >Yes, but you can never be sure of your agreements (sometimes >you are 99.9999% certain, but even then you have been proven >wrong). So you are always describing your assumptions. You can never be sure of your "metaphysical" agreements -- breakdowns in communications leading to misunderstandings are possible in any conversation -- but you can be sure of what was said in discussion between you and your partner. When your agreement is based on an actual discussion, your obligation is to disclose what was said in discussion to your opponents. When your agreement is inferred from something other than an explicit discussion, I will grant that it is possible that you may still be so sure of it that it makes no difference, but I don't believe that this is generally, or even often, the case. In most cases the difference in your level of certainty will be enough to affect your evaluation of the likelihood of your being correct, in which case your opponents are entitled to know that. The bottom line is that anything that affects your probabilistic interpretation (not just what you think partner's action means, but how likely it is that you're right) other than your "general knowledge and experience" should be disclosed. >> Aren't the opponents entitled to be told whether your >> presumption of truth is based on an actual agreement or an assumption? > >I don't know why they should be _entitled_ to this. >They are entitled to know your agreement. Not whether or >not you know your system. >That much should be clear. The issue has nothing to do with not knowing your system. We assume that you do "know your system". But part of what you know is that parts of your system are rigidly defined, while other parts are loose -- perhaps because you explicitly agreed to leave some parts loose, or perhaps because you didn't discuss them -- and your opponents are entitled to the same knowledge. >We have often seen rulings where the argument is "if you had >been told that it was ..., wouldn't you have done exactly >the same ?" and answers to that one "not if I had known that >he had gotten it wrong"; to which we reply "ah, but you are >not entitled to know that your opponents have had a >misunderstanding !". There is a critical difference between a misunderstanding, where you and your partner believe that a particular action means something, but not the same thing in both cases, and a lack of understanding, where you and your partner are aware that each may not think it means the same thing to the other. The latter will almost always affect your evaluation of the meaning of partner's action (while the former will not, by definition), which makes it subject to being disclosed. >Let's settle that one once and for all : your opponents are >not _entitled_ to know that you are uncertain of what you >are saying. You can be ruled against if what you say turns >out to be untrue, but you will not be ruled against simply >because you have failed to add that you are uncertain. My view is that if, in determining your actions, your uncertainty affects your decision-making process (even if it doesn't actually affect your choice of action), your opponents are entitled to have the same facts as input to their decision-making process. The extent to which this view affects the likelihood of your being ruled against in the event the opponents claim to have been misinformed really shouldn't matter. We use "bridge lawyer" as a derogatory term for those who are more concerned with being on the right side of a possible ruling than with doing the right 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 Sat Oct 2 00:43:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 23:56:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28041 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 23:56:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.44.243]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19991001135600.RTUK11091@default> for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:56:00 +0000 Message-ID: <006301bf0c14$86c37960$66284b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: References: <01bf0b37$e0239b80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:52:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Anne Jones wrote: > >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. Thank God I don't have to carry my logrithmic tables!!!! Anne, I know you must be kidding. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 2 00:54:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 00:54:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28185 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 00:54:38 +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 11X44o-000FtJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:54:27 +0000 Message-ID: <2VaZAkAYrM93EwrK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 15:53:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B References: <3.0.1.32.19990930081719.006fe31c@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Eric Landau writes: > >>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%. >Cute, but I don't buy it. The Law says they shall be awarded at most >average minus. Here "average minus" refers to 40% of the theoretical top >score on the board. The first time Law 25B is invoked, the most they can >get is average minus. The second time it's invoked the most they can get is >average minus. Oh, I suppose you could argue that "at most" gives the TD >leeway to award a lesser score, but I've always read it to mean that if >they get less than average minus through actual play, they get the actual >result. If I'm wrong, please point me to the appropriate law or laws or >appeals committee ruling. :-) Looking back, I see that I have been somewhat flippant in this matter, so perhaps I better clear up what I think. Ed's argument is completely correct. When a Law says that you are playing for a maximum of A- then it means you are playing for a maximum of A-. Does this mean a second helping of L25B is "for free"? I don't really see much point in that way of thinking, but if ever anyone gets this occurrence then I suppose that is one way of looking at it. So? We have enough problems with Laws in the real world without worrying about the esoteric - as far as changes are concerned. It is reasonable for this list to consider esoteric cases for interpretation cases, like the L62/63 argument, or this one. It is reasonable for this list to consider basic approaches for suggesting changes to the law-makers, like shoot L63B and 25B. But it is a waste of time to find a ruling which will happen on average once in the lifetime of all the readers of BLML put together and make suggestions for Law changes because of them. Now go out and bin all my other replies to 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 Sat Oct 2 01:08:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 01:08:08 +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 BAA28249 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 01:07:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA17392; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:06:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-55.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.55) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma017135; Fri Oct 1 10:05:31 1999 Message-ID: <002001bf0c1e$6f4e0700$3784d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:05:41 -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 > I object strongly to people misquoting me by making things up I never >said. Of course I have suggested that it may be illegal to tell lies >about the nature of your agreement, but I have never suggested it is >unethical. To quote you out of context:"> This is one of the saddest comments ever made on BLML. " Do you really mean that you have never suggested that telling lies is unethical? This does not seem to conform with anything I think I know of you. We are not talking about false cards, psychs or other deceptive bids or plays. We are talking about deliberate lying when a full and truthful answer is required by the laws of the game. I can only assume you were speaking tongue in cheek or that I am somehow misinterpreting you, as I have difficulty seeing how this could be anything but unethical. Please clarify what you mean...I don't want to go around misquoting you. -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 2 01:10:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 01:10:17 +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 BAA28269 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 01:10:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from p43s12a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.124.68] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11X34p-0001at-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:50:24 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:55:48 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0c14$aa622060$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 2:17 PM Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B >Anne Jones wrote: >>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. > > You really must read TFLB, not assume logical inferences therefrom. This is extracted from the WB 12.24 and was used as an illustration of "rounding". 3+3 does not always = 6. I prefer Grattan's illustration however :-) Does it conflict with the FLB? Anne ~~Y ddraig goch ddyru cychwyn.~~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 2 02:53:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 02:53:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA28802 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 02:53:09 +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 MAA01487 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:54:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991001125546.00700998@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 12:55:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L25B - needed ? In-Reply-To: <37F39C2D.83987337@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19990930084657.006910a0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:21 PM 9/30/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >I agree that L25B is still not well worded, and it must be >fine-tuned, but shot down? I don't believe so. > >This happened to me last week : > >A player takes out a pass card, holds it somewhere in >mid-air, puts it back and takes out the cards for 2He and >places them in front of him. > >I am called, I rule that the Pass was made, and now we have >a change of call. > >OK, those of you that want to shoot down L25B, what now ? Easy. You ruled that the pass was made, so the pass stands. The player's attempt to change his call is UI to his partner. What's the problem? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 2 02:58:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 02:58:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA28823 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 02:58:43 +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 MAA19598 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:00:50 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991001115917.007ab7b0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 11:59:17 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990930205852.012b3f18@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990930084250.0070828c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990929174935.006a72a0@pop.mindspring.com> <199909291359.JAA03514@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:58 PM 9/30/99 -0400, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 08:42 AM 9/30/99 -0400, Eric wrote: >>At 05:49 PM 9/29/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >> >> 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. > >Sorry, one of these hedges may be more effective than the others, as you >suggest, but there is no "correct" hedge from a legal standpoint. The Laws >require only that I describe our agreements, completely and accurately. It >does not require me to describe non-agreements as agreements. It does not >require me to describe what I have agreed to play with other partners, or >what I think other partnerships have agreed to. In no way does it require >me to characterize the experience level of my partnership, or a number of >other extraneous elements which have been suggested as appropriate >qualifying comments by you, Steve, David and others. I am happy to see that you agree that we must describe our agreements [and experience!] completely and accurately. It is the position of some of us that some of these 'extraneous elements' are necessary in order to accomplish this. I have a regular partner I have played with for several years. This partner also plays regularly in the afternoons [when I work] with another player. Some months ago, I partnered his other partner, and the opponents asked me what one of her bids meant. We had not discussed this particular auction or this particular call, but I knew what she played with my regular partner, and I assumed that's what she meant playing with me. What would you have me say in reply to their question: a) "We have no agreement". [Literally true.] b) "It means she has a very strong hand but hates no-trump." [What I assume the bid means.] c) "We have no explicit agreement, but I think she usually plays that bid as showing a very strong hand that isn't suited for no-trump." My position is that 'c' is the correct answer. I do not regard is as going 'beyond the call of legal duty'. >Some of those extraneous elements may be useful to the opponents in gauging >what is happening, it is true, and I have no doubt whatsoever that as >offered up by any of you, they represent an honest effort to meet the >broader principles of full disclosure and active ethics, neither of which >is a concept embraced within the text of the Laws. Very, well, hedge away! >But as a legal matter, these well-intentioned comments have no >significance. If you correctly describe your agreement, then you are clear >of a charge of MI. If not, then as a legal matter, you have committed MI, >regardless of how careful you may have been in trying to "hedge your bets." "You have committed MI" is ambiguous. If I give explanation 'c' above, and it so happens that she didn't have the hand described, I have not IMHO given any MI at all. A TD or AC might, I suppose, rule against me because given their perspective they couldn't know that I was being truthful, but I have not _misinformed_ my opponents about my agreements. I am neither ethically nor legally in the wrong, although I might be ruled against. >There remains the important and non-trivial question of determining, in the >two problems which have arisen, what the "agreements" actually are. In >particular, when we only have inferences from explicitly agreed-upon >methods, do these constitute an agreement (which must then be explained as >such) or not? My own view is that when these inferences are based on >treatments which would be considered "standard", at least for the class of >player and jurisdiction, then they are agreements which should be explained >as such, and that such explanations should not be considered MI when they >correctly reflect that "standard" treatment. If a player alerts and/or >explains such an inference when his own view of "standard" is incorrect >(and out of synch with his partner's treatment) then he is guilty of MI. Why? If I say [truthfully] "we have no agreement but I think that the standard meaning for that bid is 'x'", and in fact the standard is 'y' (or there is no real standard), by what definition of MI have I given MI? {Again, an outside agent may _rule_ MI, but in fact there was none.} >But if we conclude that such inferences are not, in general, agreements, >then it seems to me wrong to alert them and/or to characterize them, >directly or otherwise, as such. I certainly agree that we should not alert or characterize something that isn't an agreement as if it was one. That is precisely why I hedge. :) > (Was this really Herman?) >>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? >> > >You're question is rhetorical in tone, but I will answer it anyway. The >answer is "No." The opponents are _entitled_ to be told your agreements, >period. Anything else you offer is a gift. Then, legally, can I answer 'no agreement' when I in fact possess information not available to my opponents which allows me to understand the probable meaning of my partner's calls? >Mike Dennis Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 2 03:14:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 03:14:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA28862 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 03:14:30 +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 NAA03537 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:15:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991001131707.006fec0c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 13:17:07 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990930084657.006910a0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:46 PM 9/30/99 -0400, Ed wrote: >As someone else said, it may be an arrow pointing out that L25B should be >clarified. I don't think it should be shot down. As to "free", well, is our >purpose to punish players, or to ensure, as best we can, that equity is >maintained? FTR, by "shooting down" L25B we don't really mean getting rid of L25B entirely; we mean striking out "either (1) Let First Call Stand" (25B2(b)) and everything after "(see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side)". The problem with L25B2(b)(2) is that it serves neither punishment nor equity, because the situation it creates (in which the player can change his call if he is willing to play for a maximum score of A-) is not, in effect, an infraction, but rather an optional action that a player may choose to take for tactical or strategic reasons. Upon making any call, I may choose (if I'm fast enough) between letting it stand and playing for up to 100% or changing it and playing for up to 40%. If we imagine the complete decision tree for bidding a hand of bridge, what L25B2(b)(2) does is to add additional branches to the tree. Those who dislike the law do not think that those additional branches belong there. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 2 04:42:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA29211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 04:42:42 +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 EAA29206 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 04:42:32 +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 OAA12735 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:43:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991001144509.006a411c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:45:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990930205852.012b3f18@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990930084250.0070828c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990929174935.006a72a0@pop.mindspring.com> <199909291359.JAA03514@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:58 PM 9/30/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >At 08:42 AM 9/30/99 -0400, Eric wrote: > >>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). > >Hold on! My favorite partner and I play weak no-trumps. Holding >Ax,QTx,K9x,KQTxx, I will feel free to exercise my judgement and treat this >as a 15-count, planning to open 1C and rebid in no-trump. Moreover, I would >expect my partner to do the same. And you think this is illegal? Of course not. But what I think is legal and what the ACBL thinks is legal are very very different. I also think it is legal -- but the ACBL does not -- to open 1NT showing 10-12 HCP on Ax/10xx/9xx/KQ10xx, and can't imagine why anyone would want to stop me from doing so on my 9-worth-10.25-count any more than I can imagine why anyone would want to stop you from showing 15-17 on your 14-worth-15.25-count. But there's them there that do. I do believe that the ACBL's official policy is that you are free to deviate from your announced point range as a matter of judgment (unless, of course, you have the temerity to play 10-12 1NT openings), but may not have an agreement to that effect with your partner. So it's not illegal to open 1C and rebid 1NT on that hand unless your partner knows that you are likely to do so. It doesn't make any sense to me either. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 2 05:37:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 05:37:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA29347 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 05:37:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg0b.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.11]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA25088 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 15:37:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991001153454.012ace3c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 15:34:54 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991001115917.007ab7b0@eiu.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19990930205852.012b3f18@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990930084250.0070828c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990929174935.006a72a0@pop.mindspring.com> <199909291359.JAA03514@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:59 AM 10/1/99 -0500, Grant wrote: > I am happy to see that you agree that we must describe our agreements [and >experience!] completely and accurately. It is the position of some of >us that some of these 'extraneous elements' are necessary in order to >accomplish this. To be precise, I did not agree that we must describe our agreements "and our experience". In fact, we have no legal obligation to do the latter at all, except indirectly. Some of our agreements may derive implicitly from partnership experience (according to the Laws), and these agreements, rather than the experience from which they derive, must be shared. > I have a regular partner I have played with for several years. This >partner also plays regularly in the afternoons [when I work] with another >player. Some months ago, I partnered his other partner, and the opponents >asked me what one of her bids meant. We had not discussed this particular >auction or this particular call, but I knew what she played with my regular >partner, and I assumed that's what she meant playing with me. What would >you have me say in reply to their question: > a) "We have no agreement". [Literally true.] > b) "It means she has a very strong hand but hates no-trump." [What I >assume the bid means.] > c) "We have no explicit agreement, but I think she usually plays that bid >as showing a very strong hand that isn't suited for no-trump." > > My position is that 'c' is the correct answer. I do not regard is as going >'beyond the call of legal duty'. c) is indeed a perfectly reasonable answer. It is not, however, required by Law. If it is "literally true" that you have no agreement, then a) is a precise and correct fulfillment of your legal obligations. For those who believe in full disclosure and active ethics (and at least to some extent, count me in), then c) is the more appropriate answer. I have some question about whether it is "literally true" that you have no agreement, however. If before play started you agree to play the methods that you understand to be shared with your common partner, then you do have an implicit agreement, which should be shared, IMO. >>Some of those extraneous elements may be useful to the opponents in gauging >>what is happening, it is true, and I have no doubt whatsoever that as >>offered up by any of you, they represent an honest effort to meet the >>broader principles of full disclosure and active ethics, neither of which >>is a concept embraced within the text of the Laws. Very, well, hedge away! >>But as a legal matter, these well-intentioned comments have no >>significance. If you correctly describe your agreement, then you are clear >>of a charge of MI. If not, then as a legal matter, you have committed MI, >>regardless of how careful you may have been in trying to "hedge your bets." > > "You have committed MI" is ambiguous. If I give explanation 'c' above, >and it so happens that she didn't have the hand described, I have not IMHO >given any MI at all. A TD or AC might, I suppose, rule against me because >given their perspective they couldn't know that I was being truthful, but I >have not _misinformed_ my opponents about my agreements. I am neither >ethically nor legally in the wrong, although I might be ruled against. Well I think there are two reasonable ways of looking at this. On the one hand, your "explanation", we could argue, was technically non-responsive to the question of what your actual agreements were, and therefore you are innocent of MI, having provided no real information whatsoever. On the other hand, you have offerred this explanation in the specific context of trying to explain your agreements, and as such, lame and hedged though they may be, your comments could reasonably have been construed by your opponents as a description of your agreements, and an incorrect one at that. Again, the Laws require you to describe your agreements, not the meta- questions of what you think the agreements might be or why you think they might be that way or .... Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 2 07:05:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 07:05:41 +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 HAA29448 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 07:05:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from pe5s07a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.119.230] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11X9Gr-0001PJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 21:27:13 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 21:32:41 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0c4c$1c12b8a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 2:17 PM Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B >Anne Jones wrote: >>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. This is extracted from the WB 12.24 and was used as an illustration of "rounding". 3+3 does not always = 6. I prefer Grattan's illustration however :-) > You really must read TFLB, not assume logical inferences therefrom. > Does it conflict with the FLB? Anne ~~Y Ddraig Goch ddyru cychwyn.~~ > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 2 07:17:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 07:17:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29483 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 07:17:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11X8z4-000P77-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:08:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 21:01:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B References: <01bf0c14$aa622060$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf0c14$aa622060$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: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 2:17 PM >Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B > > >>Anne Jones wrote: >>>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. >> >> You really must read TFLB, not assume logical inferences therefrom. > >This is extracted from the WB 12.24 and was used as an illustration of >"rounding". 3+3 does not always = 6. >I prefer Grattan's illustration however :-) > >Does it conflict with the FLB? Sorry, the calculation does not conflict with TFLB, that is true. It is the use of the calculation in a L25B case that does, see my other post. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 2 07:23:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 07:23:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29504 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 07:23:37 +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 11X8z4-000LgV-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:08:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:59:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <002001bf0c1e$6f4e0700$3784d9ce@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <002001bf0c1e$6f4e0700$3784d9ce@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >From: David Stevenson >> I object strongly to people misquoting me by making things up I never >>said. Of course I have suggested that it may be illegal to tell lies >>about the nature of your agreement, but I have never suggested it is >>unethical. >To quote you out of context:"> This is one of the saddest comments ever >made on BLML. " > >Do you really mean that you have never suggested that telling lies is >unethical? This does not seem to conform with anything I think I know of >you. We are not talking about false cards, psychs or other deceptive bids or >plays. We are talking about deliberate lying when a full and truthful answer >is required by the laws of the game. I can only assume you were speaking >tongue in cheek or that I am somehow misinterpreting you, as I have >difficulty seeing how this could be anything but unethical. Please clarify >what you mean...I don't want to go around misquoting you. Well, you have now added the word deliberate. If you lie about your agreements there are a number of reasons for this, and without going further than this you cannot be sure that the reason is bad enough to make it unethical. Let me give you three examples. Herman De Wael, Mike Dennis and Marvin French are prepared to lie about their agreements. They do so because of their perceived ideas. Herman's arguments are that he lies in positions that he judges that the lie benefits the opponents. Mike's arguments are that to use "hedges" is illegal even when it correctly expresses your agreements. Marvin's arguments are that you only need to disclose "Special" agreements so he is prepared to lie over agreements that he does not see as "Special" in his own definition. Are these three unethical? No, not in my view. I believe them to be mistaken in their understanding of the Laws, and I believe they think they have a *right* to lie in these particular situations. I think it would be better if we convinced them otherwise, but I do not believe that they think they are doing anything wrong, so their actions are not unethical. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 2 08:22:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 08:22:31 +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 IAA29576 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 08:22:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03178; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 15:21:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199910012221.PAA03178@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:45:09 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19991001144509.006a411c@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 15:21:45 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > I do believe that the ACBL's official policy is that you are free to > deviate from your announced point range as a matter of judgment (unless, of > course, you have the temerity to play 10-12 1NT openings), but may not have > an agreement to that effect with your partner. So it's not illegal to open > 1C and rebid 1NT on that hand unless your partner knows that you are likely > to do so. > > It doesn't make any sense to me either. I haven't seen the official policy you're referring to; where would I find this policy statement? Anyway, this may relate to some of my recent tirades on r.g.b. To me, pairs who have an agreement that it's OK to deviate from an agreed-on point range as a matter of judgment are simply recognizing the fact that hand evaluation requires judgment, and cannot be done properly with simplistic formulae (like counting your points). If the ACBL really is trying to stamp out such agreements, or penalize those who have agreements like that, then this is very wrong. I believe that the right to use judgment, instead of relying on HCP or LTC or PDQ or whatever, in deciding what a hand is worth, is a fundamental right, to the point that if one SO (i.e. the ACBL) is trying to take away that right, it's worth putting something in the Laws to prohibit SO's from doing so. This is a fundamental part of the game, IMHO. On the other hand, your language used the phrase "*announced* point range", which brings up the question: What exactly is illegal, the agreement you describe, or the way you announce it? If you've agreed that 1C followed by 1NT shows 15-17 but that judgment-based deviations are allowed, it may be wrong to announce it as simply "15-17", depending on the SO's policies about the proper way to give information to the opponents. Personally, I think it should be OK just to say 15-17 (and give more precise details if asked); if you say "good 14 to 17", to me this misdescribes the agreement and implies that you bid this way on a lot more 14-counts than you actually do; and if you say something like "15-17 with deviations allowed", it kind of sounds like all the legal mumbo-jumbo you hear at the end of radio commercials that no one listens to but that they have to include anyway as a form of Anti-Lawyer Repellent. But anyway, if the ACBL's problem is not with the form of the agreement but rather with how such an agreement should be disclosed, that's an altogether different situation. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 2 10:54:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 10:54:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com [139.134.5.180]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA29819 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 10:54:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba007697 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 10:32:16 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-109-17.tmns.net.au ([139.134.109.17]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Aquatic-MailRouter V2.5 17/3170528); 02 Oct 1999 10:32:15 Message-ID: <009001bf0cfc$6abc9920$116d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Change of Call in Sydney Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 10:34:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_008D_01BF0CC1.A505B7A0" 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_008D_01BF0CC1.A505B7A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This hand occurred yesterday in a Sydney bridge congress: Nil vul. Dealer S. WEST EAST J A9 Q109 AKJ652 AK97543 Q10 A9 543 S W N E P 1D 3S 4H P 4NT P 5C P 7H 7S P/7NT =20 5C showed 0 or 3 keycards.=20 Diamonds break 2-2. =20 Bidding boxes have only recently been introduced in Sydney.=20 East, an experienced player but new to bidding boxes, removed the Pass = card which landed on his lap face down. Believing he had not called yet = because the call did not land on the table, he pulled out the 7NT card = and "called" 7NT by placing it on the table. In the last second or two = he had decided that 7NT was a better call than a Forcing Pass, and that = he could terminate the auction with 7NT without giving his partner = usable UI. The TD was never called to the table so no ruling was made. Could you please let me know which of the following are incorrect? 1. The TD should have been called and would have looked at Law 25.=20 2. Law 25B applies because the First Call (pass) was deliberate not = inadvertent. 3. Let's assume the TD was called and the Substitute Call (7NT) not = condoned by South. Then 7NT is cancelled (Law 25B2). 4. The first call (Pass) was legal so East has a choice (Law 25B2(b)). 5. East may either Pass in which case the final contract becomes 7S = undoubled down five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or East may bid 7NT and receive = 40% (Law 25B2(b)(2)). Peter Gill Sydney Australia. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_008D_01BF0CC1.A505B7A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This hand occurred yesterday in a Sydney bridge congress:
 
Nil vul. Dealer S.
WEST          =   =20 EAST
J          &nb= sp;          =20 A9
Q109          =      =20 AKJ652
AK97543         =20 Q10
A9          &n= bsp;       =20 543
 
S    =20 W      N      = E
P    =20 1D     3S    4H
P     = 4NT  =20 P      5C
P    =20 7H     7S    P/7NT
 
 
5C showed = 0 or=20 3 keycards.
Diamonds break=20 2-2.
 
Bidding boxes have only = recently been=20 introduced in Sydney.
East, an experienced = player but new to=20 bidding boxes, removed the Pass card which landed on his lap face down.=20 Believing he had not called yet because the call did not land on the = table, he=20 pulled out the 7NT card and "called" 7NT by placing it on the = table.=20 In the last second or two he had decided that 7NT was a better call than = a=20 Forcing Pass, and that he could terminate the auction with 7NT without = giving=20 his partner usable UI.   The TD was never called to the table = so no=20 ruling was made.
 
 
Could you please let me = know which of=20 the following are incorrect?
 
1. The TD should have been called and would have looked at Law 25. =
 
2. Law 25B applies because = the First=20 Call (pass) was deliberate not inadvertent.
 
3. Let's assume the TD was = called and=20 the Substitute Call (7NT) not condoned by South. Then 7NT is cancelled = (Law=20 25B2).
 
4. The first call (Pass) = was legal so=20 East has a choice (Law 25B2(b)).
 
5. East may either Pass in = which case=20 the final contract becomes 7S undoubled down five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or = East may=20 bid 7NT and receive 40% (Law 25B2(b)(2)).
 
Peter Gill
Sydney=20 Australia.    
------=_NextPart_000_008D_01BF0CC1.A505B7A0-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 2 11:03:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:03:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29838 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:03:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei10.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.32]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA21763 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 21:03:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991001205946.012bc064@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 20:59:46 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: References: <002001bf0c1e$6f4e0700$3784d9ce@oemcomputer> <002001bf0c1e$6f4e0700$3784d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:59 PM 10/1/99 +0100, David wrote: > Let me give you three examples. Herman De Wael, Mike Dennis and >Marvin French are prepared to lie about their agreements. They do so >because of their perceived ideas. Herman's arguments are that he lies >in positions that he judges that the lie benefits the opponents. Mike's >arguments are that to use "hedges" is illegal even when it correctly >expresses your agreements. Marvin's arguments are that you only need to >disclose "Special" agreements so he is prepared to lie over agreements >that he does not see as "Special" in his own definition. Well, as long as we're being extra careful about accurately attributing positions or ideas to other folks... I am not in any case prepared to "lie", deliberately or otherwise, about my agreements with my partner. I may have a different understanding than you do about the meaning of the word "agreements". I do believe that hedging your explanations with vague qualifications such as "tends to" is a practice which is employed at least as often as a protection from MI charges when partner errs or forgets as it is an accurate and useful description of a genuine agreement. I believe that unless the "tends to" can be further qualified with the types of circumstances under which partner is expected to bid differently than described, it is especially likely to represent one of these ethically questionable uses. I further believe that in any case the unqualified "tends to" usage is, in most cases, unnecessary, since it should be understood as a matter of general bridge knowledge that players have a right to deviate from prior agreements when their bridge judgement dictates that such a course is appropriate, and that the right to deviate in this way is presumed in most good partnerships. Although I think the "tends to" hedge is, in many instances, of borderline ethical character, I don't think that it is technically illegal in any event, and have not stated anything to that effect. I hope that I have also made clear that the types of "hedges" suggested by Eric, Steve, and Grant are far from illegal or unethical. In fact, they represent an honest attempt to fully inform the opponents. IMO, these explanations exceed the requirements of the Laws, which after all require you to inform the opponents only about your agreements. Despite the confident tone of my rhetoric, I am still uncertain about the answer to what seems to me to be the central question in this thread: are implicit agreements, derived from "standard" inferences about explicitly agreed methods, actually agreements or not? If they are, then it seems to me that a player who correctly explains these standard inferences is not guilty of MI, even when it turns out that his partner is from Mars (or Merseyside, whatever), where they don't play it that way. If they are not agreements, then he shouldn't be explaining them as such, unless he either fancies himself to be a bridge teacher or is suffering from hyperactive ethics. I'm hesitant to speak for Marvin, but I doubt that your characterization of his behavior as "lying" will strike a responsive chord, despite the care with which you have done so. And I'm _really_ reluctant to speak for Herman ;). Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 2 17:51:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 17:51:57 +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 RAA00569 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 17:51:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn37p28.ozemail.com.au [210.84.8.220]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA05268 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 17:51:46 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991002180501.007d6340@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 18:05:01 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney In-Reply-To: <009001bf0cfc$6abc9920$116d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:34 AM 2/10/99 -0700, you wrote: snip hand etc. > Could you please let me know which of the following are incorrect? >1. The TD should have been called and would have looked at Law 25. Yes >2.Law 25B applies because the First Call (pass) was deliberate not >inadvertent. Yes > 3. Let's assume the TD was called and the Substitute Call >(7NT) not condoned by South. Then 7NT is cancelled (Law 25B2). Yes > 4. The first call (Pass) was legal so East has a choice (Law 25B2(b)). Yes >5. East may either Pass in which case the final contract becomes 7S undoubled down >five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or East may bid 7NT and receive 40% (Law >25B2(b)(2)) East may elect to pass, in which case partner has another bid, somewhat restricted owing to the UI. 7NT would not be a permitted logical alternative, but there would be no LA to double. Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 2 23:38:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 23:38:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe15.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.119]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA01035 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 23:38:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 83842 invoked by uid 65534); 2 Oct 1999 13:38:07 -0000 Message-ID: <19991002133807.83841.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.112.19] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.1.32.19990930081719.006fe31c@pop.cais.com> <2VaZAkAYrM93EwrK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 08:37:34 -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: Friday, October 01, 1999 9:53 AM Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B > Ed Reppert wrote: > >Eric Landau writes: > > But it is a waste of time to find a ruling which will happen on > average once in the lifetime of all the readers of BLML put together and > make suggestions for Law changes because of them. Hardly, changing a call more than once by the same side has happened at least 6 times at my table. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > > Now go out and bin all my other replies to 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 Sun Oct 3 04:54:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 04:54:16 +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 EAA01892 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 04:54:05 +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 OAA16067 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 14:53:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 14:53:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199910021853.OAA29331@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199910012221.PAA03178@mailhub.irvine.com> (message from Adam Beneschan on Fri, 01 Oct 1999 15:21:45 PDT) Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes: > Personally, I think it should be OK just to say 15-17 (and give more > precise details if asked); if you say "good 14 to 17", to me this > misdescribes the agreement and implies that you bid this way on a lot > more 14-counts than you actually do. This is a situation in which the theoretically incorrect explanation is much less likely to be misleading. When I play 21-22 2NT openings, that's what I put on my card. It means that when I open 2NT, I want partner to expect me to have 21-22 points; I open 20-counts only with all four aces. Many players play 20+ to 22, and open half of all 20-counts; defenders who count points should be aware of that. This should be implicit in any understanding of agreements; you may make any deviation from your agreement, as long as you want partner to believe you are following the agreement. Many players who play five-card majors will open an AKJT suit, treating it as five. RKC players usually explain the 5S response as "two key cards, with the queen of trump", even though they may bid it with extra length and no queen. -- 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 Oct 3 05:30:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 05:30:45 +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 FAA01974 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 05:30:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-7-89.access.net.il [213.8.7.89] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA25057; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 21:29:06 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37F65D51.187B200B@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 21:30:25 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Gill CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney References: <009001bf0cfc$6abc9920$116d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As you told us , it was clear-cut that the pass was deliberate....... We can't use L25A , even if would like to be indulgent with the very recent use of bidding boxes. if i'd be summoned as a TD....I'd tell him the alternatives : either bid 7NT and play for at most 40% or pass and your partner is forbidden to use this UI. His partner is allowed to call either Dbl or 7NT ; check his hand when the board is over . My opinion - for bridge judgment - is that 7 NT is a normal bid , because 7H already described H fit and a long Diam suit , when all key cards , including Q heart ,are there ; the Q Diam is the final "certificate" . I don't mind if the AC will change my decision , but my opinion about their bridge judgment will be very (better not to write it) Dany > Peter Gill wrote: > > This hand occurred yesterday in a Sydney bridge congress: >   > Nil vul. Dealer S. > WEST             EAST > J                      A9 > Q109                AKJ652 > AK97543          Q10 > A9                   543 >   > S     W      N      E > P     1D     3S    4H > P     4NT   P      5C > P     7H     7S    P/7NT >   >   > 5C showed 0 or 3 keycards. > Diamonds break 2-2. >   > Bidding boxes have only recently been introduced in Sydney. > East, an experienced player but new to bidding boxes, removed the Pass > card which landed on his lap face down. Believing he had not called > yet because the call did not land on the table, he pulled out the 7NT > card and "called" 7NT by placing it on the table. In the last second > or two he had decided that 7NT was a better call than a Forcing Pass, > and that he could terminate the auction with 7NT without giving his > partner usable UI.   The TD was never called to the table so no ruling > was made. >   >   > Could you please let me know which of the following are incorrect? >   > 1. The TD should have been called and would have looked at Law 25. >   > 2. Law 25B applies because the First Call (pass) was deliberate not > inadvertent. >   > 3. Let's assume the TD was called and the Substitute Call (7NT) not > condoned by South. Then 7NT is cancelled (Law 25B2). >   > 4. The first call (Pass) was legal so East has a choice (Law 25B2(b)). >   > 5. East may either Pass in which case the final contract becomes 7S > undoubled down five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or East may bid 7NT and receive > 40% (Law 25B2(b)(2)). >   > Peter Gill > Sydney Australia.     From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 3 09:23:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 09:23:12 +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 JAA02306 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 09:23:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11XYUQ-000KXr-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 23:22:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 00:22:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney In-Reply-To: <009001bf0cfc$6abc9920$116d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <009001bf0cfc$6abc9920$116d868b@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes >This hand occurred yesterday in a Sydney bridge congress: > >Nil vul. Dealer S. >WEST EAST >J A9 >Q109 AKJ652 >AK97543 Q10 >A9 543 > >S W N E >P 1D 3S 4H >P 4NT P 5C >P 7H 7S P/7NT > > >5C showed 0 or 3 keycards. >Diamonds break 2-2. > >Bidding boxes have only recently been introduced in Sydney. >East, an experienced player but new to bidding boxes, removed the Pass card >which landed on his lap face down. Believing he had not called yet because the >call did not land on the table, he pulled out the 7NT card and "called" 7NT by >placing it on the table. In the last second or two he had decided that 7NT was >a >better call than a Forcing Pass, and that he could terminate the auction with >7NT without giving his partner usable UI. The TD was never called to the >table >so no ruling was made. > > >Could you please let me know which of the following are incorrect? > >1. The TD should have been called and would have looked at Law 25. >2. Law 25B applies because the First Call (pass) was deliberate not >inadvertent. > >3. Let's assume the TD was called and the Substitute Call (7NT) not condoned by >South. Then 7NT is cancelled (Law 25B2). Incomplete, but correct as far as it goes > >4. The first call (Pass) was legal so East has a choice (Law 25B2(b)). > >5. East may either Pass in which case the final contract becomes 7S undoubled >down five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or East may bid 7NT and receive 40% (Law >25B2(b)(2)). After a pass UI applies. It'll go P x P 7N then > Otherwise none chs john >Peter Gill >Sydney Australia. -- 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 Oct 3 19:24:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 19:24:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02953 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 19:23:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-178.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.178]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA11883 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:23:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37F719D8.BE1DDEE5@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 10:54:48 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <3.0.1.32.19990930084250.0070828c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990929174935.006a72a0@pop.mindspring.com> <199909291359.JAA03514@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991001115917.007ab7b0@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > I have a regular partner I have played with for several years. This > partner also plays regularly in the afternoons [when I work] with another > player. Some months ago, I partnered his other partner, and the opponents > asked me what one of her bids meant. We had not discussed this particular > auction or this particular call, but I knew what she played with my regular > partner, and I assumed that's what she meant playing with me. What would > you have me say in reply to their question: > a) "We have no agreement". [Literally true.] > b) "It means she has a very strong hand but hates no-trump." [What I > assume the bid means.] > c) "We have no explicit agreement, but I think she usually plays that bid > as showing a very strong hand that isn't suited for no-trump." > > My position is that 'c' is the correct answer. I do not regard is as going > 'beyond the call of legal duty'. > My position is that a) is absolutely too little, since you do know something, and you assume your partner is trying to convey something. (in fact, you do not have "no agreement"). My position is further that, towards your opponents, b) and c) are absolutely equal. Also towards the TD, when it turns out you were wrong, b) and c) are absolutely equal. I do regard c) as going "beyond the call of legal duty". You may of course do so, but I don't believe opponents are entitled to share your doubts. It helps them only in doubling your contract, and you are not obliged to help them in this manner. > > "You have committed MI" is ambiguous. If I give explanation 'c' above, > and it so happens that she didn't have the hand described, I have not IMHO > given any MI at all. A TD or AC might, I suppose, rule against me because > given their perspective they couldn't know that I was being truthful, but I > have not _misinformed_ my opponents about my agreements. I am neither > ethically nor legally in the wrong, although I might be ruled against. > Well, this is all a question of degree, no doubt. I tend to rule that a partnership who have not agreed on something, and then bid something which the partner misunderstands, is always guilty of MI when partner (truthfull) tells what he thinks. The fact that one partner thinks the "system" is one thing, even when not explicitely agreed upon, makes me conclude that there is such a thing as a system. You sit down. You open 1NT. Both of you play in a club where everyone plays this as 15-17. Do you really accept "no agreement" to be a correct explanation ? > > Why? If I say [truthfully] "we have no agreement but I think that the > standard meaning for that bid is 'x'", and in fact the standard is 'y' (or > there is no real standard), by what definition of MI have I given MI? > {Again, an outside agent may _rule_ MI, but in fact there was none.} > If it quacks like a duck ... > > > > (Was this really Herman?) > No, it wasn't, > >>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? > >> > > > >You're question is rhetorical in tone, but I will answer it anyway. The > >answer is "No." The opponents are _entitled_ to be told your agreements, > >period. Anything else you offer is a gift. > That one is my argument, but not my words. > Then, legally, can I answer 'no agreement' when I in fact possess > information not available to my opponents which allows me to understand the > probable meaning of my partner's calls? > No, certainly not. But you are not obliged to add that you are guessing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 3 19:24:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 19:24:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02955 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 19:24:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-178.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.178]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA11888 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:23:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37F71B9D.5B2951E5@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 11:02:21 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <002001bf0c1e$6f4e0700$3784d9ce@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Well, you have now added the word deliberate. > > If you lie about your agreements there are a number of reasons for > this, and without going further than this you cannot be sure that the > reason is bad enough to make it unethical. > > Let me give you three examples. Herman De Wael, Mike Dennis and > Marvin French are prepared to lie about their agreements. They do so > because of their perceived ideas. Herman's arguments are that he lies > in positions that he judges that the lie benefits the opponents. Mike's > arguments are that to use "hedges" is illegal even when it correctly > expresses your agreements. Marvin's arguments are that you only need to > disclose "Special" agreements so he is prepared to lie over agreements > that he does not see as "Special" in his own definition. > > Are these three unethical? No, not in my view. I believe them to be > mistaken in their understanding of the Laws, and I believe they think > they have a *right* to lie in these particular situations. I think it > would be better if we convinced them otherwise, but I do not believe > that they think they are doing anything wrong, so their actions are not > unethical. > As Mike said in his reply, I'm also reluctant to speak for others. However David, lying is a very ugly word. You should not complain that people are not happy when you accuse them of lying. If you then present a strange argument why you think lying is not unethical, you should certainly not complain that people have missed your point in the first place. I am happy to note, however, that you do not regard the De Wael school as unethical, merely misguided. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 3 19:24:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 19:24:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02952 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 19:23:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-178.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.178]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA11870 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:23:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37F4E40B.2C7284A0@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 18:40:43 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 04:14 PM 9/30/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >Yes, but you can never be sure of your agreements (sometimes > >you are 99.9999% certain, but even then you have been proven > >wrong). So you are always describing your assumptions. > > You can never be sure of your "metaphysical" agreements -- breakdowns in > communications leading to misunderstandings are possible in any > conversation -- but you can be sure of what was said in discussion between > you and your partner. When your agreement is based on an actual > discussion, your obligation is to disclose what was said in discussion to > your opponents. > Indeed. > When your agreement is inferred from something other than an explicit > discussion, I will grant that it is possible that you may still be so sure > of it that it makes no difference, but I don't believe that this is > generally, or even often, the case. In most cases the difference in your > level of certainty will be enough to affect your evaluation of the > likelihood of your being correct, in which case your opponents are entitled > to know that. > You say they are entitled. Where in the Laws does it say so ? > The bottom line is that anything that affects your probabilistic > interpretation (not just what you think partner's action means, but how > likely it is that you're right) other than your "general knowledge and > experience" should be disclosed. > Where in the Laws does it say so ? > >> Aren't the opponents entitled to be told whether your > >> presumption of truth is based on an actual agreement or an assumption? > > > >I don't know why they should be _entitled_ to this. > >They are entitled to know your agreement. Not whether or > >not you know your system. > >That much should be clear. > > The issue has nothing to do with not knowing your system. We assume that > you do "know your system". But part of what you know is that parts of your > system are rigidly defined, while other parts are loose -- perhaps because > you explicitly agreed to leave some parts loose, or perhaps because you > didn't discuss them -- and your opponents are entitled to the same knowledge. > Not at all the same thing. "We have not discussed this" is a valid answer. "I'm not certain, but I think it means ..." is something totally different. I'm talking about the latter. If you're talking about the former, we're talking side-by-side. > >We have often seen rulings where the argument is "if you had > >been told that it was ..., wouldn't you have done exactly > >the same ?" and answers to that one "not if I had known that > >he had gotten it wrong"; to which we reply "ah, but you are > >not entitled to know that your opponents have had a > >misunderstanding !". > > There is a critical difference between a misunderstanding, where you and > your partner believe that a particular action means something, but not the > same thing in both cases, and a lack of understanding, where you and your > partner are aware that each may not think it means the same thing to the > other. The latter will almost always affect your evaluation of the meaning > of partner's action (while the former will not, by definition), which makes > it subject to being disclosed. > Agreed that there is a difference, but I was merely making an analogy. Where in the Laws does it say that you are bound to tell the opponents that you are not certain of what you are telling them ? > >Let's settle that one once and for all : your opponents are > >not _entitled_ to know that you are uncertain of what you > >are saying. You can be ruled against if what you say turns > >out to be untrue, but you will not be ruled against simply > >because you have failed to add that you are uncertain. > > My view is that if, in determining your actions, your uncertainty affects > your decision-making process (even if it doesn't actually affect your > choice of action), your opponents are entitled to have the same facts as > input to their decision-making process. > Where in the Laws does it say that they are entitled to that ? If you tell them you are uncertain, then that is AI to them, and they may use it to double your bad contract. But where does it state that you must disclose this bit of information that they would indeed like to know. > The extent to which this view affects the likelihood of your being ruled > against in the event the opponents claim to have been misinformed really > shouldn't matter. We use "bridge lawyer" as a derogatory term for those > who are more concerned with being on the right side of a possible ruling > than with doing the right thing. > Indeed we do. We could also use BL for someone who tells us that we should tell more than we are obliged to. Let's give the following scenario. A player tells his opponents that some bid means something. It turns out he is wrong. Your ruling is that his partner has not used the UI, and that the opponents are not damaged by the MI. Now the player admits that he was not really certain at the time, and that he chose to tell the opponents, in a certain manner of speech, the option he really was counting on (erroneously as it turned out). he did not want to show to opponents his doubt. Now the opponent tells you "if he had told me that at the time, I would have doubled". Your ruling ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 3 20:54:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 20:54:20 +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 UAA03088 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 20:54:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-5-164.access.net.il [213.8.5.164] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13660; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 12:52:22 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37F735B4.F4283793@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 12:53:40 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At an expert table , or even higher (as YC.....??!!) the auction will be as you wrote it here bellow . I believe that it will be still a protest of "double shot" against the doubler , but as I evaluate ...no serious AC will change the 7NT. Dany John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article <009001bf0cfc$6abc9920$116d868b@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter > Gill writes > >This hand occurred yesterday in a Sydney bridge congress: > > > >Nil vul. Dealer S. > >WEST EAST > >J A9 > >Q109 AKJ652 > >AK97543 Q10 > >A9 543 > > > >S W N E > >P 1D 3S 4H > >P 4NT P 5C > >P 7H 7S P/7NT > > > > > >5C showed 0 or 3 keycards. > >Diamonds break 2-2. > > > >Bidding boxes have only recently been introduced in Sydney. > >East, an experienced player but new to bidding boxes, removed the Pass card > >which landed on his lap face down. Believing he had not called yet because the > >call did not land on the table, he pulled out the 7NT card and "called" 7NT by > >placing it on the table. In the last second or two he had decided that 7NT was > >a > >better call than a Forcing Pass, and that he could terminate the auction with > >7NT without giving his partner usable UI. The TD was never called to the > >table > >so no ruling was made. > > > > > >Could you please let me know which of the following are incorrect? > > > >1. The TD should have been called and would have looked at Law 25. > > >2. Law 25B applies because the First Call (pass) was deliberate not > >inadvertent. > > > >3. Let's assume the TD was called and the Substitute Call (7NT) not condoned by > >South. Then 7NT is cancelled (Law 25B2). > > Incomplete, but correct as far as it goes > > > >4. The first call (Pass) was legal so East has a choice (Law 25B2(b)). > > > >5. East may either Pass in which case the final contract becomes 7S undoubled > >down five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or East may bid 7NT and receive 40% (Law > >25B2(b)(2)). > After a pass UI applies. It'll go P x P 7N then > > > Otherwise none > > chs john > > >Peter Gill > >Sydney Australia. > > -- > 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 Oct 4 01:47:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 01:47:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail15.svr.pol.co.uk (mail15.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03529 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 01:47:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem4294967217.firearms.dialup.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.207] helo=biggy) by mail15.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Xnr7-0000sx-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 16:47:21 +0100 Message-Id: <4.1.19991003164809.00a4c3a0@pop.swinternet.net> X-Sender: brighton-bridge.swinternet.co.uk@pop.swinternet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 16:53:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Dave Armstrong Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Okay, so enough is enough. I lurked for four weeks and now I can't keep it shut any longer. 1. My cats name is Cookie, short for Cooking Fat, an RSPCA saviour. 2. It seems to me that while I agree with David that it seems harmless to allow dummy, or indeed, a defender to say that that a trick is the wrong way around, it possibly is not so. Imagine declarer in 4 Spades with an Ace on table. wins a trick and puts it the wrong way. He now thinks he has 8 tricks and not nine. He tanks. Dummy says "the last one is wrong"!. It cannot be right, but as I read it okay as far as the ACBL is concerned!!!! Thoughts please. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 4 02:30:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 02:30:46 +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 CAA03763 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 02:30:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-026.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.218]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA64905 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 17:29:55 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <00c801bf0dbe$7f6f2140$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 17:43:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 5. East may either Pass in which case the final contract becomes 7S undoubled down five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or East may bid 7NT and receive 40% (Law 25B2(b)(2)). Peter Gill Sydney Australia. This looks correct to me! But other posters don't think so. West must Pass if East Passes. What are we missing? Regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 4 05:32:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 05:32:21 +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 FAA04068 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 05:32:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11XrMO-0007eZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 21:31:52 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19991003212702.00b14850@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 21:27:02 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991003164809.00a4c3a0@pop.swinternet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:53 03-10-99 +0100, you wrote: >Okay, so enough is enough. I lurked for four weeks and now I can't keep it >shut any longer. > >1. My cats name is Cookie, short for Cooking Fat, an RSPCA saviour. > >2. It seems to me that while I agree with David that it seems harmless to >allow dummy, or indeed, a defender to say that that a trick is the wrong >way around, it possibly is not so. Imagine declarer in 4 Spades with an Ace >on table. wins a trick and puts it the wrong way. He now thinks he has 8 >tricks and not nine. He tanks. Dummy says "the last one is wrong"!. It >cannot be right, but as I read it okay as far as the ACBL is concerned!!!! > > 42B2 says it. Dummy may prevent irregularities, but thats all. Problem is of course 42a2 he may keep count of tricks. how far may you stratch this article. Perhaps these 2 articles can give frictions. if you have a good case, send it to appeal and argue that dummy exercised his rights on 42a2 and see what they say. Good luck. regards, anton >Thoughts please. > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 4 08:47:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA04371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:47:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04366 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:47:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb4s07a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.103.181] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11XuPH-0002Pg-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 23:47:04 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 23:52:14 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0df1$ef3d13a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B >Ed Reppert wrote: >>Eric Landau writes: >> >>>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%. I don't like it, but I think it's right. > >>Cute, but I don't buy it. The Law says they shall be awarded at most >>average minus. Here "average minus" refers to 40% of the theoretical top >>score on the board. No I don't think so. Law 25B refers us to L12C2 which defines A- as being 40% of the _available_MPs. Once L25B has been invoked once A- is no longer 40% of a theoretical top, as a top is no longer_available_to this pair. >>The first time Law 25B is invoked, the most they can >>get is average minus. The second time it's invoked the most they can get is >>average minus. Oh, I suppose you could argue that "at most" gives the TD >>leeway to award a lesser score, but I've always read it to mean that if >>they get less than average minus through actual play, they get the actual >>result. If I'm wrong, please point me to the appropriate law or laws or >>appeals committee ruling. :-) > > Looking back, I see that I have been somewhat flippant in this matter, >so perhaps I better clear up what I think. > > Ed's argument is completely correct. When a Law says that you are >playing for a maximum of A- then it means you are playing for a maximum >of A-. I agree. As long as you do not think that A- is 40% of a top. > > Does this mean a second helping of L25B is "for free"? I don't really >see much point in that way of thinking, but if ever anyone gets this >occurrence then I suppose that is one way of looking at it. So? We >have enough problems with Laws in the real world without worrying about >the esoteric - as far as changes are concerned. > > > But it is a waste of time to find a ruling which will happen on >average once in the lifetime of all the readers of BLML put together and >make suggestions for Law changes because of them. Roger wrote Hardly, changing a call more than once by the same side has happened at least 6 times at my table. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 4 09:46:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:46:20 +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 JAA04444 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:46:14 +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 JAA28256 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:46:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mosaic@localhost) by cuda.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA17434; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:46:08 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:46:08 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199910032346.JAA17434@cuda.jcu.edu.au> X-Authentication-Warning: cuda.jcu.edu.au: mosaic set sender to sci-lsk@jcu.edu.au using -f From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Reply-To: Laurie Kelso References: <00c801bf0dbe$7f6f2140$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <00c801bf0dbe$7f6f2140$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> 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: 202.80.71.125 Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quoting Fearghal O\'Boyle : > > 5. East may either Pass in which case the final contract becomes 7S > undoubled down five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or East may bid 7NT and receive 40% > (Law 25B2(b)(2)). > > Peter Gill > Sydney Australia. > > > This looks correct to me! But other posters don\'t think so. West must Pass > if East Passes. What are we missing? I don\'t think you are missing anything. Law 25B2(b)1 seems fairly explicit. The first call (Pass) is legal, therefore his partner (West) will have to pass for one round. UI does not become a consideration in this auction. Laurie (Australia) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 4 10:25:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:25:48 +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 KAA04555 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:25:35 +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 11Xvvy-00012o-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 00:24:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 01:17:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney In-Reply-To: <00c801bf0dbe$7f6f2140$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <00c801bf0dbe$7f6f2140$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>, Fearghal O'Boyle writes > >5. East may either Pass in which case the final contract becomes 7S >undoubled down five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or East may bid 7NT and receive 40% >(Law 25B2(b)(2)). yep, you're right, but East, on hearing of the implications of Law 25B (play ceases until the offender has had all his options given to him, L9B2) may well say "I don't want to bid 7NT then", in which case 25B doesn't really swing into gear, because we are not allowing his LHO the option of objecting to the substituted call. ie East has decided not to make a delayed and purposeful correction. Now we are back in UI territory. I appreciate that LHO objected originally, but that was to the infraction, not the delayed and purposeful correction which comes later. there will be those who disagree. chs John > >Peter Gill >Sydney Australia. > > >This looks correct to me! But other posters don't think so. West must Pass >if East Passes. What are we missing? > >Regards, >Fearghal > -- 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 Oct 4 10:25:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:25:14 +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 KAA04549 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:25:07 +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 11Xvvy-00012n-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 00:24:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 01:22:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991003164809.00a4c3a0@pop.swinternet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <4.1.19991003164809.00a4c3a0@pop.swinternet.net>, Dave Armstrong writes aaaaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhhhh Armstrong! Dive for cover chaps! >Okay, so enough is enough. I lurked for four weeks and now I can't keep it >shut any longer. > >1. My cats name is Cookie, short for Cooking Fat, an RSPCA saviour. > >2. It seems to me that while I agree with David that it seems harmless to >allow dummy, or indeed, a defender to say that that a trick is the wrong >way around, it possibly is not so. Imagine declarer in 4 Spades with an Ace >on table. wins a trick and puts it the wrong way. He now thinks he has 8 >tricks and not nine. He tanks. Dummy says "the last one is wrong"!. It >cannot be right, but as I read it okay as far as the ACBL is concerned!!!! > Methinks the ACBL allows it. The EBU certainly doesn't. However it leads to the question of what is the appropriate penalty, when it does happen. A PP? chs john > >Thoughts please. > -- 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 Oct 4 10:41:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:41:50 +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 KAA04601 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:41:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka231254 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:38:16 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-108-200.tmns.net.au ([139.134.108.200]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Delicious-MailRouter V2.5 5/3396016); 04 Oct 1999 10:38:13 Message-ID: <001801bf0e8f$a7c549e0$fddf868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:40:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Feargal O'Boyle wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: >>5. East may either Pass in which case the final contract becomes 7S >>undoubled down five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or East may bid 7NT and receive 40% >>(Law 25B2(b)(2)). > >This looks correct to me! But other posters don't think so. West must Pass >if East Passes. What are we missing? > >Regards, >Fearghal > I'm equally mystified that the other three posters, including YC, think that UI rather than "partner must pass" applies, when"partner must pass" is a direct quote from the FLB. I thought it could go into a Bridge Trivia Quiz as "When must one pass a Forcing Pass?" I was East, but it was difficult for me to call the TD since it didn't occur to me until later that I might have committed an infraction. I've just realised that Item 6 of the "New Interpretations of the Laws by the WBFLC at Lille 1998" (available on DWS's website) may well apply to this case. I'm not sure that I understand Item 6 but I think it may mean that "rectification of the player's judgment" is not permitted. Do these Lille interpretations overrule or augment the FLB? I mean, am I stuck with my original pass under the Lille variant, because I was definitely rectifying my judgment when I tried to bid 7NT. Peter Gill. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 4 12:14:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:14:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04788 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:14:25 +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 11XxdZ-000Btc-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 02:14:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 00:17:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B References: <3.0.1.32.19990930081719.006fe31c@pop.cais.com> <2VaZAkAYrM93EwrK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <19991002133807.83841.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19991002133807.83841.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >From: David Stevenson >> But it is a waste of time to find a ruling which will happen on >> average once in the lifetime of all the readers of BLML put together and >> make suggestions for Law changes because of them. >Hardly, changing a call more than once by the same side has happened at >least 6 times at my table. The mind boggles! Remember we are talking L25B not L25A. I have been playing for forty years and have never had a single L25B ruling at my table! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 4 12:14:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:14:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04787 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:14:21 +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 11XxdZ-0009hy-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 02:14:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 01:54:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney References: <009001bf0cfc$6abc9920$116d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <009001bf0cfc$6abc9920$116d868b@gillp.bigpond.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 MAA04795 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > This hand occurred yesterday in a Sydney bridge congress: >   > Nil vul. Dealer S. > WEST             EAST > J                      A9 > Q109                AKJ652 > AK97543          Q10 > A9                   543 >   > S     W      N      E > P     1D     3S    4H > P     4NT   P      5C > P     7H     7S    P/7NT >   >   > 5C showed 0 or 3 keycards. > Diamonds break 2-2. >   > Bidding boxes have only recently been introduced in Sydney. > East, an experienced player but new to bidding boxes, removed the > Pass card which landed on his lap face down. Believing he had not > called yet because the call did not land on the table, he pulled > out the 7NT card and "called" 7NT by placing it on the table. In > the last second or two he had decided that 7NT was a better call > than a Forcing Pass, and that he could terminate the auction with > 7NT without giving his partner usable UI.   The TD was never called > to the table so no ruling was made. >   >   > Could you please let me know which of the following are incorrect? >   > 1. The TD should have been called and would have looked at Law 25. There is, of course, no question as to whether the TD should have been called. The TD's first job is not to look at L25 but to look at the Bidding Box regulations. When is a call made? Now, before you all give me your opinion, remember this is a matter of regulation not Law. Until last August the pass would not have been made in England/Wales. We changed to fall in line with the majority of the world [whether they are right or wrong] but not necessarily everywhere. So, when is a call made under Australian Bidding Box regulations? If the call is made when it is placed on the table as used to be the case in England/Wales then the pass has not been made, and the 7NT call is legal. West has UI but it is difficult to think of how he could use it [whether to redouble, presumably!]. OK, I expect Australia has the same regulations as most other places - perhaps an Australian could confirm or otherwise - in which case the call was made when the pass card was taken from the box [apparently intentionally]. Having decided that the TD now determines whether L25A or L25B applies. > 2. Law 25B applies because the First Call (pass) was deliberate not > inadvertent. True. It is clear from what is written above that the 7NT call was a change of mind not a slip of the hand so L25B applies. > 3. Let's assume the TD was called and the Substitute Call (7NT) not > condoned by South. Then 7NT is cancelled (Law 25B2). Fair enough. South gets a chance to accept 7NT by L25B1, and we assume he does not accept it. > 4. The first call (Pass) was legal so East has a choice (Law > 25B2(b)). OK. > 5. East may either Pass in which case the final contract becomes 7S > undoubled down five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or East may bid 7NT and > receive 40% (Law 25B2(b)(2)). Probably. If he passes his partner must pass so this is correct so long as the opponents do not bid. Of course, the TD will explain that his partner must pass [once] so East might feel this is not a sensible option. However, East has other options. If you read TWL [this wonderful Law: in future I think we should use TWL instead of L25B] you will find that East is not committed to passing or bidding 7NT: he can make any other legal call! To be fair, this is not as stupid as it sounds at first reading: once the options are explained fully, the player may not wish to follow his original ideas. So East can double or bid 7NT and play for 40% max. West is allowed to call if East doubles or bids 7NT. He is not allowed to take any information from a withdrawn call. There probably isn't much info that helps him, but anyway, his calls thereafter can be looked at. Whatever East chooses, there will be lead penalties if he finishes up defending, whether he passes or not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 4 12:30:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:30:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04837 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:30:43 +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 11XxtU-000Axh-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 02:30:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 03:28:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney References: <00c801bf0dbe$7f6f2140$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> 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 <00c801bf0dbe$7f6f2140$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>, Fearghal >O'Boyle writes >> >>5. East may either Pass in which case the final contract becomes 7S >>undoubled down five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or East may bid 7NT and receive 40% >>(Law 25B2(b)(2)). > >yep, you're right, but East, on hearing of the implications of Law 25B >(play ceases until the offender has had all his options given to him, >L9B2) may well say "I don't want to bid 7NT then", in which case 25B >doesn't really swing into gear, because we are not allowing his LHO the >option of objecting to the substituted call. ie East has decided not to >make a delayed and purposeful correction. Now we are back in UI >territory. I appreciate that LHO objected originally, but that was to >the infraction, not the delayed and purposeful correction which comes >later. there will be those who disagree. chs John Yes, I expect so. What are you talking about John? L25B "swings into gear" as soon as the player attempts to change his call and the TD rules [a] the call has been made and [b] L25A does not apply. You apply iy because the Law says you apply it - and it gives options that you apply. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 4 12:30:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:30:57 +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 MAA04839 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:30:46 +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 11XxtU-000Axg-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 02:30:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 03:24:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B References: <01bf0df1$ef3d13a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf0df1$ef3d13a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Law 25B refers us to L12C2 which defines A- as being 40% of the >_available_MPs. >Once L25B has been invoked once A- is no longer 40% of a theoretical top, as >a >top is no longer_available_to this pair. It does not say "available to this pair". It says "(at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs)". The available matchpoints on the board are the ones available to pairs before they start. It does not mean anything else. >> But it is a waste of time to find a ruling which will happen on >>average once in the lifetime of all the readers of BLML put together and >>make suggestions for Law changes because of them. >Roger wrote >Hardly, changing a call more than once by the same side has happened at >least 6 times at my table. So he did. How many L25B calls have there been to your table in *all* the years you have been playing, Anne, in total? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 4 14:59:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA05101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:59:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.116]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05095 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:59:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn44p15.ozemail.com.au [210.84.1.143]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA02954 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:59:25 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991004151254.008e6580@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 15:12:54 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney In-Reply-To: References: <00c801bf0dbe$7f6f2140$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk from John Probst: >yep, you're right, but East, on hearing of the implications of Law 25B >(play ceases until the offender has had all his options given to him, >L9B2) may well say "I don't want to bid 7NT then", in which case 25B >doesn't really swing into gear, because we are not allowing his LHO the >option of objecting to the substituted call. ie East has decided not to >make a delayed and purposeful correction. Now we are back in UI >territory. This is quite interesting. I have been called on one occasion where a player wished to make a purposeful correction to a bid before LHO had bid. I explained that LHO might accept the bid in which case there would be no penalty, but otherwise things could get messy. The player then wanted to know if I could ask LHO if he would be prepared to accept a change of bid. I said that I couldn't do it, and that the player would have to guess. LHO then asked what the changed bid would be. I recall that I suggested that it would be better not to let on, and just carry forward into UI territory. Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 4 15:13:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:13:58 +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 PAA05126 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:13:52 +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 PAA17191 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:13:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mosaic@localhost) by cuda.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA17292; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:13:47 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:13:47 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199910040513.PAA17292@cuda.jcu.edu.au> X-Authentication-Warning: cuda.jcu.edu.au: mosaic set sender to sci-lsk@jcu.edu.au using -f From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Reply-To: Laurie Kelso References: <009001bf0cfc$6abc9920$116d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> 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: 202.80.71.23 Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quoting David Stevenson : > Peter Gill wrote: > > This hand occurred yesterday in a Sydney bridge congress: > >   > > Nil vul. Dealer S. > > WEST             EAST > > J                      A9 > > Q109                AKJ652 > > AK97543          Q10 > > A9                   543 > >   > > S     W      N      E > > P     1D     3S    4H > > P     4NT   P      5C > > P     7H     7S    P/7NT > >   > >   > > 5C showed 0 or 3 keycards. > > Diamonds break 2-2. > >   > > Bidding boxes have only recently been introduced in Sydney. > > East, an experienced player but new to bidding boxes, removed the > > Pass card which landed on his lap face down. Believing he had not > > called yet because the call did not land on the table, he pulled > > out the 7NT card and \"called\" 7NT by placing it on the table. In > > the last second or two he had decided that 7NT was a better call > > than a Forcing Pass, and that he could terminate the auction with > > 7NT without giving his partner usable UI.   The TD was never called > > to the table so no ruling was made. > >   > >   > > Could you please let me know which of the following are incorrect? > >   > > 1. The TD should have been called and would have looked at Law 25. > > There is, of course, no question as to whether the TD should have been > called. The TD\'s first job is not to look at L25 but to look at the > Bidding Box regulations. When is a call made? Now, before you all give > me your opinion, remember this is a matter of regulation not Law. Until > last August the pass would not have been made in England/Wales. We > changed to fall in line with the majority of the world [whether they are > right or wrong] but not necessarily everywhere. So, when is a call made > under Australian Bidding Box regulations? > > If the call is made when it is placed on the table as used to be the > case in England/Wales then the pass has not been made, and the 7NT call > is legal. West has UI but it is difficult to think of how he could use > it [whether to redouble, presumably!]. > > OK, I expect Australia has the same regulations as most other places - > perhaps an Australian could confirm or otherwise - in which case the > call was made when the pass card was taken from the box [apparently > intentionally]. I have dug up my ABF \"Regulations for Written Bidding and use of Bidding Boxes\". Written bidding is the norm in Australia, however the following is the relevant section: \"10.1 Any call selected and taken from the bidding box may be changed without penalty provided it has not been placed in position and released from the hand (but Law 73F2 may apply and also, when there are no screens, Law 16A).\" Hence it looks like Peter G.(currently at least in Australia) can change to 7NT without penalty. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 4 16:18:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:18:46 +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 QAA05221 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:18:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.218] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Y1Rt-000PtA-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 07:18:14 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01bf0e30$39667be0$da5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 06:53:05 +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 October 1999 01:56 Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner >.>, Dave Armstrong writes >>Okay, so enough is enough. I lurked for four weeks and now I can't keep it >>shut any longer. +=+ Four weeks? That's good. Four minutes is too long for many. +=+ >> >> >Methinks the ACBL allows it. The EBU certainly doesn't. However it >leads to the question of what is the appropriate penalty, when it does >happen. A PP? chs john >> >>Thoughts please. +=+ If dummy is not allowed to draw attention to the information but does so, the information is UI. 16A applies. The laws themselves provide no authorization to communicate the information, merely permitting dummy to keep count; he does so as 65B provides, so there is no doubt in my mind that declarer is entitled to look across at dummy's quitted cards and collect information for himself. If a regulating authority institutes a regulation that permits dummy to trigger declarer's attention to the number of tricks won and lost, contrary I believe to the intention of the laws, then the question is whether that regulation is ultra vires because it conflicts with the words 'only after the play of the hand is concluded' in 42B3; I tend to think it does, and if so such a regulation cannot be made under Law 80F. If it can be justified under 80E then it is not ultra vires, but this stretches the application of 80E somewhat improbably to my mind. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 4 17:20:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:20:16 +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 RAA05407 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:20:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.8.51] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Y2Pf-0002SQ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:19:59 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bf0e38$c29ba180$3308063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990930081719.006fe31c@pop.cais.com><2VaZAkAYrM93EwrK@blakjak.demon.co.uk><19991002133807.83841.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:19:12 +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 DWS wrote: > I have been playing for forty years and have never had a single L25B > ruling at my table! Well, L25B in its present form has only been in existence for two years. The remaining 38 therefore strike me as somewhat irrelevant. And, if they were anything like the other evening at the Chelsea, I don't expect they struck your partners as particularly meaningful either :) David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 4 22:16:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 22:16:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA05805 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 22:16:00 +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 IAA29916 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:16:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991004081718.0070c768@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 08:17:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991001153454.012ace3c@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.6.32.19991001115917.007ab7b0@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990930205852.012b3f18@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990930084250.0070828c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990929174935.006a72a0@pop.mindspring.com> <199909291359.JAA03514@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:34 PM 10/1/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >I have some question about whether it is "literally true" that you have no >agreement, however. If before play started you agree to play the methods >that you understand to be shared with your common partner, then you do have >an implicit agreement, which should be shared, IMO. Michael makes a very important point which, it seems to me, is generally overlooked. There are three kinds of "agreements": (1) Agreements that arise from partnership discussion. We call these "explicit agreements". (2) Agreements which are assumed, without discussion, to be logical consequences of one's explicit agreements. (3) Agreements which arise over time as a result of partnership experience. What has happened is that all the effort to educate players to the fact that partnership experience gives rise to implicit agreements has led, in general, to a "fallacy of the converse"; i.e. people believe that the an "implicit agreement" is *defined* as one which results from partnership experience over time. So discussions of agreements focus on the dual nature of agreements, "explicit" vs. "implicit", people interpret those terms as referring to (1) and (3) respectively, and (2) gets lost in the shuffle. 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 Oct 4 22:38:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 22:38:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA05876 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 22:38:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA01350 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:39:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991004083958.0070c768@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 08:39:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <199910012221.PAA03178@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:21 PM 10/1/99 PDT, Adam wrote: >On the other hand, your language used the phrase "*announced* point >range", which brings up the question: What exactly is illegal, the >agreement you describe, or the way you announce it? It depends on what the agreement is; see below. >If you've agreed >that 1C followed by 1NT shows 15-17 but that judgment-based deviations >are allowed, it may be wrong to announce it as simply "15-17", >depending on the SO's policies about the proper way to give >information to the opponents. Personally, I think it should be OK >just to say 15-17 (and give more precise details if asked); if you say >"good 14 to 17", to me this misdescribes the agreement and implies >that you bid this way on a lot more 14-counts than you actually do;... The ACBL's position is the opposite of Adam's. If you agree to play 15-17 but permit occasional judgment-based 1NT openings on 14, the ACBL says that you are actually playing 14+-17, and must disclose it as such (I have more than once seen pairs instructed to modify their CCs based on a single deviation). Here the agreement as such is not illegal, but describing it as "15-17" is. OTOH, if you play 10-12 but permit occasional judgment-based openings on 9, or if you play 15-18 but permit occasional judgment-based openings on 14 (IIRC the ACBL sets a 4-HCP limit on the spread of 1NT openings; if I'm wrong about the number modify the example accordingly) then your actual agreements are 9+-12, or 14+-18, and those are illegal. (OK, not technically illegal, since the ACBL does acknowledge the existence of L40, but effectively illegal; you may have those agreements, but are barred from using any conventional methods in such auctions. Whether this means that the agreements are effectively "allowed" or whether this is merely a technicality to evade L40 and do away with them without the need to actually call them "illegal" has been debated at length elsewhere. I call them "illegal" in the sense that there is a prescribed penalty for using them (and a rather harsh one at that).) Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 4 23:32:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:32:25 +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 XAA06023 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:32:18 +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 JAA06073 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:33:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 09:33:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <37F4E40B.2C7284A0@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:40 PM 10/1/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> At 04:14 PM 9/30/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >> >> >Yes, but you can never be sure of your agreements (sometimes >> >you are 99.9999% certain, but even then you have been proven >> >wrong). So you are always describing your assumptions. >> >> You can never be sure of your "metaphysical" agreements -- breakdowns in >> communications leading to misunderstandings are possible in any >> conversation -- but you can be sure of what was said in discussion between >> you and your partner. When your agreement is based on an actual >> discussion, your obligation is to disclose what was said in discussion to >> your opponents. > >Indeed. > >> When your agreement is inferred from something other than an explicit >> discussion, I will grant that it is possible that you may still be so sure >> of it that it makes no difference, but I don't believe that this is >> generally, or even often, the case. In most cases the difference in your >> level of certainty will be enough to affect your evaluation of the >> likelihood of your being correct, in which case your opponents are entitled >> to know that. > >You say they are entitled. Where in the Laws does it say so >? > >> The bottom line is that anything that affects your probabilistic >> interpretation (not just what you think partner's action means, but how >> likely it is that you're right) other than your "general knowledge and >> experience" should be disclosed. > >Where in the Laws does it say so ? I believe that what we're discussing here is how to interpret the words of L75C: "...shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience." My position is that "all special information" includes not only that information which affects your ultimate determination as to the meaning of partner's action, but also that information which affects the certainty with which you make that determination. >Let's give the following scenario. A player tells his >opponents that some bid means something. It turns out he is >wrong. Your ruling is that his partner has not used the UI, >and that the opponents are not damaged by the MI. >Now the player admits that he was not really certain at the >time, and that he chose to tell the opponents, in a certain >manner of speech, the option he really was counting on >(erroneously as it turned out). he did not want to show to >opponents his doubt. >Now the opponent tells you "if he had told me that at the >time, I would have doubled". >Your ruling ? I don't quite follow Herman's example. Why would I have ruled that "the opponents are not damaged by the MI" before I had any reason to rule that there was MI? I don't think it does any damage to the example to assume that I have all of the pertinent information Herman gives before I make any ruling at all, so let me respond to that. The opponent would need not merely to say the words "if he had told me that at the time, I would have doubled", but rather to convince me that that is indeed the case. He would not have such an easy time doing so, but if he succeeded I would be prepared to adjust the score (assuming I found 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 Mon Oct 4 23:38:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:38:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06052 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:38:49 +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 11Y8Jr-0009Zz-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:38:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:32:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B References: <3.0.1.32.19990930081719.006fe31c@pop.cais.com> <2VaZAkAYrM93EwrK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <19991002133807.83841.qmail@hotmail.com> <001301bf0e38$c29ba180$3308063e@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001301bf0e38$c29ba180$3308063e@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> I have been playing for forty years and have never had a single >L25B >> ruling at my table! > >Well, L25B in its present form has only been in existence for two >years. The remaining 38 therefore strike me as somewhat irrelevant. >And, if they were anything like the other evening at the Chelsea, I >don't expect they struck your partners as particularly meaningful >either :) Gee, thanks. But even in its earlier forms I have never had a ruling at my table where a player has changed a call once made except when it was inadvertent. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 4 23:38:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:38:53 +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 XAA06048 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:38:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Y8Jt-0003UP-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:38:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:48:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: MI in the Lady Connell MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Playing in our top local competition, the County knockout, the following sequence occurred: 1D 2D 3D 3H AP I bid 3D on a 1=4=4=4 hand. 2D was alerted and described as hearts and spades. Before my partner made the opening lead, dummy pointed out that 2D showed spades and clubs. It struck me that [1] I can take my last pass back. [2] I could substitute a double. [3] Both my partner and I have AI that the opponents may easily be in a 4-2 fit or worse. [4] Since both opponents have UI neither would be able to remove the contract to a sensible contract. I didn't change my last pass, and 3H went four off because partner [John Armstrong] and I both misdefended to give declarer a silly trick - five off was routine. None of my team would expect me to double this contract in the circumstances, which seems like shooting fish in a barrel. Does everyone agree, though, that I could have done so, and defended 3Hx, and has anyone any doubts on the ethics of doing 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 Mon Oct 4 23:39:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:39:13 +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 XAA06049 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:38:47 +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 11Y8Jp-0009a0-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:38:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:36:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney References: <009001bf0cfc$6abc9920$116d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <199910040513.PAA17292@cuda.jcu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <199910040513.PAA17292@cuda.jcu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: >I have dug up my ABF \"Regulations for Written Bidding >and use of Bidding Boxes\". Written bidding is the norm >in Australia, however the following is the relevant >section: > >\"10.1 Any call selected and taken from the bidding >box may be changed without penalty provided it has not >been placed in position and released from the hand (but >Law 73F2 may apply and also, when there are no screens, >Law 16A).\" > >Hence it looks like Peter G.(currently at least in >Australia) can change to 7NT without penalty. There you go!!!! Yes!!!! RTFR!!!! This is a good example of reading the regulations rather than assuming them. It also shows why on RGB I tend to complain when posters ask random Laws-type questions and do not say where they live. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 4 23:58:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:58:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06109 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:58:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5 [134.117.136.25]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.1a/8.9.1/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id JAA11758 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:58:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA14370; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:58:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:58:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199910041358.JAA14370@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MI in the Lady Connell Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > Playing in our top local competition, the County knockout, the >following sequence occurred: > > 1D 2D 3D 3H > AP > > I bid 3D on a 1=4=4=4 hand. 2D was alerted and described as hearts >and spades. > > Before my partner made the opening lead, dummy pointed out that 2D >showed spades and clubs. > > It struck me that >[1] I can take my last pass back. >[2] I could substitute a double. >[3] Both my partner and I have AI that the opponents may easily be in a >4-2 fit or worse. >[4] Since both opponents have UI neither would be able to remove the >contract to a sensible contract. > > I didn't change my last pass, and 3H went four off because partner >[John Armstrong] and I both misdefended to give declarer a silly trick - >five off was routine. None of my team would expect me to double this >contract in the circumstances, which seems like shooting fish in a >barrel. > > Does everyone agree, though, that I could have done so, and defended >3Hx, and has anyone any doubts on the ethics of doing so? > I think that anything that is legal is (almost) always ethical. Therefore, taking advantage of the opponents is just heads up bridge. However, I may be mis-reading L21B1. I thought that a player could make a change in call "...provided that his partner has not subsequently called." Since your partner has passed, does this not prevent the change of call? I could see the basis for an adjusted score, but not a change of call. Have I read this section incorrectly? Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 00:48:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 00:48:26 +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 AAA06228 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 00:48:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc9s09a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.169.202] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Y9Ox-0001vl-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:47:43 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bf0e77$538cd9a0$caa993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:41:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: 04 October 1999 13:48 Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? >At 03:34 PM 10/1/99 -0400, Michael wrote: > >There are three kinds of "agreements": > >(1) Agreements that arise from partnership discussion. We call these >"explicit agreements". > >(2) Agreements which are assumed, without discussion, to be logical >consequences of one's explicit agreements. > >(3) Agreements which arise over time as a result of partnership experience. > >What has happened is that all the effort to educate players to the fact >that partnership experience gives rise to implicit agreements has led, in >general, to a "fallacy of the converse"; i.e. people believe that the an >"implicit agreement" is *defined* as one which results from partnership >experience over time. So discussions of agreements focus on the dual >nature of agreements, "explicit" vs. "implicit", people interpret those >terms as referring to (1) and (3) respectively, and (2) gets lost in the >shuffle. > +=+ It may be added that type (2) agreements become very quickly consolidated by partnership experience; if the first time you make the assumption it turns out to be right, the agreement is no longer shadowy. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 01:41:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:41:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA06366 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:41:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-76.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.76]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA22843 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:41:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37F89183.46EE82D3@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 13:37:39 +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: Two scoops of 25B References: <01bf0df1$ef3d13a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > No I don't think so. > > Law 25B refers us to L12C2 which defines A- as being 40% of the > _available_MPs. > Once L25B has been invoked once A- is no longer 40% of a theoretical top, as > a > top is no longer_available_to this pair. > Are you planning on giving 16% ? I don't think that is right. L25B speaks of average minus, and refers to L12C1 L12C1 says of Average minus : at most 40% of the available matchpoints, without a qualifier, for the pair in question. No 40% it is, and that does make the second change of call "free". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 01:43:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:43:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA06380 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:43:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.42.191]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19991004154242.WPGF11091@default> for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:42:42 +0000 Message-ID: <013501bf0e7e$eee02b80$bf2a4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.1.32.19990930081719.006fe31c@pop.cais.com><2VaZAkAYrM93EwrK@blakjak.demon.co.uk><19991002133807.83841.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:36:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson > Roger Pewick wrote: > >From: David Stevenson > > >> But it is a waste of time to find a ruling which will happen on > >> average once in the lifetime of all the readers of BLML put together and > >> make suggestions for Law changes because of them. > > >Hardly, changing a call more than once by the same side has happened at > >least 6 times at my table. > > The mind boggles! > > Remember we are talking L25B not L25A. > > I have been playing for forty years and have never had a single L25B > ruling at my table! Hmmmm, I have had at least three (directing) during the last twelve months. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 02:10:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:10:37 +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 CAA06605 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:10:30 +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 MAA03605 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <001301bf0e38$c29ba180$3308063e@davidburn> <3.0.1.32.19990930081719.006fe31c@pop.cais.com> <2VaZAkAYrM93EwrK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <19991002133807.83841.qmail@hotmail.com> <001301bf0e38$c29ba180$3308063e@davidburn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:10:19 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Burn wrote: >>DWS wrote: >> >>> I have been playing for forty years and have never had a single >>L25B >>> ruling at my table! >> >>Well, L25B in its present form has only been in existence for two >>years. The remaining 38 therefore strike me as somewhat irrelevant. >>And, if they were anything like the other evening at the Chelsea, I >>don't expect they struck your partners as particularly meaningful >>either :) > > Gee, thanks. But even in its earlier forms I have never had a ruling >at my table where a player has changed a call once made except when it >was inadvertent. I suspect that the root cause of this is obvious - people who have never heard of Law 25B are generally flabbergasted to learn that they can change a bid this way; it would never occur to them to try it at the table. As evidence for this - two years ago, playing with screens, I carelessly confused two similar bidding situations, and made a game-forcing call when I should have made a negative bid. Even though I realised my mistake immediately, and had recently studied the then brand-new Law 25B, it just didn't occur to me in time that I could change my bid and play for -3 IMP (in fact, I later learned that the Director in Charge would have allowed me to change the call without *any* penalty, so long as I did it before passing the bidding tray, i.e., even after LHO had called!) In the case which started this thread, my RHO indicated that she had made the wrong call (clear enough), but didn't attempt to correct it. I summoned the director to protect her rights, but I'm reasonably certain that if I hadn't been at the table, the auction would have been 2C-P-2D-P-P-P with no director call. This was the second time in about a month that a Law 25B ruling was made at my table. The other time, my partner, in a forcing situation, took out a Pass card and touched it to the table without releasing it, then noticed the actual auction, and put back the Pass card, replacing it with a bid. She did this under the mistaken but pretty common impression that in the ACBL, her Pass was not made until she released the card. As in the other case, I'm reasonably sure that if I had not been present, the opponents would have accepted this and the director would not have been called at all. [For the record, ACBL regulations seem to be: A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent. Until the card has been completely removed from the box, the director will treat the situation as unauthorized information.] _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 533 - 6000 - 77878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 02:18:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:18:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06636 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:18:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5 [134.117.136.25]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.1a/8.9.1/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id MAA02167 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:18:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id MAA19202; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:18:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:18:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199910041618.MAA19202@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MI in the Lady Connell Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> >> >> Playing in our top local competition, the County knockout, the >>following sequence occurred: >> >> 1D 2D 3D 3H >> AP >> >> I bid 3D on a 1=4=4=4 hand. 2D was alerted and described as hearts >>and spades. >> >> Before my partner made the opening lead, dummy pointed out that 2D >>showed spades and clubs. >> >> It struck me that >>[1] I can take my last pass back. >>[2] I could substitute a double. >>[3] Both my partner and I have AI that the opponents may easily be in a >>4-2 fit or worse. >>[4] Since both opponents have UI neither would be able to remove the >>contract to a sensible contract. >> >> I didn't change my last pass, and 3H went four off because partner >>[John Armstrong] and I both misdefended to give declarer a silly trick - >>five off was routine. None of my team would expect me to double this >>contract in the circumstances, which seems like shooting fish in a >>barrel. >> >> Does everyone agree, though, that I could have done so, and defended >>3Hx, and has anyone any doubts on the ethics of doing so? >> >I think that anything that is legal is (almost) always ethical. >Therefore, taking advantage of the opponents is just heads up >bridge. However, I may be mis-reading L21B1. I thought that >a player could make a change in call "...provided that his >partner has not subsequently called." Since your partner has >passed, does this not prevent the change of call? I could see >the basis for an adjusted score, but not a change of call. >Have I read this section incorrectly? > Tony (aka ac342) > Please ignore everything past the "however". I mis-read the auction; of course, David is in the passout seat, and can change his call. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 02:47:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:47:21 +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 CAA06714 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:47:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA09047; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:46:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-120.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.120) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008824; Mon Oct 4 11:45:51 1999 Message-ID: <001d01bf0e87$f9facbc0$7884d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:46:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bridge judgement? It is hard to believe that even a B flight (decent but unexceptional club level) player would not take pass in the circumstance as forcing absent the UI. After all, you have already committed to the grand slam...you are not going to permit the sac to play undoubled. The UI demonstably suggests 7NT over the LA of Dbl; not other call is an LA. Therefore double. But then partner gets another call; HE has no UI, and can bid 7N unconstrained. If THEY double there might be UI constraints on who would get to RDBL. :-) Whatever makes you think that West must pass if East passes? Even by ACBL srtandards pass in not an LA except for a rank novice. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Fearghal O'Boyle To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, October 03, 1999 12:30 PM Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney > >5. East may either Pass in which case the final contract becomes 7S >undoubled down five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or East may bid 7NT and receive 40% >(Law 25B2(b)(2)). > >Peter Gill >Sydney Australia. > > >This looks correct to me! But other posters don't think so. West must Pass >if East Passes. What are we missing? > >Regards, >Fearghal > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 02:58:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:58:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from vivaldi.telepac.pt (vivaldi.telepac.pt [194.65.3.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06752 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:58:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([212.55.173.215]) by vivaldi.telepac.pt (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA01844 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:59:22 +0100 (WET DST) Reply-To: From: "Rui L.Marques" To: Subject: RE: MI in the Lady Connell Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:57:53 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199910041358.JAA14370@freenet5.carleton.ca> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I think that anything that is legal is (almost) always ethical. I don´t. I remember the match between two U.K. football clubs recently (forgot the names) where someone (unethical) scored while 90% of the players were waiting for the ball to be put out of the field, because a player was injured (ethical). The referee validated the goal (legal). The coach of the winning team offered a rematch (ethical). I think this demonstrates the point. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 03:01:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:01:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA06776 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:01:45 +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 MAA17329 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:03:54 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991004120210.007a1100@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 12:02:10 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> References: <37F4E40B.2C7284A0@village.uunet.be> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:33 AM 10/4/99 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 06:40 PM 10/1/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>> At 04:14 PM 9/30/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >>> >>> The bottom line is that anything that affects your probabilistic >>> interpretation (not just what you think partner's action means, but how >>> likely it is that you're right) other than your "general knowledge and >>> experience" should be disclosed. >> >>Where in the Laws does it say so ? > >I believe that what we're discussing here is how to interpret the words of >L75C: "...shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through >partnership agreement or partnership experience." > >My position is that "all special information" includes not only that >information which affects your ultimate determination as to the meaning of >partner's action, but also that information which affects the certainty >with which you make that determination. I am uncertain about the latter, but I agree with the former, and that makes the latter pretty moot. "We haven't discussed that bid explicitly, but everyone around here plays it as 15-17." Notice that I have not merely said "I think that bid probably shows 15-17", which would display uncertainty but would not, in fact, convey the nature of the nature of the [non-]agreement. My position is that one never has to reply to a question by saying "I think that means 'x' but I am unsure." The disclosure of agreements and experience required by L75C requires one to disclose the factors that have caused you to be unsure. I find it hard to imagine a situation where I am not sure what my partner's call means but I have no specific relevant information to reveal which explains that uncertainty. >>Let's give the following scenario. A player tells his >>opponents that some bid means something. It turns out he is >>wrong. Your ruling is that his partner has not used the UI, >>and that the opponents are not damaged by the MI. >>Now the player admits that he was not really certain at the >>time, and that he chose to tell the opponents, in a certain >>manner of speech, the option he really was counting on >>(erroneously as it turned out). he did not want to show to >>opponents his doubt. I need to know why he was uncertain. Again, I am not sure how I could have managed to rule that there was MI in the first place without knowing why the explanation did not match partner's actual holdings. If the player was not certain because he knew he and his partner had never discussed this auction, then he may have given MI if he never mentioned to opponents this crucial fact regarding his agreements. If the player was uncertain because he and his partner had recently changed their system and he thought partner might have forgotten this new agreement, then there is really no MI after all, but rather a misbid by partner. Etc. You really cannot expect me to decide whether there _was_ MI without telling me why the explanation did not match partner's actual holding, and why explainer was uncertain. >>Now the opponent tells you "if he had told me that at the >>time, I would have doubled". >>Your ruling ? > >I don't quite follow Herman's example. Why would I have ruled that "the >opponents are not damaged by the MI" before I had any reason to rule that >there was MI? I agree with Eric--how did I know there was MI in the first place? I suspect the problem lies in the fact that Herman's view of what constitutes MI is different from mine [and, I assume, Eric's]. Apologies if this is a misinterpretation of your views, Herman, but my impression is that you think that whenever partner makes a bid thinking or hoping I will understand it, partner's 'meaning' is ipso facto our partnership agreement, which entails that if my explanation didn't cover her bid, my explanation is thereby automatically MI. [Unless, perhaps, I can document that she has violated an agreement.] I do not think that, and so I do not think I can determine whether there was any MI in your first case until I have gathered evidence such as is revealed in your subsequent question. >I don't think it does any damage to the example to assume that I have all >of the pertinent information Herman gives before I make any ruling at all, >so let me respond to that. > >The opponent would need not merely to say the words "if he had told me that >at the time, I would have doubled", but rather to convince me that that is >indeed the case. He would not have such an easy time doing so, but if he >succeeded I would be prepared to adjust the score (assuming I found damage). I agree here, too. So, 'yes', I can imagine situations where a player would have a negative score adjustment because he failed to fully explain [hedge]. >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 03:29:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:29:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA06869 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:29:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-184.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.184]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA16849 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 19:29:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37F8D730.7CA8F8B4@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 18:34:56 +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: MI in the Lady Connell References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Playing in our top local competition, the County knockout, the > following sequence occurred: > > 1D 2D 3D 3H > AP > > I bid 3D on a 1=4=4=4 hand. 2D was alerted and described as hearts > and spades. > > Before my partner made the opening lead, dummy pointed out that 2D > showed spades and clubs. > > It struck me that > [1] I can take my last pass back. Can you ? - I believe that is the problem. L21B1 : "... when it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent". You passed, because you believed opponents had found their best possible fit, and presumably because you had not enough points. Had you been informed of the correct meaning (without at the same time knowing they were having a misunderstanding - so expecting LHO with a stack of hearts), would you have changed your call ? OK, you might get away with it, but you must have more than just your knowledge that they will be going 4 down > [2] I could substitute a double. > [3] Both my partner and I have AI that the opponents may easily be in a > 4-2 fit or worse. > [4] Since both opponents have UI neither would be able to remove the > contract to a sensible contract. > maybe not, but maybe they could make it stick. > I didn't change my last pass, and 3H went four off because partner > [John Armstrong] and I both misdefended to give declarer a silly trick - > five off was routine. None of my team would expect me to double this > contract in the circumstances, which seems like shooting fish in a > barrel. > > Does everyone agree, though, that I could have done so, and defended > 3Hx, and has anyone any doubts on the ethics of doing so? > Is it legal ? - perhaps. Is it ethical ? - yes, if it is legal. Is it sporting ? - certainly not. I would not do it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 03:30:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:30:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA06871 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:29:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-184.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.184]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA16831 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 19:29:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37F8D4AA.8F409C51@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 18:24:10 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > > >Where in the Laws does it say so ? > > I believe that what we're discussing here is how to interpret the words of > L75C: "...shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through > partnership agreement or partnership experience." > > My position is that "all special information" includes not only that > information which affects your ultimate determination as to the meaning of > partner's action, but also that information which affects the certainty > with which you make that determination. > When I read that Law, I see no reason to change my opinion. "shall disclose all information conveyed to him". The information as to how certain I am of what I am about to disclosed was never _conveyed_ to me, so I need not disclose that. > >Let's give the following scenario. A player tells his > >opponents that some bid means something. It turns out he is > >wrong. Your ruling is that his partner has not used the UI, > >and that the opponents are not damaged by the MI. > >Now the player admits that he was not really certain at the > >time, and that he chose to tell the opponents, in a certain > >manner of speech, the option he really was counting on > >(erroneously as it turned out). he did not want to show to > >opponents his doubt. > >Now the opponent tells you "if he had told me that at the > >time, I would have doubled". > >Your ruling ? > > I don't quite follow Herman's example. Why would I have ruled that "the > opponents are not damaged by the MI" before I had any reason to rule that > there was MI? > Let's assume that there was MI and that you have ruled that there was no damage. It's all in my text, repeated above. > I don't think it does any damage to the example to assume that I have all > of the pertinent information Herman gives before I make any ruling at all, > so let me respond to that. > > The opponent would need not merely to say the words "if he had told me that > at the time, I would have doubled", but rather to convince me that that is > indeed the case. You say you can be convinced, though ! > He would not have such an easy time doing so, but if he > succeeded I would be prepared to adjust the score (assuming I found damage). > Well, the damage is there - the contract went down, so doubled would be better, so there is damage. Ruling please ? "If I had known he was not certain of the meaning of his partner's bid, I would have doubled him". I think this is BL-ing. > 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 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 03:35:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:35:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA06932 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:35:44 +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 KAA20603; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:35:03 -0700 Message-Id: <199910041735.KAA20603@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 04 Oct 1999 03:28:32 PDT." Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 10:35:03 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >In article <00c801bf0dbe$7f6f2140$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>, Fearghal > >O'Boyle writes > >> > >>5. East may either Pass in which case the final contract becomes 7S > >>undoubled down five (Law 25B2(b)(1)), or East may bid 7NT and receive 40% > >>(Law 25B2(b)(2)). > > > >yep, you're right, but East, on hearing of the implications of Law 25B > >(play ceases until the offender has had all his options given to him, > >L9B2) may well say "I don't want to bid 7NT then", in which case 25B > >doesn't really swing into gear, because we are not allowing his LHO the > >option of objecting to the substituted call. ie East has decided not to > >make a delayed and purposeful correction. Now we are back in UI > >territory. I appreciate that LHO objected originally, but that was to > >the infraction, not the delayed and purposeful correction which comes > >later. there will be those who disagree. chs John > > Yes, I expect so. What are you talking about John? L25B "swings into > gear" as soon as the player attempts to change his call and the TD rules > [a] the call has been made and [b] L25A does not apply. You apply iy > because the Law says you apply it - and it gives options that you apply. After reading the FLB, I'm getting the impression that this is yet another case where the wording got botched. The first sentence of 25B reads: "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A does not apply:". To me, this language (specifically, the use of the word "may") means that the Law says that a call may be legally substituted under some circumstances (over and above what is permitted by 25A), and the Law is going to list exactly what those circumstances are and what the consequences are. I'm getting the impression that John is interpreting the Law this way, when he believes L25B doesn't necessarily apply in this case. The other interpretation is that L25B tells what to do when a player attempts to substitute a call (when 25A doesn't apply). This is how David seems to be interpreting it. This interpretation doesn't seem consistent with the first sentence of 25B; but it appears to be the only interpretation consistent with the rest of 25B. So I can understand why there's confusion. I believe the first sentece of Law 25B should be changed, preferably to "The remainder of Law 25B, having been demonstrated to be an awful idea, is null and void"; but if the bridge community thinks this Law should be retained, I think the first sentence should be changed to something like "Until LHO calls, if a player attempts to substitute a call and Section A does not apply:" thus deleting the "may" which I think is incorrect, and replacing it with "if" which I think is the actual intent of the Law. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 04:36:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 04:36:35 +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 EAA07154 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 04:36:27 +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 OAA11737 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:36:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA297472178; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:36:18 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA220422177; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:36:17 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:36:03 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Law 75 - Flannery rides again 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 EAA07155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, Recently in my club I had to rule on this: North (dealer) Q 9 x x x A K J x x x x x West East A x x J x A J x x K x x x x x x Q x x D x x x A J x South K 10 x x Q x x x x K x x x N E S W 2D! P 2S X 3D X AP 2D was alerted an explained then by S as Flannery. X by W shows values (optional). 3D was not alerted and E-W did not question about this bid. Before lead N informed oppns 2D was not Flannery but weak. The hand was played and 3DX made. When called, I first chekced N-S CC and can clearly established that this pair plays weak 2D opening. So S gave a false information according to Law 75 and bid accordingly. N knew his partner bid 2S on Flannery when bidding 3D. Whitout any alert and question, 2S on a weak 2D should have promised 5+ Ss and N should have P the X. Then E will probably bid H.... I know it is a "deadly sin" to open 2D with such a "monster" and 4 cards in S, but I was not there to give bridge lessons... According to Law 16A, I think N used UI when bidding 3D. He probably tried to escape from a 4-3 S fit.... So I may adjust score using Law 12C to restore equity. What is the score you choose ? - 3H by E-W (140) because id N do not use UI and P the X, E would normaly bid 3H (...or 4H...)? - 2D by N-S (110) (the auction on weak 2D should have been: 2D - P - P - P) ? - any other option ? What is your ruling if this pair effectively plays 2D as Flannery but N forgot and misbid when opening ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 04:38:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:12:29 +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 DAA06827 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:12:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 2617 invoked by uid 0); 4 Oct 1999 17:11:40 -0000 Message-ID: <19991004171140.2616.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 04 Oct 1999 10:11:40 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Law 50D2 clarification Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 17:11:40 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a silly question, but I keep having this niggling doubt about it. Defender has a major penalty card, and his partner is on lead. Declarer allows leader to lead anything (L50D2b); leader wins this trick, and the penalty card is still on the table. Does declarer now have her L50D2 options again (i.e. can she now require an X lead, even though last trick she allowed any lead)? I am almost certain that the answer is "of course, WTP?" but I'd like confirmation... Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 05:44:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 05:44:41 +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 FAA07333 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 05:44:30 +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 MAA22517; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:43:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199910041943.MAA22517@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 75 - Flannery rides again In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 04 Oct 1999 14:36:03 PDT." Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 12:43:51 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Hi all, > > Recently in my club I had to rule on this: > > North (dealer) > Q 9 x x > x > A K J x x x > x x > West East > A x x J x > A J x x K x x x x > x x Q x x > D x x x A J x > > South > K 10 x x > Q x x > x x > K x x x > > N E S W > 2D! P 2S X > 3D X AP > > 2D was alerted an explained then by S as Flannery. > X by W shows values (optional). 3D was not alerted and > E-W did not question about this bid. Before lead > N informed oppns 2D was not Flannery but weak. > The hand was played and 3DX made. > > When called, I first chekced N-S CC and can clearly > established that this pair plays weak 2D opening. So S gave a > false information according to Law 75 and bid accordingly. > N knew his partner bid 2S on Flannery when bidding 3D. > Whitout any alert and question, 2S on a weak 2D should > have promised 5+ Ss and N should have P the X. No, N should have raised, IMHO. No matter whether West's double was "takeout" or "card-showing", North should bid on because (1) they will probably make something in spades, and (2) the opponents probably have a heart fit and North doesn't want them to find it. The chance that N-S will get to play 2S doubled is nil, so there's no reason for North to pass. At least that's the way I would think of it. I wouldn't open 2D with the North hand unless you put a gun to my head, but if you did and I did, and I heard 2S from my partner (which I play as forcing), I would jump to 4S straightaway and expect partner to make it. On the other hand, if 2S isn't forcing, perhaps all I could do is raise to 3. This is one of the missing pieces of information here---was South's 2S forcing over a weak 2D? Anyway, you have to consider this possibility as TD, that if North had not taken advantage of UI, N-S might have gotten to 4S doubled. Then you figure out how that would have scored, using both criteria in L12C2: "the most favorable result that was likely" for E-W, or "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" for N-S. This isn't a trivial hand to analyze, but I suspect that 4S would be down 1 using the "likely" criterion and down 2 using the "at all probable" measure. The result then depends on the vulnerability. My inclination is that if N-S are vulnerable, I give N-S -500 for 4SX down 2, E-W +200 for 4SX down 1. If N-S are nonvul, I give N-S -300 for 4SX down 2, E-W +140 for 3H making (not +100 for 4SX down 1, since +140 is a more favorable result). > Then E will probably bid H.... > > I know it is a "deadly sin" to open 2D with such a "monster" > and 4 cards in S, but I was not there to give bridge lessons... > > According to Law 16A, I think N used UI when bidding 3D. Yes. 3D cannot be allowed. > He probably tried to escape from a 4-3 S fit.... > So I may adjust score using Law 12C to restore equity. > > What is the score you choose ? > - 3H by E-W (140) because id N do not use UI and P the X, > E would normaly bid 3H (...or 4H...)? As I said above, I think North might do something other than passing the double, so I will give E-W a better score than +140 and N-S a worse score if the criteria of L12C2 allow me to. > - 2D by N-S (110) (the auction on weak 2D should have been: > 2D - P - P - P) ? Absolutely not. I think you're making a fundamental mistake: you're imagining how the auction would go if South had understood North's bid properly. That's not correct, because South's misunderstanding is not an infraction, and therefore South's 2S bid must stand. You have to imagine how the auction would go if North hadn't committed an infraction by bidding 3D; therefore, you back the auction up to cancel the 3D bid, BUT NOT BEFORE, and proceed from there. > - any other option ? Yup. See above. > What is your ruling if this pair effectively plays 2D as Flannery > but N forgot and misbid when opening ? There are two differences: (1) There wouldn't be any MI. In the actual case, there's MI as well as UI, and when adjusting, you have to assume that E-W got the correct information, and therefore would have no problem finding their heart fit (if North didn't jam the auction). But in the second case, there's no MI, so when determining what likely would have happened, you have to take that into account, and include the possibility that the misbid might have prevented E-W from finding their heart fit. (2) It's harder to determine whether North thought 2S would be forcing over a weak 2D, since they don't actually play a weak 2D. However, you can find out whether they play new suits forcing over a weak 2H or 2S and assume it's the same. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 05:48:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 05:48:58 +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 FAA07354 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 05:48:50 +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 MAA22595; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:48:10 -0700 Message-Id: <199910041948.MAA22595@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 50D2 clarification In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 04 Oct 1999 17:11:40 PST." <19991004171140.2616.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 12:48:11 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > This is a silly question, but I keep having this niggling doubt about it. > > Defender has a major penalty card, and his partner is on lead. Declarer > allows leader to lead anything (L50D2b); leader wins this trick, and the > penalty card is still on the table. > > Does declarer now have her L50D2 options again (i.e. can she now require an > X lead, even though last trick she allowed any lead)? > > I am almost certain that the answer is "of course, WTP?" but I'd like > confirmation... I believe she has her options again. L50D says the partner of the defender with the penalty card may be subject to restriction "when he is to lead"---so if he is to lead on two consecutive tricks, the law applies to both consecutive tricks. (If L50D had used language such as "when he gains the lead", the answer might be different.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 06:01:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 04:21:23 +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 EAA07103 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 04:21:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22276 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 20:20:50 +0200 Received: from ip115.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.115), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb22271; Mon Oct 4 20:20:43 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 20:20:43 +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 EAA07110 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:10:00 -0400, Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >May a palyer (dummy or defender) tell his partner he placed >a card wrong side on table (won or lost) ? I cannot resist the temptation to use this excuse to bring up the part of the question that nobody else seems to have reacted to: may a _defender_ tell his partner he placed his card wrongly? My point of view is that L9A2a gives an defender a clear right to do so "unless prohibited by law", and that L73A/L73B1 cannot reasonably be interpreted as such a prohibition. We've discussed it before, and I was then in a very small minority. I would like to see whether anybody has changed their mind. If L73 were to be interpreted as such a prohibition, then it seems to me that it must also forbid all players to call attention to _any_ irregularity at all, since calling attention to any irregularity gives information to partner and may cause him to play differently than he would otherwise. In other words: I would appreciate it if those who believe that L73 forbids a defender to tell his partner he placed his card wrongly would explain to me why this particular irregularity differs from other irregularities in this respect. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 06:04:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:04:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA07395 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:04:00 +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 QAA23480 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:04:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991004160514.00704b08@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:05:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: MI in the Lady Connell In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:48 AM 10/4/99 +0100, David wrote: > Playing in our top local competition, the County knockout, the >following sequence occurred: > > 1D 2D 3D 3H > AP > > I bid 3D on a 1=4=4=4 hand. 2D was alerted and described as hearts >and spades. > > Before my partner made the opening lead, dummy pointed out that 2D >showed spades and clubs. > > It struck me that >[1] I can take my last pass back. >[2] I could substitute a double. >[3] Both my partner and I have AI that the opponents may easily be in a >4-2 fit or worse. >[4] Since both opponents have UI neither would be able to remove the >contract to a sensible contract. > > I didn't change my last pass, and 3H went four off because partner >[John Armstrong] and I both misdefended to give declarer a silly trick - >five off was routine. None of my team would expect me to double this >contract in the circumstances, which seems like shooting fish in a >barrel. > > Does everyone agree, though, that I could have done so, and defended >3Hx, and has anyone any doubts on the ethics of doing so? Yes, and yes. Doubling would fall into the grey area we call "unsportsmanlike", somewhere in between unethical and entirely ethical. We can argue all we want over the semantics of whether unsportsmanlike bridge-lawyering should be called "ethical" or "unethical" or something else, but whatever we call it, that double would have illustrated it, and most of us would avoid it. Perhaps it isn't unethical, but it sure smells like it. Apparently David's teammates would agree. 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 Oct 5 06:15:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:15:26 +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 GAA07438 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:15:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveija.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.106]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA31134 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:15:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991004160750.012b98f4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:07:50 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: MI in the Lady Connell In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:48 AM 10/4/99 +0100, David S wrote: > Does everyone agree, though, that I could have done so, and defended >3Hx, and has anyone any doubts on the ethics of doing so? > I agree that you certainly could have done so, as a matter of law. If by some unfavorable happenstance unrelated to any addtional legal missteps by your opponents, this tactic backfires, you will get no protection. As to the ethics, I think this has been discussed in another thread recently, and I certainly agree that their is nothing unethical about using the Laws and your opponent's errors to maximize your own score, much as you might exploit a penalty card. I do think you're courting hard feelings from your opponents, depending on their level of sophistication, and possibly inviting an unpleasant situation involving the TD and appeals and all that. Finally, you are risking the possibility that your TD will (mistakenly) consider your action to be an illegal double shot, and will rule to let the opponents get out of their pickle. So the wisdom of the double has more to do with factors extraneous to the game itself than it does with direct questions of either Laws or ethics. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 06:15:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:15:28 +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 GAA07437 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:15:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveija.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.106]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA02924 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:15:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991004155535.012b9920@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 15:55:35 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Law 75 - Flannery rides again In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:36 PM 10/4/99 -0400, Laval wrote: >Hi all, > >Recently in my club I had to rule on this: > > North (dealer) > Q 9 x x > x > A K J x x x > x x >West East >A x x J x >A J x x K x x x x >x x Q x x >D x x x A J x > > South > K 10 x x > Q x x > x x > K x x x > > N E S W >2D! P 2S X >3D X AP > >2D was alerted an explained then by S as Flannery. >X by W shows values (optional). 3D was not alerted and >E-W did not question about this bid. Before lead >N informed oppns 2D was not Flannery but weak. >The hand was played and 3DX made. > >When called, I first chekced N-S CC and can clearly >established that this pair plays weak 2D opening. So S gave a >false information according to Law 75 and bid accordingly. >N knew his partner bid 2S on Flannery when bidding 3D. >Whitout any alert and question, 2S on a weak 2D should >have promised 5+ Ss and N should have P the X. >Then E will probably bid H.... > >I know it is a "deadly sin" to open 2D with such a "monster" >and 4 cards in S, but I was not there to give bridge lessons... > >According to Law 16A, I think N used UI when bidding 3D. >He probably tried to escape from a 4-3 S fit.... >So I may adjust score using Law 12C to restore equity. I would be tempted to go further. Unless N is a rookie, the 3D bid was a pretty blatant use of UI, and merits a PP, in addition to whatever score adjustment seems equitable. >What is the score you choose ? >- 3H by E-W (140) because id N do not use UI and P the X, > E would normaly bid 3H (...or 4H...)? This is certainly 1 possibility. It seems reasonably likely that E-W +140 could have occurred, and I see no reason for a split score. But how about -300/-500 (depending on vulnerablity)? Absent the UI, North certainly has a possible 4S bid, and this contract could fail by 2 tricks. I would want more information before settling on a final score adjustment, such as NS methods over pre-empts (would 2S ordinarily be forcing, e.g.), but something in this neighborhood seems right. >- 2D by N-S (110) (the auction on weak 2D should have been: > 2D - P - P - P) ? Should have been? Why? There was nothing illegal about S forgetting his methods. His 2S bid stands, unless you wish to argue that East might have bid differently at his first turn, given correct information, which seems unlikely. West _might_ have done something different, but then again, maybe not. Certainly the opponents would have been apt to find their 9-card heart fit without the MI, unless North further disrupts their bidding with a leap to 4S (see above). >What is your ruling if this pair effectively plays 2D as Flannery >but N forgot and misbid when opening ? No difference. Prior to 1987, the Laws distinguished between a mis-bid and a mis-described agreement in their comparative UI implications, which seemed sound to me then (as now). But even under that approach, North is disallowed from making a bid which would be considered very unusual _except_ for the UI, and certainly removing from spades holding 4 falls in that category. In any case, that distinction no longer applies. North has UI (partner expects spades, and has no idea about the diamond holding), he has LA's (some number of spades), and the UI clearly makes the 3D call more attractive than it would otherwise be, relative to LA's. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 06:19:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:19:46 +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 GAA07468 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:19:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA26074 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:20:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991004162054.00710228@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:20:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991004120210.007a1100@eiu.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <37F4E40B.2C7284A0@village.uunet.be> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:02 PM 10/4/99 -0500, Grant wrote: > "We haven't discussed that bid explicitly, but everyone around here plays >it as 15-17." Notice that I have not merely said "I think that bid >probably shows 15-17", which would display uncertainty but would not, in >fact, convey the nature of the nature of the [non-]agreement. > My position is that one never has to reply to a question by saying "I >think that means 'x' but I am unsure." The disclosure of agreements and >experience required by L75C requires one to disclose the factors that have >caused you to be unsure. > I find it hard to imagine a situation where I am not sure what my >partner's call means but I have no specific relevant information to reveal >which explains that uncertainty. Grant has stated my position more clearly than I did, and I believe he's gotten it exactly right. When you must determine what partner's action means, you decide what knowledge that you have is relevant, you consider that knowledge, and you decide that it meant X. If you are uncertain, you don't say "I think it means X but I'm not really sure" (nor "it tends to show X", which is simply not true); you simply deliver the relevant knowledge to the opponents and let them make their own determination. The point is that just because some particular piece of relevant information didn't affect your ultimate decision to play partner for X, that doesn't entitle you to withhold it from the opponents. 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 Oct 5 06:39:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:39:20 +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 GAA07532 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:39:12 +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 QAA28895 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:40:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:40:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <37F8D4AA.8F409C51@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:24 PM 10/4/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >Where in the Laws does it say so ? >> >> I believe that what we're discussing here is how to interpret the words of >> L75C: "...shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through >> partnership agreement or partnership experience." >> >> My position is that "all special information" includes not only that >> information which affects your ultimate determination as to the meaning of >> partner's action, but also that information which affects the certainty >> with which you make that determination. >> > >When I read that Law, I see no reason to change my opinion. >"shall disclose all information conveyed to him". >The information as to how certain I am of what I am about to >disclosed was never _conveyed_ to me, so I need not disclose >that. Conveyance need not be explicit; it can be by omission. The information as to how certain you are will not have been "conveyed", but the knowledge that *caused* that uncertainty will have been. >> >Let's give the following scenario. A player tells his >> >opponents that some bid means something. It turns out he is >> >wrong. Your ruling is that his partner has not used the UI, >> >and that the opponents are not damaged by the MI. >> >Now the player admits that he was not really certain at the >> >time, and that he chose to tell the opponents, in a certain >> >manner of speech, the option he really was counting on >> >(erroneously as it turned out). he did not want to show to >> >opponents his doubt. >> >Now the opponent tells you "if he had told me that at the >> >time, I would have doubled". >> >Your ruling ? >> >> I don't quite follow Herman's example. Why would I have ruled that "the >> opponents are not damaged by the MI" before I had any reason to rule that >> there was MI? > >Let's assume that there was MI and that you have ruled that >there was no damage. It's all in my text, repeated above. What MI do you want me to assume? Until the player admits that he may have omitted some relevant factor, how am I to know that there may have been any MI? When you say "our agreement is X" without expressing uncertainty, surely it is possible that this is correct information! In Herman's example, however, the player has subsequently admitted that it was not. >> I don't think it does any damage to the example to assume that I have all >> of the pertinent information Herman gives before I make any ruling at all, >> so let me respond to that. >> >> The opponent would need not merely to say the words "if he had told me that >> at the time, I would have doubled", but rather to convince me that that is >> indeed the case. > >You say you can be convinced, though ! > >> He would not have such an easy time doing so, but if he >> succeeded I would be prepared to adjust the score (assuming I found damage). > >Well, the damage is there - the contract went down, so >doubled would be better, so there is damage. Ruling please >? When we talk about "damage" in the context of laws and rulings, I don't think we normally include "damage" caused by our opponents good (or lucky) actions; we use "damage" as shorthand for "damage resulting from an opponent's infraction". Herman may be correct in some semantic sense to say that any time an opponent's contract goes down undoubled (or makes doubled, or makes when you could have beaten it), you have been "damaged", but I don't see how that's relevant. >"If I had known he was not certain of the meaning of his >partner's bid, I would have doubled him". > >I think this is BL-ing. And I think that it usually is, but also that I owe my players the opportunity to try to convince me (albeit with not much hope of success) that their particular such statement is not. 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 Oct 5 06:48:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:48:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from ws2.icl.co.uk (mailgate.icl.co.uk [194.176.223.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA07550 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:47:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.icl.co.uk (mailgate [172.16.2.3]) by ws2.icl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA21319 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:44:12 +0100 (BST) Received: from vguard1.icl.co.uk by mailgate.icl.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16890; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:46:08 +0100 Received: FROM x400.icl.co.uk BY vguard1.icl.co.uk ; Mon Oct 04 21:48:32 1999 +0100 Received: (from root@localhost) by x400.icl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.2) id VAA01811 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:46:07 +0100 (BST) X400-Received: by mta umg in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 21:45:21 +0100 X400-Received: by mta fel01xc in /PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 21:31:43 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 21:38:39 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 22:49:00 +0200 Date: Mon, 04 Oct 99 22:49:00 +0200 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G3002161480001000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: From: "Jan Romanski" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Importance: normal Subject: A Multi Case Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A hand from Vilnius (Lithuania) International Congress. 93 Teams, Love all, Dealer N 1087643 A74 106 W N E S A106 KQJ85 AJ9 KQ5 2D X PASS 9865 Q 3NT PASS 4S PASS Q75 A942 4NT PASS PASS PASS 742 2 KJ1032 Lead: DA then D7. KJ83 Result: -2 2D alerted as Multi. S's PASS promised diamonds and was not alerted. EW claimed that they should know NS's agreement and W will never bid 3NT knowing that opponents has diamonds. EW - very good pair (two world champions). NS - good pair (national champions). What rulling should be in this case. Jan Romanski ________________________________________________ phone: +48(0)22 6310566 mobile: +48 601403308 email: jan.romanski@icl.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 06:58:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:58:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA07572 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:58:37 +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 QAA11625 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:58:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:58:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199910042058.QAA07336@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA) Subject: Re: Law 75 - Flannery rides again Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval_Dubreuil writes: > North (dealer) > Q 9 x x > x > A K J x x x > x x > West East > A x x J x > A J x x K x x x x > x x Q x x > D x x x A J x > South > K 10 x x > Q x x > x x > K x x x > N E S W > 2D! P 2S X > 3D X AP > 2D was alerted an explained then by S as Flannery [incorrectly] > X by W shows values (optional). 3D was not alerted and > E-W did not question about this bid. Before lead > N informed oppns 2D was not Flannery but weak. > The hand was played and 3DX made. North has UI, and therefore he may not bid 3D over another LA which is not suggested by the UI. On North's actual hand, 3S is a LA, and pass may be, depending on N-S's agreements (is 2S forcing over a weak 2-bid)? If 3S is the only LA, is it likely to go down (presumably doubled)? I think it can: club lead to the ace, heart back, heart to tap dummy, SQ to West's ace, dummy tapped again, draw trumps, AK of diamonds, and declarer still has two club losers for down one. Adjust to 3Sx down one for both sides. If North could pass, it gets harder. East is prevented from bidding a natural 3H by MI; had East not been misinformed, he could have bid 3H. Now do we force a double on South, who thinks he is doubling a cue-bid opposite partner's Flannery? And does 3H make three or four? (If West has the CT, 3H making four seems likely; DAK and third diamond ruffed, declarer draws trumps, loses the club finesse, spade back, and East's spade goes away on the fourth club. If West doesn't have the CT, making three is the maximum.) > What is the score you choose ? > - 3H by E-W (140) because id N do not use UI and P the X, > E would normaly bid 3H (...or 4H...)? > - 2D by N-S (110) (the auction on weak 2D should have been: > 2D - P - P - P) ? This is not a possible auction; South's 2S was not an infraction. > What is your ruling if this pair effectively plays 2D as Flannery > but N forgot and misbid when opening ? Now East has no MI. If North bids 3S, it makes no difference. But If North passes, East's 3H would be a cue-bid. 2NT by East seems possible, and on a heart lead, it makes three or four depending on who has the CT. This is an interesting problem. If there is MI, then EW might get +140. If there is no MI, then EW would get a better score of +150. -- 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 Tue Oct 5 07:00:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:13:49 +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 DAA06836 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:13:40 +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 MAA21348 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:15:50 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991004121410.007c39b0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 12:14:10 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: MI in the Lady Connell In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:48 AM 10/4/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > Playing in our top local competition, the County knockout, the >following sequence occurred: > > 1D 2D 3D 3H > AP > > I bid 3D on a 1=4=4=4 hand. 2D was alerted and described as hearts >and spades. > > Before my partner made the opening lead, dummy pointed out that 2D >showed spades and clubs. > > It struck me that >[1] I can take my last pass back. >[2] I could substitute a double. >[3] Both my partner and I have AI that the opponents may easily be in a >4-2 fit or worse. >[4] Since both opponents have UI neither would be able to remove the >contract to a sensible contract. > > I didn't change my last pass, and 3H went four off because partner >[John Armstrong] and I both misdefended to give declarer a silly trick - >five off was routine. None of my team would expect me to double this >contract in the circumstances, which seems like shooting fish in a >barrel. > > Does everyone agree, though, that I could have done so, and defended >3Hx, and has anyone any doubts on the ethics of doing so? Well, probably to the former--I'd have to know their hands to be sure that passing 3Hx out was a suggested LA. I suspect you're right about that. I, personally, would never double this bid in this situation, and I would not want my partners to do so. I guess that means I think it is unethical--it's legal and might improve your score, but I'd never do it. {If dummy had given the UI during the auction, or had given it frivolously afterwards, I would feel differently. But it seems highly unsporting to use information gained after the auction is over, resulting from opponents following their legal disclosure obligations, just to reopen the auction and penalize them _just because any remedy for them has now become barred_. But there is no legal reason not to do this, that I can think of. >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 07:15:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 07:15:17 +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 HAA07616 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 07:15:09 +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 OAA24263; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:14:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199910042114.OAA24263@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 75 - Flannery rides again In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:58:25 PDT." <199910042058.QAA07336@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 14:14:25 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Laval_Dubreuil writes: > > > North (dealer) > > Q 9 x x > > x > > A K J x x x > > x x > > West East > > A x x J x > > A J x x K x x x x > > x x Q x x > > D x x x A J x > > > South > > K 10 x x > > Q x x > > x x > > K x x x > > > N E S W > > 2D! P 2S X > > 3D X AP > > If 3S is the only LA, is it likely to go down (presumably doubled)? I > think it can: club lead to the ace, heart back, heart to tap dummy, SQ > to West's ace, dummy tapped again, draw trumps, AK of diamonds, and > declarer still has two club losers for down one. Adjust to 3Sx down one > for both sides. I think I miscounted tricks when I posted my last response, even though I imagined the same line of play as David's. Based on this, since I thought getting to 4Sx was a good possibility (depending on whether they play new suits forcing over weak 2's), I'm changing my answer to 4Sx down 2 for both sides. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 08:13:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:13:58 +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 IAA07700 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:13:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from p2as02a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.162.43] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11YGMS-0006ef-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:13:37 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:18:46 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0eb6$6cd81340$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: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, October 04, 1999 9:35 PM Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner >On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:10:00 -0400, >Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > >>May a palyer (dummy or defender) tell his partner he placed >>a card wrong side on table (won or lost) ? > >I cannot resist the temptation to use this excuse to bring up the >part of the question that nobody else seems to have reacted to: >may a _defender_ tell his partner he placed his card wrongly? > >My point of view is that L9A2a gives an defender a clear right to >do so "unless prohibited by law", and that L73A/L73B1 cannot >reasonably be interpreted as such a prohibition. > >We've discussed it before, and I was then in a very small >minority. I would like to see whether anybody has changed their >mind. > >If L73 were to be interpreted as such a prohibition, then it >seems to me that it must also forbid all players to call >attention to _any_ irregularity at all, since calling attention >to any irregularity gives information to partner and may cause >him to play differently than he would otherwise. > >In other words: I would appreciate it if those who believe that >L73 forbids a defender to tell his partner he placed his card >wrongly would explain to me why this particular irregularity >differs from other irregularities in this respect. L9A2a allows you to call the TD and tell him about an irregularity. A deviation from correct procedure is such an irregularity. However, I believe L73 does prohibit you from saying to your partner,"you have quitted that trick incorrectly" A subtle difference you may think, but now we have the situation where TD can explain to your partner that he has UI and may not choose etc.,etc. It is probably not worth the bother of calling the TD to tell partner at this stage if it will not help him play the contract, and I am sure the Laws prohibit you from talking to him during the play. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 08:17:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:17:39 +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 IAA07715 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:17:31 +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 11YGQ3-0003VO-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 22:17:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:54:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: MI in the Lady Connell References: <199910041358.JAA14370@freenet5.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199910041358.JAA14370@freenet5.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >> >> >> Playing in our top local competition, the County knockout, the >>following sequence occurred: >> >> 1D 2D 3D 3H >> AP >> >> I bid 3D on a 1=4=4=4 hand. 2D was alerted and described as hearts >>and spades. >> >> Before my partner made the opening lead, dummy pointed out that 2D >>showed spades and clubs. >> >> It struck me that >>[1] I can take my last pass back. >>[2] I could substitute a double. >>[3] Both my partner and I have AI that the opponents may easily be in a >>4-2 fit or worse. >>[4] Since both opponents have UI neither would be able to remove the >>contract to a sensible contract. >> >> I didn't change my last pass, and 3H went four off because partner >>[John Armstrong] and I both misdefended to give declarer a silly trick - >>five off was routine. None of my team would expect me to double this >>contract in the circumstances, which seems like shooting fish in a >>barrel. >> >> Does everyone agree, though, that I could have done so, and defended >>3Hx, and has anyone any doubts on the ethics of doing so? >> >I think that anything that is legal is (almost) always ethical. >Therefore, taking advantage of the opponents is just heads up >bridge. However, I may be mis-reading L21B1. I thought that >a player could make a change in call "...provided that his >partner has not subsequently called." Since your partner has >passed, does this not prevent the change of call? I could see >the basis for an adjusted score, but not a change of call. >Have I read this section incorrectly? No, it is this hand you have read incorrectly: Me 1D 2D 3D 3H P P P I was in the pass-out seat. If I had not been, then the same argument could have been applied to John 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 Tue Oct 5 08:20:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 04:21:19 +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 EAA07101 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 04:21:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22275 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 20:20:50 +0200 Received: from ip115.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.115), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda22271; Mon Oct 4 20:20:41 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MI in the Lady Connell Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 20:20:41 +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 EAA07104 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:48:30 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Playing in our top local competition, the County knockout, the >following sequence occurred: > > 1D 2D 3D 3H > AP > > I bid 3D on a 1=4=4=4 hand. 2D was alerted and described as hearts >and spades. > > Before my partner made the opening lead, dummy pointed out that 2D >showed spades and clubs. > > It struck me that >[1] I can take my last pass back. >[2] I could substitute a double. >[3] Both my partner and I have AI that the opponents may easily be in a >4-2 fit or worse. >[4] Since both opponents have UI neither would be able to remove the >contract to a sensible contract. > > I didn't change my last pass, and 3H went four off because partner >[John Armstrong] and I both misdefended to give declarer a silly trick - >five off was routine. None of my team would expect me to double this >contract in the circumstances, which seems like shooting fish in a >barrel. > > Does everyone agree, though, that I could have done so, and defended >3Hx, and has anyone any doubts on the ethics of doing so? L21B1 only allows a player to change a call "when it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation...". Was your pass the result of misinformation? To determine this we need to judge whether you would have doubled or passed if you had correct information at the time you passed. If you had correct information (e.g., because you happened to know the opponents' system perfectly beforehand) and knew from the explanation that your LHO had misunderstood the bid and RHO had UI, but LHO had no UI, would you have doubled? You probably would, because it is RHO's UI that is important, and LHO probably won't run. So yes, I think you can change your call. And in accordance with my general view that getting points by making legal decisions cannot be unethical, I would have no problem at all with the ethics. But if your desire to double were based on _LHO_'s UI, then your pass was IMO not made as a result of misinformation. You did not know at the time you chose to pass that LHO would have UI - if in fact you had doubled, he would not have received this UI until after the auction, and he would therefore have been free to run (though he probably would not do so on this auction). The last complication is of course that if you had correct information in advance, you would probably not have asked about the meaning of 2D at all, and neither opponent would have UI. I think we need to ignore that complication: there are limits to how far we should trace the cause of everything back to earlier events. RHO's UI actually existed at the time you chose to pass, and it cannot be undone. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 08:47:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:47:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail10.svr.pol.co.uk (mail10.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.214]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07794 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:47:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem4294967268.religion.dialup.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.156] helo=biggy) by mail10.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11YGtU-0004y7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:47:44 +0100 Message-Id: <4.1.19991004233501.00a42b10@pop.swinternet.net> X-Sender: brighton-bridge.swinternet.co.uk@pop.swinternet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 23:54:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Dave Armstrong Subject: I think partner has... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At the club tonight the bidding went - N E S W 1NT p p X 2C X 2D A X All pass The 2D was alerted the explained as "Although it is an unusual sequence I think it is still a transfer to hearts." The hands were A x 9 x x A x x K J x x x K Q x x x J x x A K Q J x x x K x Q 10 x x x x A Q 9 x x x x x x J x x x x x x West claimed that the alert was misleading and with no alert she would have bid 2S which would have led to 4S + 650 instead of 300. yes 300? Table ruling - adjust to 4S + 1 Appeal - upheld + 650 Is this right? 2H doubled -6? 3D doubled -3? Why did North pass after this dubious explanation? Was it ethical? Why did 2D only go 2 off? Should this affect the ruling? Why isn't Soap on the TV any more? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 08:49:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:25:54 +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 DAA06858 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:25:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA14577; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:19:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-120.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.120) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014555; Mon Oct 4 12:19:29 1999 Message-ID: <006701bf0e8c$acdf7840$7884d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:19:48 -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 Thank you for this clarification. The cases you have cited would appear to be in the "white lie" realm, where the person stating a known untruth does so in the (perhaps mistaken) belief that it is not wrong. I agree that this need not be unethical, lacking an intent to harm. To reinforce your original point, that's why I'm glad I asked, rather than just going around "quoting" DWS that "lying isn't unethical." That didn't sound like you...and for good reason...it was neither what you said nor intended but imcorrect inference from your actual statement. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? >Craig Senior wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >>> I object strongly to people misquoting me by making things up I never >>>said. Of course I have suggested that it may be illegal to tell lies >>>about the nature of your agreement, but I have never suggested it is >>>unethical. > >>To quote you out of context:"> This is one of the saddest comments ever >>made on BLML. " >> >>Do you really mean that you have never suggested that telling lies is >>unethical? This does not seem to conform with anything I think I know of >>you. We are not talking about false cards, psychs or other deceptive bids or >>plays. We are talking about deliberate lying when a full and truthful answer >>is required by the laws of the game. I can only assume you were speaking >>tongue in cheek or that I am somehow misinterpreting you, as I have >>difficulty seeing how this could be anything but unethical. Please clarify >>what you mean...I don't want to go around misquoting you. > > Well, you have now added the word deliberate. > > If you lie about your agreements there are a number of reasons for >this, and without going further than this you cannot be sure that the >reason is bad enough to make it unethical. > > Let me give you three examples. Herman De Wael, Mike Dennis and >Marvin French are prepared to lie about their agreements. They do so >because of their perceived ideas. Herman's arguments are that he lies >in positions that he judges that the lie benefits the opponents. Mike's >arguments are that to use "hedges" is illegal even when it correctly >expresses your agreements. Marvin's arguments are that you only need to >disclose "Special" agreements so he is prepared to lie over agreements >that he does not see as "Special" in his own definition. > > Are these three unethical? No, not in my view. I believe them to be >mistaken in their understanding of the Laws, and I believe they think >they have a *right* to lie in these particular situations. I think it >would be better if we convinced them otherwise, but I do not believe >that they think they are doing anything wrong, so their actions are not >unethical. > > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 5 09:21:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:21:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07861 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:21:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26202; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:20:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199910042320.QAA26202@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: I think partner has... In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 04 Oct 1999 23:54:21 PDT." <4.1.19991004233501.00a42b10@pop.swinternet.net> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:20:47 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dave Armstrong wrote: > At the club tonight the bidding went - > > N E S W > 1NT p p X > 2C X 2D A X > All pass > > The 2D was alerted the explained as "Although it is an unusual sequence I > think it is still a transfer to hearts." > > > The hands were > A x > 9 x x > A x x > K J x x x > > K Q x x x J x x > A K Q J x x x > K x Q 10 x > x x x A Q 9 > > x x x > x x x > J x x x x > x x > > West claimed that the alert was misleading and with no alert she would have > bid 2S which would have led to 4S + 650 > instead of 300. yes 300? > Table ruling - adjust to 4S + 1 > > Appeal - upheld + 650 > > Is this right? Looks reasonable to me. > 2H doubled -6? > 3D doubled -3? No and no. North doesn't have UI, so can bid whatever he likes. South has UI but no logical alternative to passing. So the N-S bids are legal, and you can't force them to play a different contract. You can only change what you think E-W would have bid if given correct information. > Why did North pass after this dubious explanation? I don't know---my ESP machine is off being repaired. It's likely that North was hedging against the chance his explanation was wrong, letting South correct to 2H if he really had hearts. > Was it ethical? Yes. This is not a UI situation for North, so he gets to bid whatever he wants. Also, North may not have been 100% sure that he had the correct meaning, but I think he expressed this to the opponents sufficiently when he said "I think". There's no Law that says you can't bid in such a way to hedge against a possible misunderstanding with your partner (assuming you're not restricted by UI). > Why did 2D only go 2 off? Where are the diamond intermediates? > Should this affect the ruling? It depends on where you are. In Britain, I don't think it affects it at all. Over here in America, the TD/AC would look at the play of the hand and determine whether E-W should have gotten +800 and whether not doing so was due to egregiously bad defense. If so, they'd rule that E-W deserved their bad result and let them keep their +300 (but adjust the N-S score to -650). > Why isn't Soap on the TV any more? Because your wife put it back in the bath where it belongs. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 09:39:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:39:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f326.hotmail.com [207.82.250.105]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA07890 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:39:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 15695 invoked by uid 0); 4 Oct 1999 23:39:04 -0000 Message-ID: <19991004233904.15694.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:39:04 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Multi Case Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 23:39:04 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Jan Romanski" >A hand from Vilnius (Lithuania) International Congress. > > 93 Teams, Love all, Dealer N > 1087643 > A74 > 106 W N E S >A106 KQJ85 >AJ9 KQ5 2D X PASS >9865 Q 3NT PASS 4S PASS >Q75 A942 4NT PASS PASS PASS > 742 > 2 > KJ1032 Lead: DA then D7. > KJ83 Result: -2 > > >2D alerted as Multi. S's PASS promised diamonds and was not alerted. >EW claimed that they should know NS's agreement and W will never bid >3NT knowing that opponents has diamonds. >EW - very good pair (two world champions). >NS - good pair (national champions). > >What ruling should be in this case. > I am sure you are going to get this from the regulars as well, but we need to know at least these three things before any ruling can be given: 1) What strong options (if any) are contained in the 2D opener? 2) did W ask about the pass? What information was W given? 3) under what regulations was this congress being held? Is pass of Multi doubled to show diamonds alertable under the regulations? Being from Canada, I am most familiar with ACBL regulations, so I will offer my thought pattern based on my ruling here. I have read the ACBL alert procedure, and I can't see anything that obviously states that the pass would be Alertable in the ACBL (playing mid-Chart, so that 2D is legal). In fact, it is both an offer to play in the suit with sufficient length in the suit to be comfortable (therefore "natural"), and as far as I can tell the expected meaning for the pass (i.e. I would expect pass not meaning "partner, I'd be happy playing 2Dx" to be unusual enough to be Alertable, especially if there were no strong options to the Multi). Strangely for such a comprehensive document, the ACBL alert procedure is almost silent on Alertable passes. The only way I would rule in favour of EW is if: 1) South's pass was Alertable under the Conditions of Contest of the congress. or 2) West asked about the pass, and was given misinformation. or 3) I could be convinced that pass = natural was sufficiently unusual after a Multi-2D in the community of the congress to be Alertable for being unexpected. I am in a part of the world that is relatively untainted by Multi-anything, so I don't know the standard followups, and my quick look though Anderson & Zenkel doesn't offer an obvious rule. As I said, however, it seems obvious to play pass as "want to play here, pd?" (i.e. long diamonds) as is normal with a mini-Multi (no strong options). Obviously, I can't say anything for certain unless I knew the Alerting regulations for the congress, but my gut feeling is to let 'em hang. "What did you think the pass meant, given that it wasn't Alerted?" I'd have a lot more sympathy for EW if they had missed 3NT because they thought S had diamonds, and South's pass was "bid your major, pd". Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 10:10:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:10:25 +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 KAA07959 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:10:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-002.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.194]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA40202; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:09:19 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <00fa01bf0ec7$d950dfa0$c2307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "Craig Senior" Cc: Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:23:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Whatever makes you think that West must pass if East passes? Even by ACBL >srtandards pass in not an LA except for a rank novice. >-- >Craig Senior Law 25B2b(1) Assuming East Passed then changed purposely to 7NT which was not accepted. Now since his first call (Pass) was legal, 25B2b(1) says East may Pass stand in which case West will have to Pass for one round. UI doesn't come into it! Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 10:24:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:24:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08003 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:24:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from p47s09a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.89.72] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11YIOX-0003Av-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:23:54 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: MI in the Lady Connell Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:29:06 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0ec8$a2013760$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 Sorry David you got a preview 'cause I forgot to change the "To"line ----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, October 04, 1999 3:18 PM Subject: MI in the Lady Connell > > Playing in our top local competition, the County knockout, the >following sequence occurred: > > 1D 2D 3D 3H > AP > > I bid 3D on a 1=4=4=4 hand. 2D was alerted and described as hearts >and spades. > > Before my partner made the opening lead, dummy pointed out that 2D >showed spades and clubs. > > It struck me that >[1] I can take my last pass back. >[2] I could substitute a double. >[3] Both my partner and I have AI that the opponents may easily be in a >4-2 fit or worse. >[4] Since both opponents have UI neither would be able to remove the >contract to a sensible contract. The person with spades and clubs told you that this is what 2D shows. Did the TD ascertain that you did in fact have MI and that this was not a mis-bid? Assuming it was indeed MI, [1]. Just because you have been given MI, you do not have the automatic right to change your call. Hand on heart, if you had been told that 2D showed spades and clubs, and your LHO had passed 2H round to you, would you have doubled. I think not. So it is not the MI that made you pass. You expect to be allowed to change your call because you now know that your opps had a bidding misunderstanding. Law 21 does not give this as a reason to change your call. You have not been damaged by the MI > > I didn't change my last pass, and 3H went four off because partner >[John Armstrong] and I both misdefended to give declarer a silly trick - >five off was routine. None of my team would expect me to double this >contract in the circumstances, which seems like shooting fish in a >barrel. > Does everyone agree, though, that I could have done so, No, I don't agree. >and defended 3Hx, You have already told us about your ability to defend:-)) >and has anyone any doubts on the ethics of doing so? Didn't Kaplan say that anything that's legal is ethical, in the search for a good score. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 10:38:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:51:48 +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 JAA07923 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:51:41 +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 ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 19:50:23 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991004160514.00704b08@pop.cais.com> References: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 19:47:41 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: ethics and legality [was MI in the Lady Connell] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eric Landau writes: >Yes, and yes. Doubling would fall into the grey area we call >"unsportsmanlike", somewhere in between unethical and entirely ethical. We >can argue all we want over the semantics of whether unsportsmanlike >bridge-lawyering should be called "ethical" or "unethical" or something >else, but whatever we call it, that double would have illustrated it, and >most of us would avoid it. Perhaps it isn't unethical, but it sure smells >like it. Apparently David's teammates would agree. Hope nobody objects to spinning a new thread here. :-) It strikes me that the question is whether the tenets of "bridge ethics" are to be found entirely within the law (and perhaps regulations) of the game, or whether there is some outside source from which we derive examples or definitions of ethical behavior. It seems there are some here in each camp. I have sympathies with both views, but I can't say I'm definitely in either camp. I do see a couple of possibly interesting questions: (1) why should there be such an outside source? IOW, why isn't all bridge ethics subsumed in the laws? (2) if there is such a source, what is it and why does it apply? Comments? 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/k9fr2UW3au93vOEQK7owCg9XjklI4end54y/QUC2rHDgEJROoAnjfN mZfUmcK8OQSGV18jDzYvnsgY =6q+9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 10:56:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:56:48 +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 KAA08052 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:56:37 +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 11YItu-000Dkt-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 00:56:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:55:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 50D2 clarification In-Reply-To: <19991004171140.2616.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <19991004171140.2616.qmail@hotmail.com>, Michael Farebrother writes >This is a silly question, but I keep having this niggling doubt about it. > >Defender has a major penalty card, and his partner is on lead. Declarer >allows leader to lead anything (L50D2b); leader wins this trick, and the >penalty card is still on the table. > >Does declarer now have her L50D2 options again (i.e. can she now require an >X lead, even though last trick she allowed any lead)? > >I am almost certain that the answer is "of course, WTP?" but I'd like >confirmation... > of course, WTP? :)) Law 50D2b2 makes it clear that the card is still a penalty card, and Law 50 still applies when there's a penalty card. chs john >Michael. > -- 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 Oct 5 11:14:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 11:14:44 +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 LAA08089 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 11:14:36 +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 MAA24148 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:14:29 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:13:55 +1100 Message-ID: <01BF0F2B.18825BF0.mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au> From: Mark Abraham To: "'BLML'" Subject: Haste & deception Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:13:54 +1100 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 I have a question from a hand that arose in an Australian national event last weekend. The opponents were vulnerable and we were not. The scoring was IMP pairs. My hand (South) was S 86 H AK74 D J952 C T32 The bidding was N E S W P P 1C! 2H! X P 3NT! P P P My opponents were an Australian champion (West) and sponsor. 1C was Polish (nebulous, 11-20, 0+C) 2H was alerted and explained on request as 6-14 HCP with 5+H 4+S 0-2D, and possibly very poor at this vulnerability. After the double I assessed that 3NT was a likely contract for them... especially since the expert would hold the heart stopper (presumably Qxx if it exists) and he will want to play this contract himself in 3NT. If so, then I will need to falsecard in hearts to beat him. I passed and 3NT was bid promptly, confirming my suspicions. My partner led the 6H (4th highest). Dummy held S A932 H 9 D Q743 C A965 and declarer called for the small heart very quickly. I smoothly played the ACE of hearts and returned the 7, just as you would from A7x on this bidding and dummy. I did not pause for thought, having already done so during the auction. My tempo was completely unremarkable if I were playing from A7x, but probably slightly quicker than my normal play when choosing a card to return to partner's lead. Declarer ducked rapidly, presuming he was dead. My king of hearts drew astonishment from all as declarer dropped his queen under it and I then led the four of hearts to partner's jack-ten. One down when they have 6D on! The director was not called and nothing more was said of it. His only legitimate chance is to rise the queen on trick two, but he has chances of misdefence that suggest ducking. Have my actions fallen foul of law 73D2? My carding is sufficient evidence of intent to deceive declarer. Can my tempo be considered an intentional variation to mislead? IMHO, this declarer will detect any uncertainty in me as evidence that I do not have an "obvious" play available, and holding the hand that he does (see below) he knows that I wasn't thinking about switching. Hence he will know I must be worried about the heart position. He will think "What can he hold that could have him worried.... On a true fourth-best lead I can't block this suit so my only chance is to rise the Q, playing him to have falsecarded too slowly" If I play in a tempo other than the tempo I would use when holding A7x then I will create a strong suspicion of the actual layout and declarer can know how to get it right. Is the solution to never play quickly from A7x? And how will that help me when declarer doesn't know I do this? Cheers, Mark Abraham The full hand was: Dlr E, EW vul T754 JT863 - Q874 KQJ A932 Q52 9 AKT86 Q743 KJ A965 86 AK74 J952 T32 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 14:38:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:56 +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 NAA08374 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:43 +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 11YLPf-000A5x-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:37:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:26:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Appeal Committees - Lausanne MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The World Bridge Federation has produced a Code of Practice for Appeals Committees This fascinating document will change the approach of many people to the game of Bridge. It will be published at 0001 hours GMT on Wednesday October 6th, 1999. From that time it will be available on my Lawspage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_cop.htm -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 15:38:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08350 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:31 +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 11YLPV-000A5x-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:37:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:52:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: MI in the Lady Connell References: <3.0.1.32.19991004160750.012b98f4@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991004160750.012b98f4@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Finally, you are risking the possibility that your TD will (mistakenly) >consider your action to be an illegal double shot, and will rule to let the >opponents get out of their pickle. I can think of no basis for this in Law. The "double-shot" rule basically means that NOs do not get adjustments under L12C2 in certain circumstances. In the hand in question there is no question of any assignment and L12C will never be invoked, so the TD can do nothing about a so-called double shot. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 5 16:29:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:52 +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 NAA08356 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:35 +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 11YLPZ-000A5u-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:37:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:53:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 50D2 clarification References: <19991004171140.2616.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19991004171140.2616.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >This is a silly question, but I keep having this niggling doubt about it. > >Defender has a major penalty card, and his partner is on lead. Declarer >allows leader to lead anything (L50D2b); leader wins this trick, and the >penalty card is still on the table. > >Does declarer now have her L50D2 options again (i.e. can she now require an >X lead, even though last trick she allowed any lead)? > >I am almost certain that the answer is "of course, WTP?" but I'd like >confirmation... Of course, WTP? You just have to look at the actual wording of the Laqw, and it is clear enough. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 5 16:38:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08333 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:20 +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 11YLPT-000A5y-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:37:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:46:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney References: <001d01bf0e87$f9facbc0$7884d9ce@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <001d01bf0e87$f9facbc0$7884d9ce@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Bridge judgement? > >It is hard to believe that even a B flight (decent but unexceptional club >level) player would not take pass in the circumstance as forcing absent the >UI. After all, you have already committed to the grand slam...you are not >going to permit the sac to play undoubled. The UI demonstably suggests 7NT >over the LA of Dbl; not other call is an LA. Therefore double. But then >partner gets another call; HE has no UI, and can bid 7N unconstrained. If >THEY double there might be UI constraints on who would get to RDBL. :-) > >Whatever makes you think that West must pass if East passes? Even by ACBL >srtandards pass in not an LA except for a rank novice. What makes me think that West must pass if East passes? The fact that TWL [L25B] requires him to pass. Once you try and change a call, and it is not condoned, you either play for 100% but silence pd for a round, or you play for 40%. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 5 16:58:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA08808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:58:45 +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 QAA08803 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:58:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.27] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11YOYL-00014r-00; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 07:58:25 +0100 Message-ID: <003301bf0eff$00e32a00$1b5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 07:42:44 +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: 05 October 1999 06:31 Subject: Appeal Committees - Lausanne > > The World Bridge Federation has produced > > a Code of Practice > > for Appeals Committees > > This fascinating document will change the approach of many people to >the game of Bridge. > +=+ Will? Well, is intended to at least. The objective is to seek consistency of practice, by persuasion, and to begin to establish a "worldwide jurisprudence" (to quote the President).+=+ > > It will be published at 0001 hours GMT on Wednesday October 6th, 1999. > > From that time it will be available on my Lawspage > +=+ Also on the WBF website and Anna Gudge's website. Jourdain may include the text in the next IBPA Bulletin (I offered him the opportunity but do not know his decision). The intention, also, is to accompany it with some exemplary committee actions (which we are still in the process of agreeing) and make a booklet of it. For the Bermuda Bowl it has been joined into the Conditions of Contest. There is to be a review of its effects after a period of experience and an invitation is extended to bridge players and officials to let me have their reactions when they have the experience (or not, as the case may be) - I am acting as Secretary to the formulating group. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 17:19:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:54 +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 NAA08359 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:37 +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 11YLPZ-000A5w-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:37:13 +0000 Message-ID: <7cLKSoCRFV+3Ewim@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:16:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Multi Case References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Romanski wrote: >A hand from Vilnius (Lithuania) International Congress. > > 93 Teams, Love all, Dealer N > 1087643 > A74 > 106 W N E S >A106 KQJ85 >AJ9 KQ5 2D X PASS >9865 Q 3NT PASS 4S PASS >Q75 A942 4NT PASS PASS PASS > 742 > 2 > KJ1032 Lead: DA then D7. > KJ83 Result: -2 > > >2D alerted as Multi. S's PASS promised diamonds and was not alerted. >EW claimed that they should know NS's agreement and W will never bid >3NT knowing that opponents has diamonds. >EW - very good pair (two world champions). >NS - good pair (national champions). > >What rulling should be in this case. Is a pass that shows a desire to play there alertable? Instinct says to me that there is no MI and Eat-West shot themselves. What we need here is to know the Alerting 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 Tue Oct 5 17:38:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:37 +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 NAA08330 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:19 +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 11YLPS-000A5w-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:37:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:42:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney References: <199910041735.KAA20603@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199910041735.KAA20603@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >So I can understand why there's confusion. I believe the first >sentece of Law 25B should be changed, preferably to "The remainder of >Law 25B, having been demonstrated to be an awful idea, is null and >void"; but if the bridge community thinks this Law should be retained, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I think the first sentence should be changed to something like "Until >LHO calls, if a player attempts to substitute a call and Section A >does not apply:" thus deleting the "may" which I think is incorrect, >and replacing it with "if" which I think is the actual intent of the >Law. One of the reasons why I believe TWL should be taken out of the book is that the bridge community does not know of the existence of this law, and I expect a larger proportion of them would be shocked and disbelieving [literally] if told of it. It is a Law designed for the knowledgeable player to gain at the expense of the average player, and I think that is terrible. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 5 17:53:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08332 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:20 +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 11YLPR-000A5u-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:37:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:20:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B References: <3.0.1.32.19990930081719.006fe31c@pop.cais.com> <2VaZAkAYrM93EwrK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <19991002133807.83841.qmail@hotmail.com> <013501bf0e7e$eee02b80$bf2a4b0c@default> In-Reply-To: <013501bf0e7e$eee02b80$bf2a4b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson > >> Roger Pewick wrote: >> >From: David Stevenson >> >> >> But it is a waste of time to find a ruling which will happen on >> >> average once in the lifetime of all the readers of BLML put together >and >> >> make suggestions for Law changes because of them. >> >> >Hardly, changing a call more than once by the same side has happened at >> >least 6 times at my table. >> >> The mind boggles! >> >> Remember we are talking L25B not L25A. >> >> I have been playing for forty years and have never had a single L25B >> ruling at my table! > > >Hmmmm, I have had at least three (directing) during the last twelve months. Good. And I take it you do a fair amount of directing? So three in a year is very small. All these experiences except Roger Pewick's seem to lead to the same conclusion: multiple L25B cases by the same pair on the same hand are as common as the Red Sox winning the world Series. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 5 18:10:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:38 +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 NAA08329 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:19 +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 11YLPR-000A5v-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:37:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:37:18 +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 Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:10:00 -0400, >Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > >>May a palyer (dummy or defender) tell his partner he placed >>a card wrong side on table (won or lost) ? > >I cannot resist the temptation to use this excuse to bring up the >part of the question that nobody else seems to have reacted to: >may a _defender_ tell his partner he placed his card wrongly? > >My point of view is that L9A2a gives an defender a clear right to >do so "unless prohibited by law", and that L73A/L73B1 cannot >reasonably be interpreted as such a prohibition. > >We've discussed it before, and I was then in a very small >minority. I would like to see whether anybody has changed their >mind. > >If L73 were to be interpreted as such a prohibition, then it >seems to me that it must also forbid all players to call >attention to _any_ irregularity at all, since calling attention >to any irregularity gives information to partner and may cause >him to play differently than he would otherwise. > >In other words: I would appreciate it if those who believe that >L73 forbids a defender to tell his partner he placed his card >wrongly would explain to me why this particular irregularity >differs from other irregularities in this respect. The WBFLC made such an interpretation, but did not do so in the other cases you cite. I think they would do better to put in a Law banning it, that is true, but when they removed the permission to do so they said at the time that this was because it was no longer permitted. I think there are a number of criticisms we make of the law-makers. Some are no doubt justified. But the thing that people seem to think is easy and I think is very difficult indeed is gauging how much to put in the Law book. It is so easy to assume that something should or should not be in. Yes, I agree this case was probably a mistake, but it is an entirely human one that most people would make. In the relevant earlier Law book there was specific permission to point out this out to partner. It is only human to assume that if you wish to withdraw that permission all you need to do is to withdraw the permission! Since the situation is ambiguous in the actual wording I see no reason not to follow the WBFLC's stated intention and interpretation. European Bridge League TD Guide #43.4 refers. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 18:45:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08361 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:37:37 +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 11YLPZ-000A5v-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 03:37:12 +0000 Message-ID: <+sfLelCCDV+3Ewhy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:13:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 75 - Flannery rides again 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, > >Recently in my club I had to rule on this: > > North (dealer) > Q 9 x x > x > A K J x x x > x x >West East >A x x J x >A J x x K x x x x >x x Q x x >D x x x A J x > > South > K 10 x x > Q x x > x x > K x x x > > N E S W >2D! P 2S X >3D X AP > >2D was alerted an explained then by S as Flannery. >X by W shows values (optional). 3D was not alerted and >E-W did not question about this bid. Before lead >N informed oppns 2D was not Flannery but weak. >The hand was played and 3DX made. > >When called, I first chekced N-S CC and can clearly >established that this pair plays weak 2D opening. So S gave a >false information according to Law 75 and bid accordingly. >N knew his partner bid 2S on Flannery when bidding 3D. >Whitout any alert and question, 2S on a weak 2D should >have promised 5+ Ss and N should have P the X. >Then E will probably bid H.... > >I know it is a "deadly sin" to open 2D with such a "monster" >and 4 cards in S, but I was not there to give bridge lessons... > >According to Law 16A, I think N used UI when bidding 3D. >He probably tried to escape from a 4-3 S fit.... >So I may adjust score using Law 12C to restore equity. > >What is the score you choose ? >- 3H by E-W (140) because id N do not use UI and P the X, > E would normaly bid 3H (...or 4H...)? >- 2D by N-S (110) (the auction on weak 2D should have been: > 2D - P - P - P) ? >- any other option ? Let me ask you a Bridge judgement question. You hold: Q 9 x x x A K J x x x x x and decide to open 2D, weak. [Yes, I know it is a routine 1D opening, but to give rulings you have to look at it this way]. Partner bids 2S natural, RHO makes an Optional double [a *very* strange treatment, and looking at his hand I don't believe it! it looks like a t/o double to me], what do you bid? Ok, suppose 2S is forcing. You clearly are worth a slam try, so 4H seems the obvious call, splinter. Perhaps 2S is not forcing, but merely encouraging, what do you bid? Well, you are clearly worth game, so you might just as well make a splinter in case he has a miracle fit like AJTxxxx xx x Axx which has a reasonable play for slam. The point is that North is never bidding anything but game. East might double 4S with his DQ and his partner's call [especially if it really is Optional!] and one off seems reasonable enough, so rule it as 4S*-1. I suppose there is some possibility of two off, and you could argue it fits into the definition of "at all probable" and split the score. However, North's bid of 3D is shockingly bad, and he *must* be educated. There are two possibilities. [1] He is an experienced player with a reasonable knowledge of the game. Hit him with a PP of at least 30% of a top. [2] He is not experienced and does not understand the concept of UI. Take him to one side, and explain, fully and carefully, until he does. Make it clear that an experienced player would have had a heavy PP. >What is your ruling if this pair effectively plays 2D as Flannery >but N forgot and misbid when opening ? The UI is still there, so the ruling is the same. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 18:58:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA09008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 18:58:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from nip.sci-nnov.ru ([193.125.70.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA09003 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 18:58:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from litsoft ([192.168.0.66]) by nip.sci-nnov.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA14521 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:00:50 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from fox@appl.sci-nnov.ru) Message-ID: <006401bf0f0e$66eb03e0$4200a8c0@vmv.sandy.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: References: <7cLKSoCRFV+3Ewim@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: A Multi Case Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:48:26 +0400 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 5.00.2417.2000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Jan Romanski wrote: > >A hand from Vilnius (Lithuania) International Congress. > > > > 93 Teams, Love all, Dealer N > > 1087643 > > A74 > > 106 W N E S > >A106 KQJ85 > >AJ9 KQ5 2D X PASS > >9865 Q 3NT PASS 4S PASS > >Q75 A942 4NT PASS PASS PASS > > 742 > > 2 > > KJ1032 Lead: DA then D7. > > KJ83 Result: -2 > > > > > >2D alerted as Multi. S's PASS promised diamonds and was not alerted. > >EW claimed that they should know NS's agreement and W will never bid > >3NT knowing that opponents has diamonds. > >EW - very good pair (two world champions). > >NS - good pair (national champions). > > > >What rulling should be in this case. > > Is a pass that shows a desire to play there alertable? Instinct says > to me that there is no MI and Eat-West shot themselves. > > What we need here is to know the Alerting regulations. Alerting is under EBL rules (international event). Sergei Litvak Chief TD of RBL. > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 5 19:38:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA09058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:38:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from ws2.icl.co.uk (mailgate.icl.co.uk [194.176.223.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09049 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:38:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.icl.co.uk (mailgate [172.16.2.3]) by ws2.icl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA25313 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:35:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from vguard2.icl.co.uk by mailgate.icl.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28234; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:37:12 +0100 Received: FROM x400.icl.co.uk BY vguard2.icl.co.uk ; Tue Oct 05 10:40:31 1999 +0100 Received: (from root@localhost) by x400.icl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.2) id KAA19424; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:37:08 +0100 (BST) X400-Received: by mta umg in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Tue, 05 Oct 99 10:36:54 +0100 X400-Received: by mta fel01xc in /PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Tue, 05 Oct 99 10:24:14 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Tue, 05 Oct 99 10:31:04 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Tue, 05 Oct 99 11:41:00 +0200 Date: Tue, 05 Oct 99 11:41:00 +0200 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G000219E4D0001000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: mdfarebr@hotmail.com , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: From: "Jan Romanski" To: mdfarebr@hotmail.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <19991004233904.15694.qmail@hotmail.com> Importance: normal Subject: RE:Re: A Multi Case Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother: >>From: "Jan Romanski" > ---- >I am sure you are going to get this from the regulars as well, >but we need to know at least these three things before any ruling >can be given: > >1) What strong options (if any) are contained in the 2D opener? No strong options, week 6 cards in major only. >2) did W ask about the pass? What information was W given? The only question at the table was about 2D opening. >3) under what regulations was this congress being held? Is pass >of Multi doubled to show diamonds alertable under the regulations? No special regulations. As pairs from many countries (Byelorussia, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Ukraine and Spain) took part it was annouced that every artifficial bid should be alerted. Jan Romanski ________________________________________________ phone: +48(0)22 6310566 mobile: +48 601403308 email: jan.romanski@icl.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 20:16:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 20:16:01 +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 UAA09078 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 20:15:52 +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 LAA10173 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 11:15:38 +0100 (MET) X-Internal-ID: 37F4B5A400007E04 Received: from dedamsg1.merck.de (155.250.248.233) by dedamsgnt02.merck.de (NPlex 2.0.123) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:19:42 +0200 Received: by dedamsg1.merck.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C1256801.00384AA8 ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:14:51 +0200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MERCK To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:15:08 +0200 Subject: Re: you placed that card wrong, partner Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some comments: (1) I believe Anton is wrong to see a conflict between L42B2 and L42A2. Dummy may keep track of tricks won and lost, and may inform declarer of the stand of play if asked, but may not point out how many tricks have been won of their own initiative. In the same way dummy may inform declarer which contract is being played, but only when asked. (2) Dave is right to suppose that it may be far from harmless to allow dummy or defender to correct partner's wrongly pointed card. Dummy could warn declarer against trying to struggle heroically to make a "tenth" (in reality their eleventh) trick in a four spade contract, or one defender could effectively say to their partner "I think we have enough tricks to defeat the contract now, let's cash out" when partner is unaware of the fact. (3) Another awkward consequence of L42B2 is that dummy may warn declarer that they are _about to_ lead from the wrong hand, but once the lead is made, it is too late (the irregularity has already occurred). This rule is largely unknown or widely abused (or both) in club and tournament bridge, and requires split-second timing on the part of dummy, and lightning reactions on the part of declarer if it is to be employed correctly. Unless I want to irritate my opponents by informing partner where the lead is after every trick, I (as dummy) have usually less than a second in which to prevent partner from committing an irregularity from the moment I see they are detaching a card from hand or opening their mouth to call for a card from the table, to the time taken to complete the action. What usually happens is that partner cannot react in time and makes the lead, then the defenders assume that the lead must revert to the correct hand because they are even less aware of their rights under L55A to accept the lead (how many bridge players are aware that this law exists?). Incidently, if declarer leads from the wrong hand (dummy, say) and a defender points out that the lead was in hand, the option of either defender to accept the lead has not expired. The defender has simply made a neutral statement of fact as to where the lead was, and has not given an opinion as to whether they want to accept or reject the lead. Am I the only director to rule this way? I am not pleading for the law to be changed or abolished, I find it fair and good, but it is one which never seems to work well in practice. Perhaps more could be done to educate players about this aspect of the laws. James Vickers, Darmstadt, Germany ************* >Dave wrote: >2. It seems to me that while I agree with David that it seems harmless to >allow dummy, or indeed, a defender to say that that a trick is the wrong >way around, it possibly is not so. Imagine declarer in 4 Spades with an Ace >on table. wins a trick and puts it the wrong way. He now thinks he has 8 >tricks and not nine. He tanks. Dummy says "the last one is wrong"!. It >cannot be right, but as I read it okay as far as the ACBL is concerned!!!! > > 42B2 says it. Dummy may prevent irregularities, but thats all. Problem is of course 42a2 he may keep count of tricks. how far may you stratch this article. Perhaps these 2 articles can give frictions. if you have a good case, send it to appeal and argue that dummy exercised his rights on 42a2 and see what they say. Good luck. regards, anton >Thoughts please. ************* From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 23:54:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 23:54:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA09572 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 23:53:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.3]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA00683 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 15:53:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37F9EEE4.6C5ADFDC@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 14:28:20 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > > >Let's assume that there was MI and that you have ruled that > >there was no damage. It's all in my text, repeated above. > > What MI do you want me to assume? Until the player admits that he may have > omitted some relevant factor, how am I to know that there may have been any > MI? When you say "our agreement is X" without expressing uncertainty, > surely it is possible that this is correct information! In Herman's > example, however, the player has subsequently admitted that it was not. > Well, just suppose the player has said "it's X" and you determine by whatever means that it should have been Y. Simple MI, but you find no damage. > > > >Well, the damage is there - the contract went down, so > >doubled would be better, so there is damage. Ruling please > >? > > When we talk about "damage" in the context of laws and rulings, I don't > think we normally include "damage" caused by our opponents good (or lucky) > actions; we use "damage" as shorthand for "damage resulting from an > opponent's infraction". Herman may be correct in some semantic sense to > say that any time an opponent's contract goes down undoubled (or makes > doubled, or makes when you could have beaten it), you have been "damaged", > but I don't see how that's relevant. > Well, that's just what the player tells you "if I had known that he was uncertain of the meaning, I would have doubled, so I am damaged". > >"If I had known he was not certain of the meaning of his > >partner's bid, I would have doubled him". > > > >I think this is BL-ing. > > And I think that it usually is, but also that I owe my players the > opportunity to try to convince me (albeit with not much hope of success) > that their particular such statement is not. > Well, you have all the facts. The player said "it is X". You determine that he should ahve said "it is Y". You also determine that this in itself did not damage the opponents. Then the player says, "yes I was uncertain at the time, but I did not let on to my opponents". Then his opponent says "If I had known he was uncertain, I would have doubled". (and you believe him) Ruling ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 5 23:54:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 23:54:09 +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 XAA09576 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 23:54:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.3]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA00700 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 15:53:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37F9F12C.6B2B1B40@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 14:38:04 +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: I think partner has... References: <4.1.19991004233501.00a42b10@pop.swinternet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dave Armstrong wrote: > > > Why isn't Soap on the TV any more? you mean "confused?" yes that really is a long time ago. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 00:15:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:15:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA09648 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:15:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.44.162]) by mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19991005141327.AGM15731@default> for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:13:27 +0000 Message-ID: <005b01bf0f3b$9f7cb320$a22c4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990930081719.006fe31c@pop.cais.com><2VaZAkAYrM93EwrK@blakjak.demon.co.uk><19991002133807.83841.qmail@hotmail.com><013501bf0e7e$eee02b80$bf2a4b0c@default> Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:01:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson > All these experiences except Roger Pewick's seem to lead to the same > conclusion: multiple L25B cases by the same pair on the same hand are as > common as the Red Sox winning the world Series. With this I am in total agreement! May I add here that I have clearly mis-read the original thought. 'Multiple' 25B/same pair/same hand. I failed to realize that we were talking about multiples. This instance I have not seen, ever. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 00:33:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:33:43 +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 AAA09697 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:33:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA12053; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:32:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-91.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.91) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012029; Tue Oct 5 09:32:23 1999 Message-ID: <002d01bf0f3e$80597ac0$5b84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Michael Farebrother" , Subject: Re: A Multi Case Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:32:47 -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 I find myself in agreement, but with one other question. Do we perhaps have a subsequent/consequent determination to make here, even if there was irregularity and damage? Is the pull of the makeable 4s to 4n sufficient to break the chain of causality? Also, can someone elucidate what the EBU alerting regulations would be, since Sergei says they would be in effect? How would they apply? -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, October 04, 1999 7:39 PM Subject: Re: A Multi Case >>From: "Jan Romanski" > >>A hand from Vilnius (Lithuania) International Congress. >> >> 93 Teams, Love all, Dealer N >> 1087643 >> A74 >> 106 W N E S >>A106 KQJ85 >>AJ9 KQ5 2D X PASS >>9865 Q 3NT PASS 4S PASS >>Q75 A942 4NT PASS PASS PASS >> 742 >> 2 >> KJ1032 Lead: DA then D7. >> KJ83 Result: -2 >> >> >>2D alerted as Multi. S's PASS promised diamonds and was not alerted. >>EW claimed that they should know NS's agreement and W will never bid >>3NT knowing that opponents has diamonds. >>EW - very good pair (two world champions). >>NS - good pair (national champions). >> >>What ruling should be in this case. >> >I am sure you are going to get this from the regulars as well, but we need >to know at least these three things before any ruling can be given: > >1) What strong options (if any) are contained in the 2D opener? >2) did W ask about the pass? What information was W given? >3) under what regulations was this congress being held? Is pass of Multi >doubled to show diamonds alertable under the regulations? > >Being from Canada, I am most familiar with ACBL regulations, so I will offer >my thought pattern based on my ruling here. > >I have read the ACBL alert procedure, and I can't see anything that >obviously states that the pass would be Alertable in the ACBL (playing >mid-Chart, so that 2D is legal). In fact, it is both an offer to play in >the suit with sufficient length in the suit to be comfortable (therefore >"natural"), and as far as I can tell the expected meaning for the pass (i.e. >I would expect pass not meaning "partner, I'd be happy playing 2Dx" to be >unusual enough to be Alertable, especially if there were no strong options >to the Multi). > >Strangely for such a comprehensive document, the ACBL alert procedure is >almost silent on Alertable passes. > >The only way I would rule in favour of EW is if: > >1) South's pass was Alertable under the Conditions of Contest of the >congress. > >or > >2) West asked about the pass, and was given misinformation. > >or > >3) I could be convinced that pass = natural was sufficiently unusual after a >Multi-2D in the community of the congress to be Alertable for being >unexpected. I am in a part of the world that is relatively untainted by >Multi-anything, so I don't know the standard followups, and my quick look >though Anderson & Zenkel doesn't offer an obvious rule. As I said, however, >it seems obvious to play pass as "want to play here, pd?" (i.e. long >diamonds) as is normal with a mini-Multi (no strong options). > >Obviously, I can't say anything for certain unless I knew the Alerting >regulations for the congress, but my gut feeling is to let 'em hang. "What >did you think the pass meant, given that it wasn't Alerted?" I'd have a lot >more sympathy for EW if they had missed 3NT because they thought S had >diamonds, and South's pass was "bid your major, pd". > >Michael. > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 00:39:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:39:24 +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 AAA09738 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:39:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA10928; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:25:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-91.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.91) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010791; Tue Oct 5 09:24:28 1999 Message-ID: <002001bf0f3d$64deadc0$5b84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:24:48 -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 Unfortunately, you are entirely right and I stand corrected. I had not realised how awful 25B is the this regard. The only harm that has been done by a non-condoned attempt to change a call that is withdrawn is to provide partner with UI. Why should the penalty be any more draconian than in any other UI situation? 25B is not only elitist it is stupid; count me on the list of those who would like to deep six it. The attempt to change a non-inadvertant call should just not be permitted in the first place, and any such attempt should be dealt with as UI (with PP in rare abusive cases). I can see no useful purpose for this law...though I suspect its proponents will soon enlighten me. :-)) Were this a UI situation I stand by my original comment, but much as I would like to use Maddog's approach, I don't know if it will fly. After all, it is intelligent and equitable...that won't of itself make it lawful. ;-) -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson >Craig Senior wrote: >>Whatever makes you think that West must pass if East passes? Even by ACBL >>srtandards pass in not an LA except for a rank novice. > > What makes me think that West must pass if East passes? The fact that >TWL [L25B] requires him to pass. Once you try and change a call, and it >is not condoned, you either play for 100% but silence pd for a round, or >you play for 40%. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 01:45:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:45:47 +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 BAA09873 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:45:38 +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 KAA03968 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:47:52 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 10:46:10 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <37F9EEE4.6C5ADFDC@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:28 PM 10/5/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> What MI do you want me to assume? Until the player admits that he may have >> omitted some relevant factor, how am I to know that there may have been any >> MI? When you say "our agreement is X" without expressing uncertainty, >> surely it is possible that this is correct information! In Herman's >> example, however, the player has subsequently admitted that it was not. >> > >Well, just suppose the player has said "it's X" and you >determine by whatever means that it should have been Y. >Simple MI, but you find no damage. Stop, Herman. "Begging the question". Eric and I think you _cannot_ determine that 'it should have been Y' without asking questions that would seemingly yield the sort of information you give later on. >Well, that's just what the player tells you "if I had known >that he was uncertain of the meaning, I would have doubled, >so I am damaged". Not enough for me, Herman. Remember, on my view a complete explanation does not include simply saying "I think it's X but I'm not sure." A complete explanation would be something more like "I think it's X--we used to play that bid as Y, but I'm pretty sure we changed." So now I ask the player "had you been given that explanation, would you have doubled, and why?" If he really can convince me that this additional information would have been sufficient to put him in position to double, then indeed I rule in his favor. But I honestly cannot imagine a case where he would have doubled with this explanation _but wouldn't have doubled if he had been told that the bid meant Y in the first place_. So of course this is 99.9% likely to be BLing, Herman. >> >"If I had known he was not certain of the meaning of his >> >partner's bid, I would have doubled him". >> > >> >I think this is BL-ing. >> >> And I think that it usually is, but also that I owe my players the >> opportunity to try to convince me (albeit with not much hope of success) >> that their particular such statement is not. >> > >Well, you have all the facts. > >The player said "it is X". >You determine that he should ahve said "it is Y". >You also determine that this in itself did not damage the >opponents. >Then the player says, "yes I was uncertain at the time, but >I did not let on to my opponents". >Then his opponent says "If I had known he was uncertain, I >would have doubled". (and you believe him) >Ruling ? Again, for me it is almost impossible to imagine a case where: a) There really is MI. b) There was no difference between the result given the actual explanation and the likely result given the correct explanation. c) There was a difference between the result given the actual explanation and the likely result given a more complete original explanation. d) The more complete original explanation would still have been MI. But in such an imaginary case, I rule damage, and as a PP I fine the offenders a pair of Red Sox-Cubs world series tickets for DWS and I. :) >-- >Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 01:50:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:50:11 +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 BAA09887 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:50:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from p36s09a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.169.55] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11YWqe-00071p-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:49:52 +0100 Message-ID: <007901bf0f49$2ce1fba0$188b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:34:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney > > 25B is not only elitist it is stupid; count me on the list of those who >would like to deep six it. > +=+ You might well have several current members of the WBFLC to support this view. Apart from me there is, I think, at least one other, and I would be surprised if it stopped there. It is likely to be a subject in January. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 03:44:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 03:17:10 +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 DAA10216 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 03:16:57 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id fOCQa29121 (3944); Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.37051cb6.252b8c55@aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:16:05 EDT Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney To: gester@globalnet.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 10/5/99 11:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gester@globalnet.co.uk writes: > Grattan Endicott ================================ > " The only limit to our realization of tomorrow > will be our doubts of today." (F.D.R.) > wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Senior > Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney > > > > > > 25B is not only elitist it is stupid; count me on the list of those who > >would like to deep six it. > > > +=+ You might well have several current members > of the WBFLC to support this view. Apart from me > there is, I think, at least one other, and I would be > surprised if it stopped there. It is likely to be a > subject in January. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > KKKKK..... I'm at least the "one other," hopefully there are more. Getting a second, probably less costly, bite of the apple after making an error, misbid, forgot-the-system-till-now call is not what bridge is all about. This Law was a Band-Aid applied by Edgar after his mistake in Geneva, and like all Band-Aids needs to be discarded after the wound is healed. It belongs in the trash along with at least the second sentence of Law 79B which was at least a step away from the horror we had in the 1987 Laws on this subject......KKKKK From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 05:29:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 05:29:14 +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 FAA10657 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 05:29:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA25607 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:28:56 +0200 Received: from ip10.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.10), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda25605; Tue Oct 5 21:28:50 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 21:28:50 +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 FAA10658 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:37:18 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: [about a defender calling attention to partner's incorrectly turned card] >>If L73 were to be interpreted as such a prohibition, then it >>seems to me that it must also forbid all players to call >>attention to _any_ irregularity at all, since calling attention >>to any irregularity gives information to partner and may cause >>him to play differently than he would otherwise. >> >>In other words: I would appreciate it if those who believe that >>L73 forbids a defender to tell his partner he placed his card >>wrongly would explain to me why this particular irregularity >>differs from other irregularities in this respect. > > The WBFLC made such an interpretation, but did not do so in the other >cases you cite. I don't think I have seen that interpretation. > I think they would do better to put in a Law banning it, that is true, >but when they removed the permission to do so they said at the time that >this was because it was no longer permitted. I was not aware that it had been explicitly legal, but you are right: it was legal in the 1975 laws - i.e., until 1987. Thanks for pointing this out. Now I can at least understand where the idea that it might be illegal comes from. I find it very obvious that it would be better to allow it, partly in order to be consistent with the treatment of all other irregularities, and partly because I think it will be good for the game if players have every possible chance of knowing how many tricks they've taken. >In the relevant earlier >Law book there was specific permission to point out this out to partner. >It is only human to assume that if you wish to withdraw that permission >all you need to do is to withdraw the permission! Yes, indeed. But this very human mechanism also seems to indicate that the WBFLC was not aware that banning it would create a strange exception to the general rules about irregularities. Perhaps they would not have wanted to ban it if they had realized that what they were doing was not removing a special treatment of this situation, but rather creating such a special treatment - the 1975 rule was very nicely consistent with the general rules about irregularities. > Since the situation is ambiguous in the actual wording I see no reason >not to follow the WBFLC's stated intention and interpretation. The actual wording is IMO not ambiguous - I don't think anybody without knowledge of the change from the 1975 laws would dream of reading the current L73 as a prohibition of this. I would like to see the WBFLC interpretation - is it on the net somewhere? This is once more the problem with legislation that is made by interpretations: it tends not to be widely known. > European Bridge League TD Guide #43.4 refers. Correct. I have undoubtedly read it there at least once, but a long time ago... -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 05:35:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 05:35:51 +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 FAA10678 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 05:35:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA25632 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:35:36 +0200 Received: from ip111.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.111), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda25626; Tue Oct 5 21:35:26 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 21:35:26 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <01bf0eb6$6cd81340$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf0eb6$6cd81340$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 FAA10679 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:18:46 +0100, "Anne Jones" wrote: >L9A2a allows you to call the TD and tell him about an irregularity. >A deviation from correct procedure is such an irregularity. >However, I believe L73 does prohibit you from saying to your >partner,"you have quitted that trick incorrectly" Let me understand this: are you saying that though I may not say "you have quitted that trick incorrectly", I may say "I think there is an irregularity here - let us call the TD" and do so? If so, the difference should not matter, since any player has a duty to call the TD after "you have quitted that trick incorrectly" (L9B1a). But let us assume that L73 does prohibit me from saying "you have quitted that trick incorrectly". Does it then also prohibit me from saying "you have led out of turn" or "you revoked on the previous trick" or "you forgot to lead your penalty card" or "you forgot to remove your calling cards", or is quitting tricks incorrectly somehow different from all other irregularities? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 06:10:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 06:10:37 +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 GAA10778 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 06:07:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveggn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.23]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA28312 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:06:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991005160432.012bd820@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:04:32 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: MI in the Lady Connell In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991004160750.012b98f4@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004160750.012b98f4@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:52 AM 10/5/99 +0100, David wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>Finally, you are risking the possibility that your TD will (mistakenly) >>consider your action to be an illegal double shot, and will rule to let the >>opponents get out of their pickle. > > > I can think of no basis for this in Law. The "double-shot" rule >basically means that NOs do not get adjustments under L12C2 in certain >circumstances. In the hand in question there is no question of any >assignment and L12C will never be invoked, so the TD can do nothing >about a so-called double shot. > No, there is no basis for such a ruling in Law, which I is why I said that the TD would be mistaken to rule this way. But the truth is, TD's don't always rule strictly according to the Laws. From the comments already posted here, you can probably detect some distaste for your hypothetical action. I know plenty of TD's who would have no qualms about translating that distaste into an adverse ruling, Laws or no. It is that risk that I was referring to. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 07:12:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:12:45 +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 HAA10916 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:12:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA27353 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:00:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA10674 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:00:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:00:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910052100.RAA10674@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > But the thing that people seem to think is > easy and I think is very difficult indeed is gauging how much to put in > the Law book. Indeed. > In the relevant earlier > Law book there was specific permission to point out this out to partner. > It is only human to assume that if you wish to withdraw that permission > all you need to do is to withdraw the permission! (Without checking my past editions of the FLB for the exact changes...) In general, it seems to me a reasonable principle of interpretation that a major change in the Laws' text is intended to change the rules and not just act as a clarification, at least if the new text is in any way ambiguous. Of course this principle may be of little help to someone whose only resource is the current edition of the FLB, but TD's ought to have additional resources in the form of training, guidebooks, mentoring, and consultation. In the current matter, I don't see what would be wrong with allowing anyone to mention wrong placement of a card until his side plays to the next trick. The rule would be simple and clear, and I think most players would approve, but it is certainly a matter of personal preference. If you are willing to contemplate purposeful corrections as in L25B, surely correcting partner's placement of a card is harmless by comparison. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 07:13:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:13:01 +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 HAA10923 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:12:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehb5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.101]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA31782 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:12:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991005171024.012c7770@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 17:10:24 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Haste & deception In-Reply-To: <01BF0F2B.18825BF0.mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:13 PM 10/5/99 +1100, Mark wrote: >Have my actions fallen foul of law 73D2? My carding is sufficient evidence >of intent to deceive declarer. Can my tempo be considered an intentional >variation to mislead? > >IMHO, this declarer will detect any uncertainty in me as evidence that I do >not have an "obvious" play available, and holding the hand that he does >(see below) he knows that I wasn't thinking about switching. Hence he will >know I must be worried about the heart position. He will think "What can he >hold that could have him worried.... On a true fourth-best lead I can't >block this suit so my only chance is to rise the Q, playing him to have >falsecarded too slowly" > >If I play in a tempo other than the tempo I would use when holding A7x then >I will create a strong suspicion of the actual layout and declarer can know >how to get it right. Is the solution to never play quickly from A7x? And >how will that help me when declarer doesn't know I do this? The game is in pretty bad shape if you are obliged to play extra slowly to signal to declarer your interest in making a deceptive play. The answer is, no, you should not adjust your tempo so as to deceive declarer, but neither should you adjust it so as to enlighten him. An in-tempo play is always legal and ethical, and "in-tempo" should be measured objectively, i.e., without respect to the cards or problem you might have faced. Likewise, and out-of-tempo play is not excused merely because you actually have a legitimate problem. If your out-of-tempo play could predictably have misled declarer, then you will be denied the happy consequence even when the reason for your action was demonstrably innocent. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 07:13:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:13:38 +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 HAA10944 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:13:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehb5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.101]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA05931 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:13:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991005171058.012bea68@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 17:10:58 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: I think partner has... In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991004233501.00a42b10@pop.swinternet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:54 PM 10/4/99 +0100, Dave wrote: >At the club tonight the bidding went - > >N E S W >1NT p p X >2C X 2D A X >All pass > >The 2D was alerted the explained as "Although it is an unusual sequence I >think it is still a transfer to hearts." > > >The hands were > A x > 9 x x > A x x > K J x x x > >K Q x x x J x x >A K Q J x x x >K x Q 10 x >x x x A Q 9 > > x x x > x x x > J x x x x > x x > >West claimed that the alert was misleading and with no alert she would have >bid 2S which would have led to 4S + 650 >instead of 300. yes 300? >Table ruling - adjust to 4S + 1 > >Appeal - upheld + 650 > >Is this right? This has an interesting tie to the previous thread "Standard of Proof..." . Has North given MI? Notice that he has not actually stated what the agreement is: he has rather expressed his uncertainty and described what he thinks the agreement might be. Does he protect himself in this way? Not as far as I am concerned. Assuming that further investigation provides no additional credible basis for North's claim, I rule that his explanation is MI. Were EW damaged by the MI? I think West's claim has some merit. I wouldn't care for the 2S bid myself, but West would likely have bid something, and with 27 HCP and 8 decent spades between them, there's no reason to assume that EW could not have found their spade game. The only real difficulty I have with this ruling is in judging that West would necessarily have done something different than he did, or with knowing how East might have bid differently if West had doubled anyway. EW agreements could be useful here. But a possible auction might have been 1nt P P x 2C P 2D x P 2H P 2S P 3S P 4S >2H doubled -6? Why on earth? NS never bid hearts, and it seems silly to argue that they would have done had North correctly explained the agreement. >3D doubled -3? Ditto. NS never bid 3D, and it's hard to see why either of them would have bid this. >Why did North pass after this dubious explanation? Was it ethical? Who knows why? My best guess is that North was even less certain than his hesitant explanation indicated, and thought that the double gave him a chance to have it both ways. If partner really meant diamonds, then 2D doubled was probably the last best hope to salvage the board, while if partner really meant hearts, then he would have an opportunity to correct, either by bidding hearts directly or via an SOS redouble. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with this tactic, ethically or legally. >Why did 2D only go 2 off? Should this affect the ruling? Obviously the defense wasn't exactly double-dummy. Although we can't really judge accurately without a record of play, it seems to me unlikely that the defense was so egregiously bad as to bring the Kaplan doctrine into play, if that is your cup of tea in the first place (and it isn't everybody's). >Why isn't Soap on the TV any more? > I put it back on the little Soap thingy next to the sink. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 07:29:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:29:20 +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 HAA10971 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:29:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehb5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.101]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA07300 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:01:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991005165842.012c415c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:58:42 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: ethics and legality [was MI in the Lady Connell] In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991004160514.00704b08@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:47 PM 10/4/99 -0400, Ed wrote: >It strikes me that the question is whether the tenets of "bridge ethics" >are to be found entirely within the law (and perhaps regulations) of the >game, or whether there is some outside source from which we derive examples >or definitions of ethical behavior. It seems there are some here in each >camp. I have sympathies with both views, but I can't say I'm definitely in >either camp. I do see a couple of possibly interesting questions: (1) why >should there be such an outside source? IOW, why isn't all bridge ethics >subsumed in the laws? (2) if there is such a source, what is it and why >does it apply? > I'll pitch my tent in the camp with those who consider the Laws to be the complete guide to bridge ethics. Obviously there are unethical things that can be done at the bridge table which are not relevant to the game per se and hence not covered by the Laws (whatever Grattan says). But as to those things which do impact upon the game, if it is legal, it is ethical IMO, or at least not unethical. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 07:56:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:56:10 +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 HAA11075 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:56:01 +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 OAA14759; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:53:37 -0700 Message-Id: <199910052153.OAA14759@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: I think partner has... In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 05 Oct 1999 17:10:58 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19991005171058.012bea68@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 14:53:39 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: > This has an interesting tie to the previous thread "Standard of Proof..." . > Has North given MI? Notice that he has not actually stated what the > agreement is: he has rather expressed his uncertainty and described what he > thinks the agreement might be. Does he protect himself in this way? Not as > far as I am concerned. Assuming that further investigation provides no > additional credible basis for North's claim, I rule that his explanation is > MI. I had to contend with this explanation once: Partner opened 1C, Precision; RHO bid 3H; LHO alerted after a pause, and said something wishy-washy like, "I believe that shows both majors. I'm not totally sure how we play over a strong club, but that's how we play over a natural 1C opener." It turned out RHO intended the bid as natural, but was psyching with long spades. We couldn't find our 4H contract, but without the explanation, it's likely we would have fielded the psych. The TD ruled MI, opponents appealed, and the AC upheld the ruling, saying that the explanation had "muddied the waters" enough to prevent us from reaching our normal contract. I think in the hand under discussion, North's explanation has muddied the waters in the same way. Even though he made it clear that he wasn't 100% sure about his explanation, that doesn't make any difference to the MI ruling, because after an explanation like that, even with the disclaimers, E-W cannot be expected to figure out that 2D wasn't really a transfer. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 10:00:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:00:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11266 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:00:31 +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 11YeVI-000FFg-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:00:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:59:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Haste & deception In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991005171024.012c7770@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19991005171024.012c7770@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >At 12:13 PM 10/5/99 +1100, Mark wrote: >>Have my actions fallen foul of law 73D2? My carding is sufficient evidence >>of intent to deceive declarer. Can my tempo be considered an intentional >>variation to mislead? >> >>IMHO, this declarer will detect any uncertainty in me as evidence that I do >>not have an "obvious" play available, and holding the hand that he does >>(see below) he knows that I wasn't thinking about switching. Hence he will >>know I must be worried about the heart position. He will think "What can he >>hold that could have him worried.... On a true fourth-best lead I can't >>block this suit so my only chance is to rise the Q, playing him to have >>falsecarded too slowly" >> >>If I play in a tempo other than the tempo I would use when holding A7x then >>I will create a strong suspicion of the actual layout and declarer can know >>how to get it right. Is the solution to never play quickly from A7x? And >>how will that help me when declarer doesn't know I do this? > >The game is in pretty bad shape if you are obliged to play extra slowly to >signal to declarer your interest in making a deceptive play. The answer is, >no, you should not adjust your tempo so as to deceive declarer, but neither >should you adjust it so as to enlighten him. An in-tempo play is always >legal and ethical, and "in-tempo" should be measured objectively, i.e., >without respect to the cards or problem you might have faced. Likewise, and >out-of-tempo play is not excused merely because you actually have a >legitimate problem. ahem. Law 73F2 ... who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action and could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit ... and Law 73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead ... and Law 73D1 ... but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk > If your out-of-tempo play could predictably have misled >declarer, then you will be denied the happy consequence even when the >reason for your action was demonstrably innocent. If you have a reason to think and oppo then go wrong I would rule "result stands" chs john > >Mike Dennis -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 10:04:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:04:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11282 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:04:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11YeZB-0005fp-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:04:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:31:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Multi Case References: <19991004233904.15694.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Romanski wrote: >Michael Farebrother: >>3) under what regulations was this congress being held? Is pass >>of Multi doubled to show diamonds alertable under the regulations? >No special regulations. As pairs from many countries (Byelorussia, >Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Ukraine >and Spain) took part it was annouced that every artifficial bid should >be alerted. Pass to show a willingness to play there doesn't sound very artificial to me. That seems to be the answer: no alert was required, no alert was given, no MI. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 6 10:04:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:04:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11285 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:04:36 +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 11YeZA-000JrW-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:04:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:27:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner References: <01bf0eb6$6cd81340$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:18:46 +0100, "Anne Jones" > wrote: > >>L9A2a allows you to call the TD and tell him about an irregularity. >>A deviation from correct procedure is such an irregularity. >>However, I believe L73 does prohibit you from saying to your >>partner,"you have quitted that trick incorrectly" > >Let me understand this: are you saying that though I may not say >"you have quitted that trick incorrectly", I may say "I think >there is an irregularity here - let us call the TD" and do so? >If so, the difference should not matter, since any player has a >duty to call the TD after "you have quitted that trick >incorrectly" (L9B1a). > >But let us assume that L73 does prohibit me from saying "you have >quitted that trick incorrectly". Does it then also prohibit me >from saying "you have led out of turn" or "you revoked on the >previous trick" or "you forgot to lead your penalty card" or "you >forgot to remove your calling cards", or is quitting tricks >incorrectly somehow different from all other irregularities? The reason for the change in the Law was, so I understand, to stop people waking their partner up to the position. Players who wanted Partner to cash the setting trick liked to be able to correct the way partner had put his card down. Perhaps they would not correct it until it became relevant which was legal under the old Laws. Thus it is Communication between Partners that it the worry. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 6 10:04:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:04:47 +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 KAA11283 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:04:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11YeZD-0005fo-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:04:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:41:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: you placed 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 JamesV wrote: >Some comments: >Incidently, if declarer leads from the wrong hand (dummy, say) and a defender >points out that the lead was in hand, the option of either defender to accept >the lead has not expired. The defender has simply made a neutral statement of >fact as to where the lead was, and has not given an opinion as to whether they >want to accept or reject the lead. Am I the only director to rule this way? No, this is correct and it is part of traing for Club Directors in England/Wales. >I am not pleading for the law to be changed or abolished, I find it fair and >good, but it is one which never seems to work well in practice. Perhaps more >could be done to educate players about this aspect of the laws. As far as dummy warning declarer is concerned, I would be happier if dummy was despatched to the bar and told to stay there until the end 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 Wed Oct 6 11:05:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:05:06 +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 LAA11415 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:04:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from p51s04a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.100.82] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11YfVd-0002Q1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 02:04:45 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:49:25 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0f94$a3337c20$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: BLML Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 12:55 PM Subject: Re: Two scoops of 25B > >-----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. Thanks Herman for a private e-mail. But what do you mean MPs are not imps. Our are :-)) Yes I got this wrong. An inadvertent slip of the brain. Please allow a L25B change of definition. Rounded = formatted to the nearest whole number. Sorry folks. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 11:05:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:05:07 +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 LAA11416 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:04:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from p51s04a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.100.82] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11YfVe-0002Q1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 02:04:47 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Protection racket. Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 02:10:04 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's a hand from tonight. Personae dramatis N , S, and E are TDs. W is a lady who represents her country. Auction N E S W P P 1NT P(agreed hesitation) P 2C* P 3NT AP * 2C shows Clubs and Hearts 4/4 E/W game. dealer N 10 2 10 9 6 4 10 4 2 J 8 4 2 A 9 5 3 J 8 6 A K J Q 7 3 2 J 7 6 3 A 9 K 10 A 9 5 3 K Q 7 4 8 5 K Q 8 5 Q 6 7 East claims that he would always be thinking of protecting with an 11 count, is mindful of his partner's tank, and is trying to be ethical. East lurks on this list, this may just may, get him out of his foxhole. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 11:20:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:20:56 +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 LAA11456 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:20:49 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id LAA15378; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:19:55 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate via smap (V2.1) id xma015226; Wed, 6 Oct 99 11:19:31 +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 ESMTP id LAA29360 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:19:31 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au ([137.172.73.135]) by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA17317 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:17:02 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19991006105326.0091def0@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 11:17:39 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: A Multi Case In-Reply-To: References: <19991004233904.15694.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, At 00:31 06-10-99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jan Romanski wrote: >>Michael Farebrother: > >>>3) under what regulations was this congress being held? Is pass >>>of Multi doubled to show diamonds alertable under the regulations? > >>No special regulations. As pairs from many countries (Byelorussia, >>Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Ukraine >>and Spain) took part it was annouced that every artifficial bid should >>be alerted. > > Pass to show a willingness to play there doesn't sound very artificial >to me. That seems to be the answer: no alert was required, no alert was >given, no MI. > Most of the people that I have played against who play the multi generally play Pass as being neutral *not* showing Diamonds (this is in both Australia and Japan). My partner and I have always alerted because we showed 5+ Diamonds with the Pass as that wasn't the 'normal' behaviour. I can't comment for what the players in this case thought but I don't think is so clear that no alert was required if they had a specific agreement to which their opponents were not aware. [But that would depend on the EBL alert rules - of which I am not familiar.] Consider an analogous case: 1NT (P) 2C (X) P Do you think without an alert this shows clubs - or just denies a major? Personally I would think a Pass showing clubs (rather than no Major) would be alertable. Cheers, Peter http://www.nswba.com.au From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 11:23:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:23:57 +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 LAA11471 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:23:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from p52s13a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.93.83] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Yfnl-0002VZ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 02:23:30 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A Multi Case Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 02:28:47 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf0f9a$22b794e0$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, October 06, 1999 1:38 AM Subject: Re: A Multi Case >Jan Romanski wrote: >>Michael Farebrother: > >>>3) under what regulations was this congress being held? Is pass >>>of Multi doubled to show diamonds alertable under the regulations? > >>No special regulations. As pairs from many countries (Byelorussia, >>Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Ukraine >>and Spain) took part it was annouced that every artifficial bid should >>be alerted. > > Pass to show a willingness to play there doesn't sound very artificial >to me. That seems to be the answer: no alert was required, no alert was >given, no MI. I play multi, and in this sequence play: pass shows at least 5 diamonds, redouble shows at least 5 clubs, 2NT shows at least 14 points and 2H says I have none of these. I alert all these bids because I think they have a meaning that the opps might not expect, even tho' among those who play multi here the responses are pretty standard. Multi is disliked by so many that I think those of us who want to play it have a super duper responsibility to inform about all bids that are not 100% obviously natural. Pass can mean either I have nothing to say. Pard you have another bid if you want it If the N/S pair in question are playing as we do, then I think there has been a lack of full disclosure. I think E/W are entitled to their alert. I also think that E/W sound experienced enough to have asked without damage to their side. I rule that the result stands, but fine N/S for failure to alert. (always assuming that their system is what I think it might be) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 12:14:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:14:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11618 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:14:52 +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 11YgbD-000D4Y-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 02:14:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 03:13:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Protection racket. In-Reply-To: <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >Here's a hand from tonight. >Personae dramatis >N , S, and E are TDs. >W is a lady who represents her country. > >Auction > >N E S W >P P 1NT P(agreed hesitation) >P 2C* P 3NT >AP > >* 2C shows Clubs and Hearts 4/4 couldn't hold a much better hand for it. I'd rule result stands and advise right of appeal. A fair number of ACs would overturn me, so I'm probably out on a limb. I'm a bit liberal wrt UI compared with the "Line 'em up against the wall" TDs. I'd expect >70% to act though. chs john > > >E/W game. dealer N > > 10 2 > 10 9 6 4 > 10 4 2 > J 8 4 2 >A 9 5 3 J 8 6 >A K J Q 7 3 2 >J 7 6 3 A 9 >K 10 A 9 5 3 > K Q 7 4 > 8 5 > K Q 8 5 > Q 6 7 > >East claims that he would always be thinking of protecting with >an 11 count, is mindful of his partner's tank, and is trying to be >ethical. >East lurks on this list, this may just may, get him out of his foxhole. >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 Wed Oct 6 12:38:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:33:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11705 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:33:12 +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 11Ygsy-0001bb-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 02:32:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 03:20:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: A Hesitation MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 7/S/ALL --- W N E S PAIRS KJ642 P A83 P 1H 3S P 87 KQ983 AKJT952 ..P 4C 4S 5H T8 Q3 AP KQ965 42 AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 A975 Result: 5H-1 JT7 74 Declarer misguessed the hearts because "The 4S bid suggested freakish distribution". 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 Oct 6 13:29:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:29:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11972 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:29:34 +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 ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 23:28:11 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 23:25:36 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: you placed that card wrong, partner Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson writes: > As far as dummy warning declarer is concerned, I would be happier if >dummy was despatched to the bar and told to stay there until the end of >the hand. Heh. One club I play in meets in a synagogue, the other in a church. No bars available. :-) 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/rCDr2UW3au93vOEQITsACfXAJc2k6PfT8SE/QZYN2fW1U2R4EAnjW/ fyIAL80xem06EDcZNcYhq8DX =l22w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 13:39:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:39:37 +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 NAA11991 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:39:30 +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 ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 23:32:18 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199910041735.KAA20603@mailhub.irvine.com> <199910041735.KAA20603@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 23:36:39 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson writes: >One of the reasons why I believe TWL should be taken out of the book >is that the bridge community does not know of the existence of this law, >and I expect a larger proportion of them would be shocked and >disbelieving [literally] if told of it. Shouldn't we rather try to educate the bridge community so that they _do_ know it? > It is a Law designed for the knowledgeable player to gain at the >expense of the average player, and I think that is terrible. Well, I'm no expert on the motives of those who designed this law, but I sincerely doubt that was their intention. :-) Also, I suspect it only works out that way because, as you say, the average player doesn't know or understand it. So we educate him, and then all players are knowledgeable and on an equal footing. 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/rEab2UW3au93vOEQI0sgCdErFfuDSFNNZ2/5kLScxXFt13ByQAnjmE t4gbmyloUOqJlouXXi3T3Sd2 =Ee8/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 13:56:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:33:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11706 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:33:13 +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 11Ygt1-0000EH-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 02:32:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 03:30:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Protection racket. References: <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Here's a hand from tonight. >Personae dramatis >N , S, and E are TDs. >W is a lady who represents her country. > >Auction > >N E S W >P P 1NT P(agreed hesitation) >P 2C* P 3NT >AP > >* 2C shows Clubs and Hearts 4/4 > > >E/W game. dealer N > > 10 2 > 10 9 6 4 > 10 4 2 > J 8 4 2 >A 9 5 3 J 8 6 >A K J Q 7 3 2 >J 7 6 3 A 9 >K 10 A 9 5 3 > K Q 7 4 > 8 5 > K Q 8 5 > Q 6 7 > >East claims that he would always be thinking of protecting with >an 11 count, is mindful of his partner's tank, and is trying to be >ethical. >East lurks on this list, this may just may, get him out of his foxhole. I have no idea who East is, of course, but I suggest that all Welsh Senior Area TDs ought to read L73C! Seriously though, people have to get out of the trap of thinking "I would always be protecting on an 11-count": that is not good enough. Pass is an LA on the East hand - not everyone shows two-suiters on balanced hands - so East should be passing. Mind you, it is not that easy: 2C shows 4/4 or better: if East can convince me his system is to always bid on 4/4s even with bad suits then Pass is no longer an LA - and I want to play against 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 Oct 6 14:20:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:33:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11704 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:33:11 +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 11Ygsy-0000EG-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 02:32:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 03:23:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Multi Case References: <19991004233904.15694.qmail@hotmail.com> <4.1.19991006105326.0091def0@sercit> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991006105326.0091def0@sercit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: >Hi all, > >At 00:31 06-10-99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Jan Romanski wrote: >>>Michael Farebrother: >> >>>>3) under what regulations was this congress being held? Is pass >>>>of Multi doubled to show diamonds alertable under the regulations? >> >>>No special regulations. As pairs from many countries (Byelorussia, >>>Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Ukraine >>>and Spain) took part it was annouced that every artifficial bid should >>>be alerted. >> >> Pass to show a willingness to play there doesn't sound very artificial >>to me. That seems to be the answer: no alert was required, no alert was >>given, no MI. >> > >Most of the people that I have played against who play the multi generally >play Pass as being neutral *not* showing Diamonds (this is in both >Australia and Japan). My partner and I have always alerted because we >showed 5+ Diamonds with the Pass as that wasn't the 'normal' behaviour. I >can't comment for what the players in this case thought but I don't think >is so clear that no alert was required if they had a specific agreement to >which their opponents were not aware. [But that would depend on the EBL >alert rules - of which I am not familiar.] The quoted rules were "Alert anything artificial". >Consider an analogous case: >1NT (P) 2C (X) >P > >Do you think without an alert this shows clubs - or just denies a major? >Personally I would think a Pass showing clubs (rather than no Major) would >be alertable. I cannot imagine as a player relying on an alert if I need to know whether this shows clubs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 6 15:33:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA12188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:33:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com [139.134.5.174]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA12183 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:33:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id oa921636 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:30:50 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-222-123.tmns.net.au ([139.134.222.123]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Bien-MailRouter V2.5 9/3921035); 06 Oct 1999 15:30:50 Message-ID: <002e01bf104a$c91cdec0$7bde868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:33:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Well, I'm no expert on the motives of those who designed this law, but I >sincerely doubt that was their intention. :-) Lille Interpretations (Item 6) gives some clues as to the intention of this law. It's available on DWS's website. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 16:06:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA12261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:06:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12256 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:06:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.57] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11YkD3-000OTn-00; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:05:53 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bf0fc0$d5363420$395108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Absence Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:04:28 +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; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:03:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA25344 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 08:02:51 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 08:02 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney 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: > > OK, I expect Australia has the same regulations as most other places - > perhaps an Australian could confirm or otherwise - in which case the > call was made when the pass card was taken from the box [apparently > intentionally]. > Assuming these regulations might you be persuaded that the pass card had not fully cleared the box (if such is the measure) when the intent changed and that it was dropped during the attempt to switch to 7NT (or before the hand movement could be arrested)? The write-up makes this sound unlikely but it may be worth investigating. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 21:31:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 21:31:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from stat.ee (gatekeeper.stat.ee [193.40.95.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA13191 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 21:31:45 +1000 (EST) Received: by stat.ee id LAA05291; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:29:23 GMT Received: from ESA-Message_Server by stat.ee with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:28:18 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:25:50 +0200 From: Aavo Heinlo To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Multi Case Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Jan Romanski" >A hand from Vilnius (Lithuania) International Congress. > > 93 Teams, Love all, Dealer N > 1087643 > A74 > 106 W N E S >A106 KQJ85 >AJ9 KQ5 2D X PASS >9865 Q 3NT PASS 4S PASS >Q75 A942 4NT PASS PASS PASS > 742 > 2 > KJ1032 Lead: DA then D7. > KJ83 Result: -2 > > >2D alerted as Multi. S's PASS promised diamonds and was not alerted. >EW claimed that they should know NS's agreement and W will never bid >3NT knowing that opponents has diamonds. >EW - very good pair (two world champions). >NS - good pair (national champions). > >What ruling should be in this case. S can pass for several reasons: 1) he hopes to collect some penalty 2) he wants play 3S or 4H depending on partner's suit 3) he has yarlborough and is afraid to awake monsters Only with weak hands the possibilty of having diamonds is higher for obvious shortness in one of majors. OW own bidding made it sure that some diamonds may be involved. One question from TD would enlighted the problem: Must N after 2D X PASS PASS automatically pass with 3-card diamond fit? If the answer is yes the S's pass should be alerted, otherwise certainly not. Aavo Heinlo Tel (+372) 6259217 Fax (+372-2) 453923 E-mail aavo.heinlo@stat.ee From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 22:14:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:14:01 +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 WAA13754 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:13:53 +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 OAA25401; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:13:43 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199910061213.OAA25401@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:12:31 +0200 Subject: Re: A Hesitation Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals CC: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > 7/S/ALL --- W N E S > PAIRS KJ642 P > A83 P 1H 3S P > 87 KQ983 AKJT952 ..P 4C 4S 5H > T8 Q3 AP > KQ965 42 > AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 > A975 Result: 5H-1 > JT7 > 74 > > Declarer misguessed the hearts because "The 4S bid suggested freakish > distribution". How do you rule? You mean declarer had no complaints about the fact that the 4S bid was made after West's slow pass? Well, I see no reason to correct for the misguessing, but East's 4S is not kosher. Pass is certainly an LA. Since L12a gives me the right to award an adjusted score on my own initiative, I correct to 4H just made for both sides. JP From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 22:38:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:25:10 +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 WAA13959 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:25:01 +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 IAA16891 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 08:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991006082633.00718148@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 08:26:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <37F9EEE4.6C5ADFDC@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm still not making any sense out of Herman's example. Maybe I'm missing something crucial. At 02:28 PM 10/5/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >Let's assume that there was MI and that you have ruled that >> >there was no damage. It's all in my text, repeated above. >> >> What MI do you want me to assume? Until the player admits that he may have >> omitted some relevant factor, how am I to know that there may have been any >> MI? When you say "our agreement is X" without expressing uncertainty, >> surely it is possible that this is correct information! In Herman's >> example, however, the player has subsequently admitted that it was not. > >Well, just suppose the player has said "it's X" and you >determine by whatever means that it should have been Y. >Simple MI, but you find no damage. OK. X is "It shows 15-17". Y is "We haven't discussed it, but we play a 1NT opening as 12-14, and my understanding of our general approach is that he should have 15-17 for his rebid". If I understand Herman's position, he is saying that there should be no (legal) distinction between these statements. That would mean that he has said "it's X", and I should determine that he should (or was entitled to) have said "it's X". There is no Y. This is what I'm disputing. >> >Well, the damage is there - the contract went down, so >> >doubled would be better, so there is damage. Ruling please >> >? >> >> When we talk about "damage" in the context of laws and rulings, I don't >> think we normally include "damage" caused by our opponents good (or lucky) >> actions; we use "damage" as shorthand for "damage resulting from an >> opponent's infraction". Herman may be correct in some semantic sense to >> say that any time an opponent's contract goes down undoubled (or makes >> doubled, or makes when you could have beaten it), you have been "damaged", >> but I don't see how that's relevant. > >Well, that's just what the player tells you "if I had known >that he was uncertain of the meaning, I would have doubled, >so I am damaged". Here Herman seems to be saying that there's no distinction between "If I had known he was uncertain I would have doubled" and "If I had known he was going down I would have doubled". They sound different to me. >> >"If I had known he was not certain of the meaning of his >> >partner's bid, I would have doubled him". >> > >> >I think this is BL-ing. >> >> And I think that it usually is, but also that I owe my players the >> opportunity to try to convince me (albeit with not much hope of success) >> that their particular such statement is not. > >Well, you have all the facts. > >The player said "it is X". >You determine that he should ahve said "it is Y". >You also determine that this in itself did not damage the >opponents. >Then the player says, "yes I was uncertain at the time, but >I did not let on to my opponents". >Then his opponent says "If I had known he was uncertain, I >would have doubled". (and you believe him) >Ruling ? If I believed him (not all that likely), I would find that he was damaged. But the example stipulates that I would find that he was not damaged. I'm still confused. Isn't the question of whether he was damaged or not what we're debating? 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 Oct 6 22:46:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:46:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA14098 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:46:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from uni-duesseldorf.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:45:41 +0200 Message-ID: <37FB4476.A3FB0566@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:45:42 +0200 From: Richard Bley X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [de]C-QXW0310J (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Hesitation References: <199910061213.OAA25401@hera.frw.uva.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals schrieb: > > DWS wrote: > > > 7/S/ALL --- W N E S > > PAIRS KJ642 P > > A83 P 1H 3S P > > 87 KQ983 AKJT952 ..P 4C 4S 5H > > T8 Q3 AP > > KQ965 42 > > AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 > > A975 Result: 5H-1 > > JT7 > > 74 > > > > Declarer misguessed the hearts because "The 4S bid suggested freakish > > distribution". How do you rule? > > You mean declarer had no complaints about the fact that the 4S > bid was made after West's slow pass? > > Well, I see no reason to correct for the misguessing, but East's 4S > is not kosher. Pass is certainly an LA. Since L12a gives me the > right to award an adjusted score on my own initiative, I correct to > 4H just made for both sides. I agree basically. BUT: after pass by E and 4H by S, W might bid 4S (he thought about bdding 4S the round earlier I guess). This might lead to 4S X -2 or 5H -1 Anyway, I wouldnt take this into account (even in an AC): it was E, who robbed his partner this possibility and W himself, who took a long time to bid PASS. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 6 23:06:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:06:56 +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 XAA14261 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:06:50 +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 JAA20447 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 09:07:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 09:08:23 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Protection racket. In-Reply-To: <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:10 AM 10/6/99 +0100, Anne wrote: >Here's a hand from tonight. >Personae dramatis >N , S, and E are TDs. >W is a lady who represents her country. > >Auction > >N E S W >P P 1NT P(agreed hesitation) >P 2C* P 3NT >AP > >* 2C shows Clubs and Hearts 4/4 > > >E/W game. dealer N > > 10 2 > 10 9 6 4 > 10 4 2 > J 8 4 2 >A 9 5 3 J 8 6 >A K J Q 7 3 2 >J 7 6 3 A 9 >K 10 A 9 5 3 > K Q 7 4 > 8 5 > K Q 8 5 > Q 6 7 > >East claims that he would always be thinking of protecting with >an 11 count, is mindful of his partner's tank, and is trying to be >ethical. "Would always be thinking of protecting" sounds like an admission that he would consider not protecting, so pass is an LA. WTP? If East had said that he would always protect, i.e. would never consider not protecting, he would still be ruled against in the ACBL, where the guidelines for adjudicating UI would require us to "discount" his statement as obviously self-serving. But in a jurisdiction that lacked such a guideline we might accept such a statement at face value and rule in his favor, on the grounds that his "peers" are limited to players who would never consider not protecting. 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 Oct 6 23:22:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:22:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA14376 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:22:14 +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 JAA22004 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 09:23:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991006092349.0070d894@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 09:23:49 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: A Multi Case In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991006105326.0091def0@sercit> References: <19991004233904.15694.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:17 AM 10/6/99 +1000, Peter wrote: >1NT (P) 2C (X) >P > >Do you think without an alert this shows clubs - or just denies a major? >Personally I would think a Pass showing clubs (rather than no Major) would >be alertable. I would assume without discussion that pass was natural, i.e. showed a willingness to play in 2CX, and that partner would redouble to force a normal Stayman response. I would expect the pass to be non-alertable (but I would alert the redouble, since it does not show a willingness to play in 2CXX). Let us be careful, however, not to fall into the trap of assuming that any given action must have only one non-alertable meaning. 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 Oct 6 23:34:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:34:49 +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 XAA14420 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:34:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA23333 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 09:35:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991006093614.0070d894@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 09:36:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: A Hesitation In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:20 AM 10/6/99 +0100, David wrote: >7/S/ALL --- W N E S >PAIRS KJ642 P > A83 P 1H 3S P >87 KQ983 AKJT952 ..P 4C 4S 5H >T8 Q3 AP >KQ965 42 >AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 > A975 Result: 5H-1 > JT7 > 74 > > Declarer misguessed the hearts because "The 4S bid suggested freakish >distribution". How do you rule? OK, I agree that 4S suggested freakish distribution. But "freakish distribution" isn't a guarantee that E cannot hold HQx, so I see no grounds for adjustment on that basis. I suspect that the hidden question is whether I (the TD) can or should raise the possibility that the 4S bid was based on UI when declarer has made no such assertion. I would take the position that L81C6 says that I can. IOW, I would never adjust to 5H=, but would consider the possibility of adjusting to 4H=. 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 Oct 7 00:06:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:06:39 +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 AAA14545 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:06:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-160.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.160]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA19423 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:06:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37FB39AF.F77FD47F@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:59:43 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > > > >Well, just suppose the player has said "it's X" and you > >determine by whatever means that it should have been Y. > >Simple MI, but you find no damage. > > Stop, Herman. "Begging the question". Eric and I think you _cannot_ > determine that 'it should have been Y' without asking questions that would > seemingly yield the sort of information you give later on. > You can't ? How about by looking into bidder's hand at the end of the play? > >Well, that's just what the player tells you "if I had known > >that he was uncertain of the meaning, I would have doubled, > >so I am damaged". > > Not enough for me, Herman. Remember, on my view a complete explanation > does not include simply saying "I think it's X but I'm not sure." A > complete explanation would be something more like "I think it's X--we used > to play that bid as Y, but I'm pretty sure we changed." You compound the issue by adding a second meaning. We assume that either the meaning X, or the meaning Y, would not lead to opponent doubling. In my hypothetical case, only the doubt showing would induce the (tentative) double. > So now I ask the player "had you been given that explanation, would you > have doubled, and why?" If he really can convince me that this additional > information would have been sufficient to put him in position to double, > then indeed I rule in his favor. But I honestly cannot imagine a case > where he would have doubled with this explanation _but wouldn't have > doubled if he had been told that the bid meant Y in the first place_. Well, the case can be constructed. 1NT - 2He - pass - 2Sp pass - pass explained as transfer, but actually showing hearts. Third hand would not double either hearts or spades, because he has 3 of each, but he might well double if the bid is explained, "I'm not certain if it is transfer or not". He would double because of the 50% chance that opponents are having a misunderstanding. If the bid is explained as "Transfer!", there is MI, there is no damage, there would be no adjustment, and then south says, "I would have doubled if I had known there was doubt". > So of course this is 99.9% likely to be BLing, Herman. > > >> >"If I had known he was not certain of the meaning of his > >> >partner's bid, I would have doubled him". > >> > > >> >I think this is BL-ing. > >> > >> And I think that it usually is, but also that I owe my players the > >> opportunity to try to convince me (albeit with not much hope of success) > >> that their particular such statement is not. > >> > > > >Well, you have all the facts. > > > >The player said "it is X". > >You determine that he should ahve said "it is Y". > >You also determine that this in itself did not damage the > >opponents. > >Then the player says, "yes I was uncertain at the time, but > >I did not let on to my opponents". > >Then his opponent says "If I had known he was uncertain, I > >would have doubled". (and you believe him) > >Ruling ? > > Again, for me it is almost impossible to imagine a case where: > a) There really is MI. see above. > b) There was no difference between the result given the actual explanation > and the likely result given the correct explanation. see above. S has 3 hearts and 3 spades. > c) There was a difference between the result given the actual explanation > and the likely result given a more complete original explanation. see above. S could have doubled if EW had shown doubt. > d) The more complete original explanation would still have been MI. > Of course, "I think it is Spades, but it might be hearts" is MI. > But in such an imaginary case, I rule damage, and as a PP I fine the > offenders a pair of Red Sox-Cubs world series tickets for DWS and I. :) > Not imaginary at all. Can I come too ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 00:06:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:06:40 +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 AAA14546 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:06:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-160.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.160]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA19440 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:06:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37FB3AA9.4454B055@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:03:53 +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: Strange revoke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last night : Cl A9 He Q Cl Q Cl 76 He J Cl J North is dummy, contract is 3NT. East plays the seven of clubs. South plays the Jack of hearts (revoke). West plays the Queen of clubs. South calls for the nine. The last four cards are shown. The revoke is discovered, and I am called. South states he thought hearts were played, which is also why he played low from dummy. Who gets the last two tricks ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 00:06:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:06:56 +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 AAA14559 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:06:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-160.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.160]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA19460 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:06:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37FB3D56.AE494A66@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:15:18 +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: Protection racket. References: <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > Here's a hand from tonight. > Personae dramatis > N , S, and E are TDs. > W is a lady who represents her country. > > Auction > > N E S W > P P 1NT P(agreed hesitation) > P 2C* P 3NT > AP > > * 2C shows Clubs and Hearts 4/4 > > E/W game. dealer N > > 10 2 > 10 9 6 4 > 10 4 2 > J 8 4 2 > A 9 5 3 J 8 6 > A K J Q 7 3 2 > J 7 6 3 A 9 > K 10 A 9 5 3 > K Q 7 4 > 8 5 > K Q 8 5 > Q 6 7 > > East claims that he would always be thinking of protecting with > an 11 count, is mindful of his partner's tank, and is trying to be > ethical. If this bid still exists in this situation, and I don't see why it shouldn't, then this is the absolute maximum for it. I allow 2Cl. > East lurks on this list, this may just may, get him out of his foxhole. > Anne -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 00:46:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:01:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA14505 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:01:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldh63.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.196.195]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA07926 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:01:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37FB5762.76A0F42F@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 07:06:26 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Hesitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > 7/S/ALL --- W N E S > PAIRS KJ642 P > A83 P 1H 3S P > 87 KQ983 AKJT952 ..P 4C 4S 5H > T8 Q3 AP > KQ965 42 > AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 > A975 Result: 5H-1 > JT7 > 74 > > Declarer misguessed the hearts because "The 4S bid suggested freakish > distribution". How do you rule? The 4S bid is barred. Rebids by a preemptor after a hesitation earn a PP in my book. Whether to allow 4H+4 or 4H+5 is a considerably more difficult problem. If I'm North, I'm always taking the hook on a spade lead, and playing for the drop on an off-suit lead. (I assume the off-suit is a stiff.) I'd want to hear what N has to say. But I'd rule 4H+5 against e-w and probably 4H+5 for N-S. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 01:59:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:59:29 +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 BAA15073 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:59:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA19580; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:59:08 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA28433; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:59:08 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 06 Oct 1999 15:59:07 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 QAA19740; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:59:06 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA07066; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:59:06 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:59:06 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199910061559.QAA07066@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: Strange revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Last night : > > Cl A9 > He Q > Cl Q Cl 76 > He J > Cl J > > North is dummy, contract is 3NT. > East plays the seven of clubs. > South plays the Jack of hearts (revoke). > West plays the Queen of clubs. > South calls for the nine. > > The last four cards are shown. > The revoke is discovered, and I am called. > > South states he thought hearts were played, which is also > why he played low from dummy. > > Who gets the last two tricks ? Law62D says the revoke (at trick twelve) is corrected, so at South's play to trick twelve we substitute CJ for HJ, West still plays CQ, so can the card played by dummy be changed? Not under L62D2, as this only refers to revokes by a defender. Not under L62C2, as non-offender has not withdrawn a card. So North still plays a small club and East/West (in fact West) make the last two tricks. I was unsure whether to apply L62C2 looking at the heading, "by partner of offender" does not clearly apply to cards played by dummy. But the fabulous law makers provide crystal clear text in the law itself "the hand of the offending side next in rotation" which would let dummy's card be changed if West had changed his card under L62C1. I suspect I have managed to disagree with Herman yet again. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 02:13:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:19:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA14656 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:19:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldh63.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.196.195]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA18028 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:19:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37FB5B94.C2AFCD80@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 07:24:20 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: A Hesitation References: <3.0.1.32.19991006093614.0070d894@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As I did not make myself very clear in my last post, let me make the argument for 4H+5 in a less fuzzy manner: Eric Landau wrote: > > At 03:20 AM 10/6/99 +0100, David wrote: > > >7/S/ALL --- W N E S > >PAIRS KJ642 P > > A83 P 1H 3S P > >87 KQ983 AKJT952 ..P 4C 4S 5H > >T8 Q3 AP > >KQ965 42 > >AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 > > A975 Result: 5H-1 > > JT7 > > 74 > > > > Declarer misguessed the hearts because "The 4S bid suggested freakish > >distribution". How do you rule? > > OK, I agree that 4S suggested freakish distribution. But "freakish > distribution" isn't a guarantee that E cannot hold HQx, so I see no grounds > for adjustment on that basis. > It isn't clear what the trick two continuation was. If club then club, East is marked with a doubleton club and a very strange 4S rebid. 7=0=4=2? Nope, east shows a heart on the first one. Surely for 4S east must be 7=1=3=2 or 8=1=2=2 right? Whereas, for 3S, East could be 7=2=2=2. There is at least some further indication of heart shortness by the 4S bid; North could not know the East's bid was a flagrant use of UI. There are some indications that E-W aren't very good players, so perhaps these inferences are of dubious value. I don't know. And I certainly understand Eric's position that the final contract should be 4H+4; I just don't believe that's automatic. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 03:08:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:08:43 +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 DAA15528 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:08:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA30492; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:07:51 -0700 Message-Id: <199910061707.KAA30492@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A Hesitation In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Oct 1999 03:20:47 PDT." Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 10:07:50 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > 7/S/ALL --- W N E S > PAIRS KJ642 P > A83 P 1H 3S P > 87 KQ983 AKJT952 ..P 4C 4S 5H > T8 Q3 AP > KQ965 42 > AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 > A975 Result: 5H-1 > JT7 > 74 > > Declarer misguessed the hearts because "The 4S bid suggested freakish > distribution". How do you rule? I think we're all agreed that 4S is illegal and TD should adjust to 4H, making something. There's some discussion over whether the TD has the right to adjust even though North didn't complain about the UI. However, I suspect that North *did* call the TD because of the UI, and that David left that out because he thought it was obvious. Otherwise, why did the TD get called at all? North called the TD and said, "East made a bad bid and it misled me into making the wrong play and I want redress"???? (OK, I *have* played against some players who might call the TD for that reason . . .) So the only question is, do we adjust to 620 or 650? This seems closely related to some hands I posted recently, in which the defense made blatant use of UI, then North later misguessed the queen of trumps. In the hands I posted, the consensus was that North gets to keep his misguess when we decide how the play would have gone when applying L12C2, since North's guess in trumps would not have been affected if we changed the offender's illegal play (illegal because of the UI) to a legal one. Does the same principle apply here? We have to ask: (a) If East had passed and North played 4H, would North have guessed trumps correctly? (b) Was North's trump misguess truly caused by East's actual auction? I believe the answer to both questions has to be "yes" (or "yes with a high enough probability") for us to adjust to 650. John Mayne's argument for playing for the drop is a good one, which means (a) appears to be satisfied; the problem is that his argument also applies in the actual auction, which means that North's guess would not have been affected by a difference in the auction, which means he gets to keep his misguess, *unless* we can be convinced that East's actual bidding (as well as the play to the first few tricks) negates John's argument and mandates a change in strategy. I don't know whether this is the case or not, and I probably still wouldn't be sure even if I knew how the play went. One other question that has to be answered: Suppose West had Qxx of hearts and the finesse had won. How does North intend to come to 11 tricks if East has the freakish distribution North suspects? If North draws the last trump, he can come to maybe five hearts, one ruff in South, 3 clubs if they split 4-2, and a diamond. That's ten. Where's the other trick coming from? If North doesn't draw the last trump, does he expect to score two ruffs in dummy; and if so, how? All this argues that the drop may be the correct play at 5H in spite of the auction, and this may argue that the trump finesse was simply a poor play that should not be changed when we're deciding how many tricks to award in 4H. I don't know. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 03:32:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:32:28 +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 DAA15683 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:32:18 +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 NAA12179 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA12916 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:17:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:17:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199910061717.NAA12916@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Protection racket. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: 3o49G2tASTPVOoBheXE4VA== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne wrote: > Auction > > N E S W > P P 1NT P(agreed hesitation) > P 2C* P 3NT > AP > > * 2C shows Clubs and Hearts 4/4 > > > E/W game. dealer N > > 10 2 > 10 9 6 4 > 10 4 2 > J 8 4 2 > A 9 5 3 J 8 6 > A K J Q 7 3 2 > J 7 6 3 A 9 > K 10 A 9 5 3 > K Q 7 4 > 8 5 > K Q 8 5 > Q 6 7 Passing the East hand would certainly be a LA playing most defences to 1NT. But if you have a bid available that shows specifically clubs+hearts, doesn't guarantee more than 4-4, allows you to play in either suit at the 2-level, and you're a passed hand (so partner won't get carried away), I can't see any reason not to use it, certainly at matchpoints (was it MPs, by the way?). So under the circumstances I don't think pass is a LA. Jeremy. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 03:33:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:33:14 +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 DAA15694 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:33:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA30815; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:32:27 -0700 Message-Id: <199910061732.KAA30815@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A Hesitation In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Oct 1999 07:06:26 PDT." <37FB5762.76A0F42F@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 10:32:27 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Mayne wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > 7/S/ALL --- W N E S > > PAIRS KJ642 P > > A83 P 1H 3S P > > 87 KQ983 AKJT952 ..P 4C 4S 5H > > T8 Q3 AP > > KQ965 42 > > AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 > > A975 Result: 5H-1 > > JT7 > > 74 > > > > Declarer misguessed the hearts because "The 4S bid suggested freakish > > distribution". How do you rule? > > The 4S bid is barred. Rebids by a preemptor after a hesitation earn a PP > in my book. > > Whether to allow 4H+4 or 4H+5 is a considerably more difficult problem. > If I'm North, I'm always taking the hook on a spade lead . . . After going over the play a few more times, I'm now convinced: If the Qxx is onside, you will take as many tricks by playing for the drop as you will by taking the finesse (assuming trumps not 4-0). This is true on a club or spade lead; I haven't analyzed the play on a diamond lead. OTOH, if I missed something, it wouldn't surprise me. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 03:38:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:33:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA15729 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:33:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11YuwL-000BJ3-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:33:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:22:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: you placed 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 Ed Reppert wrote: >David Stevenson writes: >> As far as dummy warning declarer is concerned, I would be happier if >>dummy was despatched to the bar and told to stay there until the end of >>the hand. >Heh. One club I play in meets in a synagogue, the other in a church. No >bars available. :-) OK, I'm flexible, send dummy off to have a prayer. My contracts often need one! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 03:53:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:53:43 +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 DAA15869 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:53:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA31114; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:52:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199910061752.KAA31114@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Protection racket. In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:17:12 PDT." <199910061717.NAA12916@pluto.math.uga.edu> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 10:52:50 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: > Anne wrote: > > > Auction > > > > N E S W > > P P 1NT P(agreed hesitation) > > P 2C* P 3NT > > AP > > > > * 2C shows Clubs and Hearts 4/4 > > > > > > E/W game. dealer N > > > > 10 2 > > 10 9 6 4 > > 10 4 2 > > J 8 4 2 > > A 9 5 3 J 8 6 > > A K J Q 7 3 2 > > J 7 6 3 A 9 > > K 10 A 9 5 3 > > K Q 7 4 > > 8 5 > > K Q 8 5 > > Q 6 7 > > Passing the East hand would certainly be a LA playing most defences > to 1NT. > > But if you have a bid available that shows specifically clubs+hearts, > doesn't guarantee more than 4-4, allows you to play in either suit at > the 2-level, and you're a passed hand (so partner won't get carried > away), I can't see any reason not to use it, certainly at matchpoints > (was it MPs, by the way?). > > So under the circumstances I don't think pass is a LA. A few people have felt that bidding is clear with the East hand. I'm not so sure. I balance aggressively over 1NT-pass-pass- when I have some distribution, say 5-5, 5-4, or a 6-bagger, even when I have little in high cards, because partner is marked with some strength and the chance that you have a playable fit is pretty high. (In fact, I'd rather do that with little strength than moderate strength, because if I have little strength, our side's assets are more likely to be well placed, over the NT bidder---especially true against a strong NT, but still true over a 12-14.) So balancing is fairly safe in these circumstances. But with 3=4=2=4? Yuk. East got lucky that partner had as much as he did. Give West the same distribution and about 8 fewer HCP, and make East play 2Hx with Qxxx opposite Jxx, and then we'll see who thinks 2C is a clear bid. Of course, my theories on bidding don't have any relevance to the ruling, and neither do anyone else's; the important facts here are E-W's agreements (keeping in mind that East's statement about an agreement could be self-serving) and how many of East's peers would balance in the same situation. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 04:04:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 04:04:09 +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 EAA15988 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 04:03:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28336 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 20:03:41 +0200 Received: from ip167.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.167), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb28332; Wed Oct 6 20:03:39 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:03:39 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <8Ib7N5mB1TYhUHOMRMvavhh=7I=D@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <199910041735.KAA20603@mailhub.irvine.com> <199910041735.KAA20603@mailhub.irvine.com> 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 EAA15989 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 5 Oct 1999 23:36:39 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: [about L25B] >Shouldn't we rather try to educate the bridge community so that they _do_ >know it? That would be the thing to do if the law was a sensible law that just happened not to be widely known. But L25B is terrible in itself: * it explicitly allows an action, * but prescribes a penalty (and uses words such as "offender") for taking that allowed action, thus suggesting that there is after all something not quite right about the action, * but lets the NOS keep the score achieved, thus suggesting that they are not damaged even though their opponents for some reason are considered to have deserved only 40%. Let us get rid of it. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 04:04:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 04:04:10 +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 EAA15995 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 04:03:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28343 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 20:03:51 +0200 Received: from ip167.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.167), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdc28332; Wed Oct 6 20:03:41 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: I think partner has... Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:03:41 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <2Ij7N4Fl6OHEaI==hftMTq75pd2h@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <4.1.19991004233501.00a42b10@pop.swinternet.net> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991004233501.00a42b10@pop.swinternet.net> 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 EAA15999 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 23:54:21 +0100, Dave Armstrong wrote: >At the club tonight the bidding went - > >N E S W >1NT p p X >2C X 2D A X >All pass > >The 2D was alerted the explained as "Although it is an unusual sequence I >think it is still a transfer to hearts." What N really meant is probably something like "We play transfers in other situations, and we have no agreement about this particular situation. My guess is that it is a transfer.". If he had said it like that (and if I judged that it was a correct explanation of their agreements), I would have no problem in ruling that there was no MI. On the contrary: a careful attempt to describe their methods. If his actual statement was understood by the opponents as implying that there was an agreement which he was just not quite certain about, then there is MI. If the opponents understood that what he was saying was really "no agreement", then there is no MI. I would like to talk to the players before ruling this. >Why did North pass after this dubious explanation? Because it is the only sensible bid when he is in doubt as to what S has. EW can hardly be surprised at N's pass. >Was it ethical? Certainly. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 04:04:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 04:04:08 +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 EAA15987 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 04:03:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28335 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 20:03:41 +0200 Received: from ip167.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.167), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda28332; Wed Oct 6 20:03:38 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:03:38 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <01bf0eb6$6cd81340$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 EAA15990 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:27:54 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > The reason for the change in the Law was, so I understand, to stop >people waking their partner up to the position. Players who wanted >Partner to cash the setting trick liked to be able to correct the way >partner had put his card down. I would not find that a problem - except: > Perhaps they would not correct it until >it became relevant which was legal under the old Laws. That could be a problem. But not very often: how many players who see their partners turn a trick wrongly would consider that it might be advantageous to wait until a later time to inform partner? Of course, there is a significant probability that the wrongly turned card is noticed later when partner is thinking for a long time - but I do not see that as a problem either. Steve's suggestion that it might be allowed until the player's side plays to the next trick would probably solve that problem. I suspect that we need not prolong this part of the discussion further: it is still my point of view that the laws would be better if everybody were allowed to point out that a card was turned incorrectly, at least if they did so "soon" after the irregularity - but I have gained some degree of understanding for the opposite point of view. However, I would still appreciate it if somebody could tell me where to find the WBFLC interpretation about this that David referred to. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 04:59:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:33:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA15730 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:33:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11YuwM-000BJ2-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:33:23 +0000 Message-ID: <258WqwAv71+3EwgL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:38:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 75 - Flannery rides again References: <+sfLelCCDV+3Ewhy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <+sfLelCCDV+3Ewhy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Laval wrote: >>Hi all, >> >>Recently in my club I had to rule on this: >> >> North (dealer) >> Q 9 x x >> x >> A K J x x x >> x x >>West East >>A x x J x >>A J x x K x x x x >>x x Q x x >>D x x x A J x >> >> South >> K 10 x x >> Q x x >> x x >> K x x x >> >> N E S W >>2D! P 2S X >>3D X AP As has been pointed out to me [since I missed it] why is South passing? Presumably 3D is a cue-bid showing a freak. Sounds to me as though South has experience of this partner! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 7 05:02:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 05:02:41 +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 FAA16247 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 05:02:34 +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 OAA25844 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:04:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:03:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <37FB39AF.F77FD47F@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:59 PM 10/6/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: >> >> > >> >Well, just suppose the player has said "it's X" and you >> >determine by whatever means that it should have been Y. >> >Simple MI, but you find no damage. >> >> Stop, Herman. "Begging the question". Eric and I think you _cannot_ >> determine that 'it should have been Y' without asking questions that would >> seemingly yield the sort of information you give later on. >> > >You can't ? > >How about by looking into bidder's hand at the end of the >play? I think that this hardly ever tells us anything about the partnership's agreements, and therefore cannot tell us if there was MI. >1NT - 2He - pass - 2Sp >pass - pass >explained as transfer, but actually showing hearts. Hold on, Herman. By "actually showing hearts" do you mean that hearts were what the bidder in fact held, or do you mean that examination of the cc, or discussion with the players, etc., demonstrated that their agreement was that the bid really was supposed to show hearts all along? >Third hand would not double either hearts or spades, because >he has 3 of each, but he might well double if the bid is >explained, "I'm not certain if it is transfer or not". He I haven't claimed that one should say this. One should, if it is true, say something like: "We agreed to play this as a transfer, but Joe usually forgets that." "We used to play this as natural, but I think we changed to transfers yesterday." "I've never played with Joe before, but I seem to remember he usually plays that as a transfer." Whatever. The player should make available to the opponents the information he is using to determine the meaning of that bid. [Except things like the content of his own hand.] >would double because of the 50% chance that opponents are >having a misunderstanding. I have not said that opponents are entitled to the information that my pair might be having a misunderstanding, so I am not saying that we should protect the rights of defenders to double based simply on the knowledge that the pair might be having a misunderstanding. I am saying that if a pair has information about their agreements they must reveal it, even if some of that information suggests that the player's favored interpretation might be incorrect. >If the bid is explained as "Transfer!", there is MI, there I have not yet been given any evidence that there is MI. [Yes, I know this is a hypothetical case, but Eric and I think this is crucial.] What evidence was given to the TD that allowed him to determine that this pair had an agreement that the bid was natural? >is no damage, there would be no adjustment, and then south >says, "I would have doubled if I had known there was doubt". No adjustment, if that's all there is to the case. >> Again, for me it is almost impossible to imagine a case where: >> a) There really is MI. > >see above. > >> b) There was no difference between the result given the actual explanation >> and the likely result given the correct explanation. > >see above. S has 3 hearts and 3 spades. > >> c) There was a difference between the result given the actual explanation >> and the likely result given a more complete original explanation. > >see above. S could have doubled if EW had shown doubt. > Of course, you must do more to convince me that it was likely that S _really would have_ doubled. >> d) The more complete original explanation would still have been MI. >> > >Of course, "I think it is Spades, but it might be hearts" is >MI. Of course, it isn't, or at any rate it might very well not be. Again, I think this may be what's really at the 'heart' of our disagreement. If I explain partner's bid by saying, e.g., "We agreed last night in the bar to play that as a transfer, but Jim was pretty drunk then so he may well have forgotten", and Jim in fact has forgotten, then there was no MI. I have correctly described our agreements. If I say [truthfully] "We haven't discussed that sequence, but I think Jim usually plays those bids as transfers", and Jim in fact wasn't transferring, there was still no MI. There is no MI when a player truthfully and accurately reveals his partnership agreements, even if his explanation does not match his partner's hand. >> But in such an imaginary case, I rule damage, and as a PP I fine the >> offenders a pair of Red Sox-Cubs world series tickets for DWS and I. :) >> > >Not imaginary at all. Can I come too ? Well, if there are any tickets left after we make room for all the 'two L25b calls on the same hand' people. :) >-- >Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 05:10:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 05:10:48 +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 FAA16272 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 05:10:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28548 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 21:10:31 +0200 Received: from ip47.virnxr3.ras.tele.dk(195.215.245.47), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda28545; Wed Oct 6 21:10:22 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: A Hesitation Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 21:10:22 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <3.0.1.32.19991006093614.0070d894@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991006093614.0070d894@pop.cais.com> 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 FAA16273 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 09:36:14 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >I suspect that the hidden question is whether I (the TD) can or should >raise the possibility that the 4S bid was based on UI when declarer has >made no such assertion. I would take the position that L81C6 says that I can. My position is that L81C6 says that the TD can _and should_. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 05:51:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:33:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA15725 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:33:38 +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 11YuwF-000FZ4-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:33:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:18:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney 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: >> >> OK, I expect Australia has the same regulations as most other places - >> perhaps an Australian could confirm or otherwise - in which case the >> call was made when the pass card was taken from the box [apparently >> intentionally]. >> >Assuming these regulations might you be persuaded that the pass card had >not fully cleared the box (if such is the measure) when the intent changed >and that it was dropped during the attempt to switch to 7NT (or before >the hand movement could be arrested)? The write-up makes this sound >unlikely but it may be worth investigating. It would be reasonable, but as you say, the actual description suggested this was not the case. Anyway, we have since discovered that it was changeable because Australian regulations do not make the call made until it is on the table. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 7 05:52:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 05:52:58 +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 FAA16487 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 05:52:51 +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 ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:45:39 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199910061559.QAA07066@tempest.npl.co.uk> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:43:20 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Strange revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robin Barker writes: >I suspect I have managed to disagree with Herman yet again. I can't say as to that, but FWIW, I came up with the same answer you did. ;-) 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/uoh72UW3au93vOEQI4JwCgwPF5su8Lk1wxIzeFin03+D6yyrkAn3DU ZMMoMWXM6IWJR7z+PIKmqjNf =duAB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 05:57:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:33:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA15719 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:33:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11YuwE-000Lb7-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:33:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:21:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Multi Case References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Aavo Heinlo wrote: >>From: "Jan Romanski" >>2D alerted as Multi. S's PASS promised diamonds and was not >alerted. >>EW claimed that they should know NS's agreement and W will >never bid >>3NT knowing that opponents has diamonds. >>EW - very good pair (two world champions). >>NS - good pair (national champions). >> >>What ruling should be in this case. > >S can pass for several reasons: >1) he hopes to collect some penalty >2) he wants play 3S or 4H depending on partner's suit >3) he has yarlborough and is afraid to awake monsters >Only with weak hands the possibilty of having diamonds >is higher for obvious shortness in one of majors. >OW own bidding made it sure that some diamonds >may be involved. >One question from TD would enlighted the problem: >Must N after >2D X PASS PASS >automatically pass with 3-card diamond fit? >If the answer is yes the S's pass should be alerted, >otherwise certainly not. Should it not be the other way round? If pass tells opener to describe his hand then it requires an alert? You are suggesting the alert if it is natural and not if it is artificial. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 7 06:04:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 06:04:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16533 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 06:03:56 +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 QAA28769; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA00634; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:03:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:03:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910062003.QAA00634@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > The reason for the change in the Law was, so I understand, to stop > people waking their partner up to the position. Players who wanted > Partner to cash the setting trick liked to be able to correct the way > partner had put his card down. Perhaps they would not correct it until > it became relevant which was legal under the old Laws. Thus it is > Communication between Partners that it the worry. If that's the concern, why not just reference the sections of L73 (? no FLB at hand) dealing with communication between partners? The implication would be that you better tell partner about wrong tricks either always or never but not sometimes. This is like the skip bid warning or (in Zones 2 and 7?) the revoke inquiry. And anyway, is David's reason for concern so substantial? Does it really do violence to the game if occasionally someone wakes partner up with an statement about turning a trick wrong? Is that worse than the disagreements over tricks won ensuing from cards turned wrong? Is it worth having a rule that is difficult to follow instead of one that is simple? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 06:43:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 06:11:32 +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 GAA16585 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 06:11:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-5-209.access.net.il [213.8.5.209] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26348; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:09:24 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37FBACCA.B74E4BD1@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 22:10:50 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Schoderb@aol.com CC: gester@globalnet.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney References: <0.37051cb6.252b8c55@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I learnt from Ton , two years ago , that the basic Idea (behind or under ..) of 25B was "not to play an absurd contract"- it isn't bridge ..... As I emphasize every time I think it's relevant ,we are NOT allowed to forget that the main flavor of bridge is the "joy of playing..." and not the laws . I think - and it is my personal opinion only - that before the WBFLC will discuss any change of 25B , it will be very useful to run a poll among the 200 world top players (or any number they will decide ) . Then - again my opinion only - they will rewrite 25B to let the change of call in very well defined cases only , according to the basic Idea I pointed above. Dany Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/5/99 11:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > gester@globalnet.co.uk writes: > > > Grattan Endicott > ================================ > > " The only limit to our realization of tomorrow > > will be our doubts of today." (F.D.R.) > > wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Craig Senior > > Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney > > > > > > > > > > 25B is not only elitist it is stupid; count me on the list of those who > > >would like to deep six it. > > > > > +=+ You might well have several current members > > of the WBFLC to support this view. Apart from me > > there is, I think, at least one other, and I would be > > surprised if it stopped there. It is likely to be a > > subject in January. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > KKKKK..... I'm at least the "one other," hopefully there are more. Getting a > second, probably less costly, bite of the apple after making an error, > misbid, forgot-the-system-till-now call is not what bridge is all about. > This Law was a Band-Aid applied by Edgar after his mistake in Geneva, and > like all Band-Aids needs to be discarded after the wound is healed. It > belongs in the trash along with at least the second sentence of Law 79B which > was at least a step away from the horror we had in the 1987 Laws on this > subject......KKKKK From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 07:03:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 07:03:12 +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 HAA16815 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 07:03:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01276; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:02:25 -0700 Message-Id: <199910062102.OAA01276@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Oct 1999 22:10:50 PDT." <37FBACCA.B74E4BD1@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:02:26 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > I learnt from Ton , two years ago , that the basic Idea > (behind or under ..) of 25B was "not to play an absurd contract"- > it isn't bridge ..... Well, in that case, L25B needs to be expanded, not eliminated. My partner puts me in an absurd contract at least once a session, and I need a Law that will let me change the contract after I see the dummy and see just how badly he bid his hand . . . -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 07:37:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 07:37:35 +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 HAA16980 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 07:37:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA03406 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA01038 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:37:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910062137.RAA01038@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: I think partner has... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > What N really meant is probably something like "We play transfers > in other situations, and we have no agreement about this > particular situation. My guess is that it is a transfer.". I like the first sentence (maybe with clarification about which other situations), but I think it would be better to omit the second. This might be a good place to summarize where I think we have ended up. I know we are not unanimous. 1. Implicit agreements -- those arising as a logical consequence of other agreements rather than from explicit discussion -- must be disclosed. (Incidentally, this answers the "young scientists" case I brought up a few months ago.) 2. The proper way to disclose is to state the relevant facts about agreements you do have. 3. Statements about your uncertainty or how you plan to interpret partner's call are not needed or appropriate. Herman has this part right, I think. The facts in item 2 are disclosable; one's own mental state is not (and creates serious UI for partner if it is disclosed). 4. Partnership experience ("He forgot this a week ago.") is disclosable. To apply all this to the two examples originally brought up in this thread (assuming the agreeements really are as stated): A. "We play support doubles, so he could have shown three-card support if he had it and wanted to show it. We have no agreements on when, if ever, three-card support might be suppressed in favor of showing other features of the hand." B. [for 1m-1M-1NT] "Our opening 1NT is 12-14, but we have no agreement about what a 1NT rebid shows." In the UK, that's probably enough. In the US, where nobody plays weak NT, I'd feel obliged to add "The most common agreement around here is 15-17 balanced, but some players rebid 1NT with an unbalanced or semi-balanced minimum that has no other convenient rebid." This might be seen as a bridge lesson, but if partner and I have agreed on weak NT, we probably have a lot more experience with it than the opponents do, and arguably this rises to the level of "special partnership understanding." I could be convinced to change my mind, though. Perceptive readers will note that the discussion has changed my answer to B. That's what BLML is for (among other things). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 07:41:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 07:41:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17016 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 07:41:08 +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, 6 Oct 1999 17:39:49 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002e01bf104a$c91cdec0$7bde868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:36:05 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Peter Gill" writes: >Lille Interpretations (Item 6) gives some clues as to the intention of this >law. It's available on DWS's website. Thanks, Peter. I'd forgotten it was there. Having now reread it, I have to say I don't see why, in this one case, the law should allow correction of a "stupid mistake" when it does not do so in others (leading to AQ for a finesse, and then playing the Q under LHO's K, for example.) So I guess I've come round to the view 25B ought to be scrapped, so that a change of call is permitted only if 25A applies. 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/vB572UW3au93vOEQIe6gCg49Fp7Wz/WYZfAFP4TISn7ELOoXUAoJHm hnZ7LfrAD6+HDYCmytNtac8q =n6iQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 07:42:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 06:12:09 +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 GAA16595 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 06:11:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-5-209.access.net.il [213.8.5.209] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26255; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:09:06 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37FBACB3.3207D964@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 22:10:27 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Protection racket. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear John This is again a question of bridge judgment. MHO is that the player sitting as RHO of the bidder of 1NT is in the worst position to bid, but if he has a very special distribution (i don't think it is a good action to bid with a very strong hand too,,,,,). According to this judgment I don't accept East's bid, and let "the virtual score" of 1NT. Of course the right of appeal is "ON" Do you have a second opinion ??? Dany John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones > writes > >Here's a hand from tonight. > >Personae dramatis > >N , S, and E are TDs. > >W is a lady who represents her country. > > > >Auction > > > >N E S W > >P P 1NT P(agreed hesitation) > >P 2C* P 3NT > >AP > > > >* 2C shows Clubs and Hearts 4/4 > > couldn't hold a much better hand for it. I'd rule result stands and > advise right of appeal. A fair number of ACs would overturn me, so I'm > probably out on a limb. I'm a bit liberal wrt UI compared with the > "Line 'em up against the wall" TDs. I'd expect >70% to act though. > > chs john > > > > > >E/W game. dealer N > > > > 10 2 > > 10 9 6 4 > > 10 4 2 > > J 8 4 2 > >A 9 5 3 J 8 6 > >A K J Q 7 3 2 > >J 7 6 3 A 9 > >K 10 A 9 5 3 > > K Q 7 4 > > 8 5 > > K Q 8 5 > > Q 6 7 > > > >East claims that he would always be thinking of protecting with > >an 11 count, is mindful of his partner's tank, and is trying to be > >ethical. > >East lurks on this list, this may just may, get him out of his foxhole. > >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 Thu Oct 7 07:52:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 06:53:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16759 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 06:53:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA00421 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:53:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA00920 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:53:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910062053.QAA00920@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Protection racket. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jeremy Rickard > But if you have a bid available that shows specifically clubs+hearts, > doesn't guarantee more than 4-4, allows you to play in either suit at > the 2-level, and you're a passed hand (so partner won't get carried > away), I can't see any reason not to use it, certainly at matchpoints > (was it MPs, by the way?). Remember, the vulnerability is RED. So the reason not to use the bid is -100 instead of -90 or -200 instead of -120. (The reason to use it is, of course, +110 or +140 against +50 or +100 or maybe -100 instead of -120.) Jeremy is right, though, that a pair who have these methods is likely to be agressive about balancing, and we need to consider this in deciding what "peers" would do. I think this is a very difficult question in a 30% jurisdiction like the UK. I'm not even going to offer an opinion; this is definitely one you have to discuss with the other members of the AC. It might help to know what actions were available to the player in direct position. If the direct pass has ruled out four-card holdings and moderate strength, balancing becomes much less attractive. The only thing I'm sure about is that the appellants get their deposit back. In a 10% jurisdiction or in the ACBL (or if scoring was IMPs), pass seems a clear LA, at least to me. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 07:57:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 07:57:49 +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 HAA17094 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 07:57:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA06573 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:57:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA01121 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:57:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:57:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910062157.RAA01121@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Hesitation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > OK, I agree that 4S suggested freakish distribution. But "freakish > distribution" isn't a guarantee that E cannot hold HQx, so I see no grounds > for adjustment on that basis. Once we have decided to adjust under L16A, we just apply L12C2 in the usual way. What results in 4H are "likely" and "at all probable?" In playing 5H, it seems to me that declarer is entitled to assume that East "has his bid." While Qx is surely not ruled out, a singleton seems much more likely. The implication is that declarer's play after the 4S bid _should be discounted_; it provides virtually no information about how declarer might play had the 4S bid not been made. So what happens in 4H? While declarer might well decide to finesse on the basis of the (legal) 3S bid, playing for the drop is certainly attractive, as Adam's analysis has shown (if I understand him). I'm not certain it's "likely," but it is surely "at all probable." Thus the OS are getting -450. My vote is to give the NOS +450, but it wouldn't be a travesty to give +420. The "takeaway point"... David S. has frequently reminded us that the play in some contract may differ from the play in the same denomination at a different level. That is even clearer when the play may have been affected by an infraction! Thus when applying L12C2, we should be careful not to give too much weight to the actual play. I think this problem would be an excellent one for an advanced TD training course. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 08:35:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 08:35:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17310 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 08:35:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02401; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:35:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199910062235.PAA02401@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A Hesitation In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:57:39 PDT." <199910062157.RAA01121@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 15:35:06 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > So what happens in 4H? While declarer might well decide to finesse on > the basis of the (legal) 3S bid, playing for the drop is certainly > attractive, as Adam's analysis has shown (if I understand him). I'm > not certain it's "likely," but it is surely "at all probable." I think I need to elaborate what I was saying. Playing for the drop is not just attractive, it is mandatory, since taking the finesse can never gain; this is true regardless of how the auction went and regardless of how many hearts you're in. But because of this, it's arguable that declarer's actual play, taking the finesse, had nothing to do with the auction. And if that's the case, then when we determine how the play might have gone in 4H, we don't let declarer play for the drop---we assume he would make the same mistake that he made in 5H. (This last principle is based on a previous thread I started a few weeks ago.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 10:45:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:45:41 +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 KAA17871 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:45:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Z1gS-0005Fd-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:45:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:11:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: A Hesitation In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > >7/S/ALL --- W N E S >PAIRS KJ642 P > A83 P 1H 3S P >87 KQ983 AKJT952 ..P 4C 4S 5H >T8 Q3 AP >KQ965 42 >AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 > A975 Result: 5H-1 > JT7 > 74 > > Declarer misguessed the hearts because "The 4S bid suggested freakish >distribution". How do you rule? > P P 1H 3S P P 4C P 4H 4S P P 5H is the >80% auction if we deem the original 4S call to have been made using UI. We already know that West will bid 4S. I think N will still get it wrong most of the time (>80% eg). Result stands, advise right of appeal. AC awards 20% of 5H making. 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 Oct 7 10:45:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:45:45 +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 KAA17876 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:45:38 +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 11Z1gS-0005Fb-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:45:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:09:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Strange revoke In-Reply-To: <37FB3AA9.4454B055@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <37FB3AA9.4454B055@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Last night : > > Cl A9 >He Q >Cl Q Cl 76 > He J > Cl J > >North is dummy, contract is 3NT. >East plays the seven of clubs. >South plays the Jack of hearts (revoke). >West plays the Queen of clubs. >South calls for the nine. Trick 12 revokes are covered by Law. However L62C also applies so North doesn't get to change his card since West hasn't changed his. West gets two tricks. 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 Oct 7 11:03:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:03:04 +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 LAA17991 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:02:57 +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 SAA04415; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:02:16 -0700 Message-Id: <199910070102.SAA04415@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A Hesitation In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Oct 1999 01:11:19 PDT." Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 18:02:17 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > In article , David Stevenson > writes > > > >7/S/ALL --- W N E S > >PAIRS KJ642 P > > A83 P 1H 3S P > >87 KQ983 AKJT952 ..P 4C 4S 5H > >T8 Q3 AP > >KQ965 42 > >AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 > > A975 Result: 5H-1 > > JT7 > > 74 > > > > Declarer misguessed the hearts because "The 4S bid suggested freakish > >distribution". How do you rule? > > > P > P 1H 3S P > P 4C P 4H > 4S P P 5H is the >80% auction if we deem the original > 4S call to have been made using UI. We already know > that West will bid 4S. We do? West may have been thinking about bidding 4S on his last turn, but that was before he heard what North's second suit was. Given that West's clubs are going to be a lot more useful on defense than on offense, I think it's within the realm of probability that West will let them play 4H rather than take what could well be a phantom save. Or are you suggesting West is bidding 4S to make? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 11:59:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:59:24 +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 LAA18164 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:59:17 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id LAA24800; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:58:35 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate via smap (V2.1) id xma024721; Thu, 7 Oct 99 11:58:21 +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 ESMTP id LAA24169 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:58:20 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au ([137.172.73.135]) by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA20730 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:55:50 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19991007111706.009c4600@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:56:25 +1000 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Peter Newman Subject: Special agreements (was: Re: A Multi Case) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991006092349.0070d894@pop.cais.com> References: <4.1.19991006105326.0091def0@sercit> <19991004233904.15694.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, Time for a topic change... At 09:23 06-10-99 -0400, Eric wrote: >At 11:17 AM 10/6/99 +1000, Peter wrote: > >>1NT (P) 2C (X) >>P >> >>Do you think without an alert this shows clubs - or just denies a major? >>Personally I would think a Pass showing clubs (rather than no Major) would >>be alertable. > >I would assume without discussion that pass was natural, i.e. showed a >willingness to play in 2CX, and that partner would redouble to force a >normal Stayman response. I would expect the pass to be non-alertable (but >I would alert the redouble, since it does not show a willingness to play in >2CXX). > It is interesting to me what Eric would assume vs. what I would assume. This also seems the case for the Pass of the double of a multi. I think this is important in the context of L75A. I have always been uncomfortable with the view "I don't need to explain that - it is just normal bridge and not a *special* understanding". Perhaps when the law was written there was much more common ground about the meanings of bids. I don't think that there are many situations that could be considered like that any more. As such I think almost any understanding becomes a "special agreement". Special in that it has been built up based upon the region you play, your peers, how long you have been playing etc. I think that everybody has a duty to explain as much as possible to their opponents without trying to hide under the shield of "it's just bridge". Cheers, Peter http://www.nswba.com.au From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 12:45:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:45:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cia.com.au ([203.17.36.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA18311 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:45:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 6662 invoked from network); 7 Oct 1999 02:42:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO matthew-s) (203.28.48.197) by cia.com.au with SMTP; 7 Oct 1999 02:42:04 -0000 Message-ID: <37FC0A22.65D9@cia.com.au> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:49:07 +1000 From: Matthew McManus Reply-To: matmc@cia.com.au Organization: none X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-CIA (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: (no subject) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please delete my name from the Bridge Laws Discussion List Regards Matthew McManus From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 13:40:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:43:41 +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 MAA18267 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:43:24 +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 11Z3WO-000AQ1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 02:43:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 02:09:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strange revoke References: <199910061559.QAA07066@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Robin Barker writes: >>I suspect I have managed to disagree with Herman yet again. >I can't say as to that, but FWIW, I came up with the same answer you did. ;-) Me too! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 7 13:57:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:57:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18534 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:57:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehd1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.161]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA26776 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:57:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991006235504.012c702c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 23:55:04 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: I think partner has... In-Reply-To: <199910062137.RAA01038@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Somewhat to my surprise, based on the threads on this subject to date, I find myself mostly in agreement with what you have written. At 05:37 PM 10/6/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >This might be a good place to summarize where I think we have ended up. >I know we are not unanimous. > >1. Implicit agreements -- those arising as a logical consequence of >other agreements rather than from explicit discussion -- must be >disclosed. (Incidentally, this answers the "young scientists" case I >brought up a few months ago.) > Yes, I think that this is consistent with the spirit of the the Laws, if not exactly the letter of the Laws. >2. The proper way to disclose is to state the relevant facts about >agreements you do have. Yes indeed. Disclosing relevant partnership agreements is part of your legal duty. >3. Statements about your uncertainty or how you plan to interpret >partner's call are not needed or appropriate. Herman has this part >right, I think. The facts in item 2 are disclosable; one's own mental >state is not (and creates serious UI for partner if it is disclosed). Very important point, IMO. The Laws require you to disclose agreements, not other things _about_ your agreements, such as how these agreements were arrived at or how confident you are in their status. >4. Partnership experience ("He forgot this a week ago.") is disclosable. Small disagreement. Agreements based on partnership experience are disclosable, but other events or facts which do not alter the fundamental nature of the agreement need not be disclosed. Obviously, if you've changed your agreement because partner kept forgetting the earlier one, then the current agreement needs to be disclosed. But the fact that partner forgot this agreement one time is no basis for you to assume that he has forgotten it again (and in fact, that incident could well have strengthened his understanding of the sequence), and need not, in general, be disclosed. Indeed, the comment you offer as an example could easily be seen as an attempt to embarass your partner, and I have a hard time imagining the circumstances under which it would actually be appropriate, unless in a very congenial and informal setting. > >To apply all this to the two examples originally brought up in this >thread (assuming the agreeements really are as stated): > >A. "We play support doubles, so he could have shown three-card support >if he had it and wanted to show it. We have no agreements on when, if >ever, three-card support might be suppressed in favor of showing other >features of the hand." I think this is the clearest and most precise answer possible. It is, however, a touch long-winded for practical application. >B. [for 1m-1M-1NT] "Our opening 1NT is 12-14, but we have no agreement >about what a 1NT rebid shows." In the UK, that's probably enough. In >the US, where nobody plays weak NT, I'd feel obliged to add "The most >common agreement around here is 15-17 balanced, but some players rebid >1NT with an unbalanced or semi-balanced minimum that has no other >convenient rebid." This one I have some problems with. By your own admission, you actually have a lot more confidence in the meaning of the 1nt rebid than your explanation suggests. You (and I) expect this to show a balanced 15-17, period. If you are as confident about this as I think you are (and as I am), then it seems to me that this is an agreement, and should be presented as such. To do otherwise is to deprive the opponents of their right to know the agreements which you will rely upon in making your own bidding and play decisions. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 14:10:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:10:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18577 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:09:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehd1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.161]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA08667 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:09:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991007000719.012ca5f0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 00:07:19 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Special agreements (was: Re: A Multi Case) In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991007111706.009c4600@sercit> References: <3.0.1.32.19991006092349.0070d894@pop.cais.com> <4.1.19991006105326.0091def0@sercit> <19991004233904.15694.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:56 AM 10/7/99 +1000, Peter wrote: >Hi all, > >Time for a topic change... > >At 09:23 06-10-99 -0400, Eric wrote: >>At 11:17 AM 10/6/99 +1000, Peter wrote: >> >>>1NT (P) 2C (X) >>>P >>> >>>Do you think without an alert this shows clubs - or just denies a major? >>>Personally I would think a Pass showing clubs (rather than no Major) would >>>be alertable. >> >>I would assume without discussion that pass was natural, i.e. showed a >>willingness to play in 2CX, and that partner would redouble to force a >>normal Stayman response. I would expect the pass to be non-alertable (but >>I would alert the redouble, since it does not show a willingness to play in >>2CXX). >> > >It is interesting to me what Eric would assume vs. what I would assume. >This also seems the case for the Pass of the double of a multi. >I think this is important in the context of L75A. I have always been >uncomfortable with the view "I don't need to explain that - it is just >normal bridge and not a *special* understanding". Perhaps when the law was >written there was much more common ground about the meanings of bids. > >I don't think that there are many situations that could be considered like >that any more. As such I think almost any understanding becomes a "special >agreement". Special in that it has been built up based upon the region you >play, your peers, how long you have been playing etc. > >I think that everybody has a duty to explain as much as possible to their >opponents without trying to hide under the shield of "it's just bridge". > No such open-ended duty exists. Your duty to explain begins and ends with your agreements. In fact, your opening paragraph illustrates the point precisely. You and Eric, whom I presume to both be competent players, each make certain assumptions about the meaning of this pass. Neither of you is wrong, except in believing that your own view is the "standard" one. If either of you heard this sequence with a new partner, having failed to cover this particular sequence in the 15-minutes you had to discuss methods, then the only correct explanation is that you have no agreement. Period. If you offer the explanation and it happens that partner's understanding was different, then you will have committed MI, even if you've advised the opponents about your uncertainty. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 14:26:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:26:02 +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 OAA18635 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:25:55 +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 VAA06920 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 21:27:04 -0700 Message-ID: <003b01bf107c$0a4757a0$8fc556d8@mminternet.com> From: "Phillip Mendelsohn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Protection Racket Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 21:25:51 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Auction N E S W P P 1NT P(agreed hesitation) P 2C* P 3NT AP * 2C shows Clubs and Hearts 4/4 E/W game. dealer N 10 2 10 9 6 4 10 4 2 J 8 4 2 A 9 5 3 J 8 6 A K J Q 7 3 2 J 7 6 3 A 9 K 10 A 9 5 3 K Q 7 4 8 5 K Q 8 5 Q 6 7 * * * * * 1. There was an agreed break in tempo, so there is no question there may be UI available to East. 2. Does West's break in tempo "demonstrably suggest" that bidding 2C was more likely to be a winning action? While I would like to know more about E-W's agreements in situations of this type (what does double mean by West? by East? how does West show a one-suiter? a two-suiter?), West's hesitation almost certainly shows "values," and thus, I feel West's break in tempo does "demonstrably suggest" that East bid. 3. In ACBL-land, a logical alternative is a call that would be seriously considered by at least a substantial minority of equivalent players acting on the basis of all the information legitimately available (see Case 4, 1999 Vancouver NABC Appeals). East has an effective eight-count, poor distribution, and unfavorable vulnerability. I find it difficult to believe that 2C would be "seriously considered" by a substantial minority of equivalent players, for the reasons stated in Steve Wilner's post. IMHO, pass is clearly a logical alternative. 4. The score should therefore be adjusted to 1NT down four, N/S -200. On a pedestrian low spade lead, it appears South can score only one spade, one diamond, and one club against reasonable defense. For the offending E/W pair, the most unfavorable result probable still appears to be +200. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 14:38:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:43:41 +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 MAA18269 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:43:25 +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 11Z3WO-000CKO-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 02:43:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:05:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner References: <199910062003.QAA00634@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910062003.QAA00634@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Is it >worth having a rule that is difficult to follow instead of one that is >simple? Pardon? You are not allowed to point out when a card is wrong. You don't do it. What is difficult about it? Difficult is not taking advantage of UI! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 7 14:46:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:43:41 +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 MAA18270 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:43:25 +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 11Z3WO-000CKP-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 02:43:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:08:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Protection racket. References: <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >If East had said that he would always protect, i.e. would never consider >not protecting, he would still be ruled against in the ACBL, where the >guidelines for adjudicating UI would require us to "discount" his statement >as obviously self-serving. I know that some people do this. But I have never seen any guideline to actually discount it, and the NABC Casebooks make clear that most ACs do not follow it. If it were true, why do the ACBL waste time taking evidence from the offenders? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 7 15:05:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA18767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:05:11 +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 PAA18762 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:05:04 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id PAA26220; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:04:28 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate via smap (V2.1) id xma026005; Thu, 7 Oct 99 15:03:59 +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 ESMTP id PAA02226 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:03:59 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au ([137.172.73.135]) by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA21230 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:01:27 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19991007145950.0095f460@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 15:02:03 +1000 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: Special agreements (was: Re: A Multi Case) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >No such open-ended duty exists. Your duty to explain begins and ends with >your agreements. Yes I agree with that. In a new partnership I would certainly do exactly as you advise. I often say just that. If I believe that despite being a new partnership we have common understandings because of our shared knowledge that my opponent's are not aware I think that should be explained too. Let me clarify. Among the group I commonly play with/against we play far more takeout doubles than perhaps is normal. If I were to sit down with one of these players for the first time. We would no doubt spend 10 seconds saying Acol. 2D=majors. DONT. 1430. and off we go. Then this auction occurs: Me 1NT (X) XX (2C) P (P) X.... Where the opponents X showed Clubs or both Reds. Now I know that partners X is for T/O by our general shared knowledege but not by any special agreement. We didn't quite discuss this sequence. I think I must tell the opponents: X is undiscussed but the general style is many T/O doubles. The more partnership undersandings you have the higher the bar as the more likely it is you have agreements (I don't care whether you want to call them special or not) that you can share with the opponents. >In fact, your opening paragraph illustrates the point precisely. You and >Eric, whom I presume to both be competent players, each make certain >assumptions about the meaning of this pass. Neither of you is wrong, except >in believing that your own view is the "standard" one. If either of you umm. I don't think I ever said mine was standard - I was just saying that would be the common treatment in these parts. If Eric came and played in Australia isn't he entitled to know that? Cheers, Peter PS: As a side-note I also think to some degree it depends upon my opponents - I am more than capable of working most of the negative inferences out so there is no need for my opponents to spell it out. I feel for those who aren't so capable then I am under a higher level of obligation. Of course if an expert asks for the benefit of their sponsor - well - that is *different*. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 15:38:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:43:40 +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 MAA18268 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:43:25 +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 11Z3WO-0002UK-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 02:43:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:01:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney References: <0.37051cb6.252b8c55@aol.com> <37FBACCA.B74E4BD1@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <37FBACCA.B74E4BD1@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >I learnt from Ton , two years ago , that the basic Idea >(behind or under ..) of 25B was "not to play an absurd contract"- >it isn't bridge ..... Bridge is a game of mistakes. What L25B does is to substitute an arbitrary score instead of playing bridge. Playing absurd contracts is bridge. >As I emphasize every time I think it's relevant ,we are NOT allowed to >forget that the main flavor of bridge is the "joy of playing..." and not >the laws . > >I think - and it is my personal opinion only - that before the WBFLC >will discuss any change of 25B , it will be very useful to run a poll >among the 200 world top players (or any number they will decide ) . Oh no, Dany, please, we want Laws for ordinary players: we don't want top players deciding Laws! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 15:46:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:43:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18266 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:43:24 +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 11Z3WO-000AQ2-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 02:43:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 02:11:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Hesitation References: <199910061213.OAA25401@hera.frw.uva.nl> In-Reply-To: <199910061213.OAA25401@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: >DWS wrote: > >> 7/S/ALL --- W N E S >> PAIRS KJ642 P >> A83 P 1H 3S P >> 87 KQ983 AKJT952 ..P 4C 4S 5H >> T8 Q3 AP >> KQ965 42 >> AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 >> A975 Result: 5H-1 >> JT7 >> 74 >> >> Declarer misguessed the hearts because "The 4S bid suggested freakish >> distribution". How do you rule? > >You mean declarer had no complaints about the fact that the 4S >bid was made after West's slow pass? Of course he did. I am sorry, there is so much writing on this mailing list, with so many interminably long articles, that I sometimes try to keep articles short. I really could not believe that anyone needed telling that North did not merely call the TD to tell him he had misguessed a suit. I am sorry. I shall lengthen my article next time. North called the TD to complain about the 4S bid in view of the agreed hesitation. While telling the Director what had happened he also mentioned why he had misguessed the hearts. None of the players at the table were particularly good. Halfway down the field in a national Swiss pairs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 7 16:33:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 16:33:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from stat.ee (gatekeeper.stat.ee [193.40.95.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA18998 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 16:33:43 +1000 (EST) Received: by stat.ee id GAA09693; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 06:31:33 GMT Received: from ESA-Message_Server by stat.ee with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:30:36 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:33:02 +0200 From: Aavo Heinlo To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Multi Case Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Aavo Heinlo wrote: >One question from TD would enlighted the problem: >Must N after >2D X PASS PASS >automatically pass with 3-card diamond fit? >If the answer is yes the S's pass should be alerted, >otherwise certainly not. David Stevenson wrote: > Should it not be the other way round? If pass tells opener to > describe his hand then it requires an alert? You are > suggesting the > alert if it is natural and not if it is artificial. It is not artificial. As after any doubled natural opening bid one can choose the option to pass with any holding, 1S X Pass is never alerted if it hasn't special meaning. I presume that after 2D X Pass the same applies. Any other response is quite determined but the PASS is loose. It is NF and partner has the liberty to pass or bid, whatever. Aavo Heinlo Tel (+372) 6259217 Fax (+372-2) 453923 E-mail aavo.heinlo@stat.ee From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 21:06:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 21:06:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA19317 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 21:06:26 +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 11ZBNH-000PFG-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:06:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:52:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Special agreements (was: Re: A Multi Case) References: <4.1.19991006105326.0091def0@sercit> <19991004233904.15694.qmail@hotmail.com> <3.0.1.32.19991006092349.0070d894@pop.cais.com> <4.1.19991007111706.009c4600@sercit> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991007111706.009c4600@sercit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: >Hi all, > >Time for a topic change... > >At 09:23 06-10-99 -0400, Eric wrote: >>At 11:17 AM 10/6/99 +1000, Peter wrote: >> >>>1NT (P) 2C (X) >>>P >>> >>>Do you think without an alert this shows clubs - or just denies a major? >>>Personally I would think a Pass showing clubs (rather than no Major) would >>>be alertable. >> >>I would assume without discussion that pass was natural, i.e. showed a >>willingness to play in 2CX, and that partner would redouble to force a >>normal Stayman response. I would expect the pass to be non-alertable (but >>I would alert the redouble, since it does not show a willingness to play in >>2CXX). >> > >It is interesting to me what Eric would assume vs. what I would assume. >This also seems the case for the Pass of the double of a multi. >I think this is important in the context of L75A. I have always been >uncomfortable with the view "I don't need to explain that - it is just >normal bridge and not a *special* understanding". Perhaps when the law was >written there was much more common ground about the meanings of bids. > >I don't think that there are many situations that could be considered like >that any more. As such I think almost any understanding becomes a "special >agreement". Special in that it has been built up based upon the region you >play, your peers, how long you have been playing etc. > >I think that everybody has a duty to explain as much as possible to their >opponents without trying to hide under the shield of "it's just bridge". That is fine for explanations [and I agree] but it is somewhat different for alerts. Alerting is not a delicate way of giving information! If the bidding goes 1NT P 2C X P an unalerted pass cannot be considered as showing clubs, or showing nothing and asking partner to bid, based on an alert unless your SO has very well-defined regulations. Only if a method is totally unheard of in that part of the world can it be excluded. But if you are asked what the pass means to say that it is natural is not acceptable! You want a better 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 Thu Oct 7 21:06:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 21:06:36 +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 VAA19316 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 21:06:26 +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 11ZBNH-000PFH-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:06:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:59:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Hesitation References: <199910062157.RAA01121@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199910062235.PAA02401@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199910062235.PAA02401@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Steve Willner wrote: > >> So what happens in 4H? While declarer might well decide to finesse on >> the basis of the (legal) 3S bid, playing for the drop is certainly >> attractive, as Adam's analysis has shown (if I understand him). I'm >> not certain it's "likely," but it is surely "at all probable." > >I think I need to elaborate what I was saying. Playing for the drop >is not just attractive, it is mandatory, since taking the finesse can >never gain; this is true regardless of how the auction went and >regardless of how many hearts you're in. But because of this, it's >arguable that declarer's actual play, taking the finesse, had nothing >to do with the auction. And if that's the case, then when we >determine how the play might have gone in 4H, we don't let declarer >play for the drop---we assume he would make the same mistake that he >made in 5H. (This last principle is based on a previous thread I >started a few weeks ago.) Well, I do not agree. If you believe that for this declarer he would finesse given an illegal 4S bid, and would not otherwise, then he has been damaged. The fact that you as a better analyst [and I can assure you *most* of us are better analysts when we can see four hands] see the play is imperfect does not affect the concept 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 Oct 7 21:38:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 21:38:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA19366 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 21:38:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-200.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.200]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA27837 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:38:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37FB5D9B.C311C1D1@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 16:32:59 +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: A Hesitation References: <3.0.1.32.19991006093614.0070d894@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > OK, I agree that 4S suggested freakish distribution. But "freakish > distribution" isn't a guarantee that E cannot hold HQx, so I see no grounds > for adjustment on that basis. > > I suspect that the hidden question is whether I (the TD) can or should > raise the possibility that the 4S bid was based on UI when declarer has > made no such assertion. I would take the position that L81C6 says that I can. > > IOW, I would never adjust to 5H=, but would consider the possibility of > adjusting to 4H=. > I agree. Either 4Sp is allowed, in which case South has drawn a false conclusion from AI and the result shall stand, or 4Sp is not allowed, in which case the result is 4H= or even 4H+1. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 22:38:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:22:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19476 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:21:53 +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 11ZCYC-000FbH-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:21:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:23:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: I think partner has... References: <199910062137.RAA01038@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991006235504.012c702c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991006235504.012c702c@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 05:37 PM 10/6/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >>1. Implicit agreements -- those arising as a logical consequence of >>other agreements rather than from explicit discussion -- must be >>disclosed. (Incidentally, this answers the "young scientists" case I >>brought up a few months ago.) >Yes, I think that this is consistent with the spirit of the the Laws, if >not exactly the letter of the Laws. L75A says [inter alia]: "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40)." I suggest the letter of the Laws also requires implicit agreements to be disclosed. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 7 23:17:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:17:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19728 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:17:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-124.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.124]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA08595 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:17:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37FC91FD.9D58DBDB@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 14:28:45 +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: Strange revoke References: <199910061559.QAA07066@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > I suspect I have managed to disagree with Herman yet again. > What makes you think that? I have posted an easy one - and all posters got it absolutely right, as I did at the table. They don't all have to be 2-months long discussion, have they ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 23:17:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:17:30 +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 XAA19727 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:17:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-124.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.124]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA08579 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:17:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37FC8F81.6D40AF16@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 14:18:09 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > > >1NT - 2He - pass - 2Sp > >pass - pass > >explained as transfer, but actually showing hearts. > > Hold on, Herman. By "actually showing hearts" do you mean that hearts > were what the bidder in fact held, or do you mean that examination of the > cc, or discussion with the players, etc., demonstrated that their agreement > was that the bid really was supposed to show hearts all along? > Of course I mean that, please allow me some shorthand ! > >Third hand would not double either hearts or spades, because > >he has 3 of each, but he might well double if the bid is > >explained, "I'm not certain if it is transfer or not". He > > I haven't claimed that one should say this. One should, if it is true, > say something like: > "We agreed to play this as a transfer, but Joe usually forgets that." > "We used to play this as natural, but I think we changed to transfers > yesterday." > "I've never played with Joe before, but I seem to remember he usually > plays that as a transfer." > Whatever. The player should make available to the opponents the > information he is using to determine the meaning of that bid. [Except > things like the content of his own hand.] > Well, in my mind, all these are exactly the same. They all tell the opponents that the bid is meant as a transfer, and they add some doubt to that. I don't care how one says it, how one tries "not to lie". My point is that the doubt showing is unnecessary. All these responses will result in the same ruling, if it turns out the actual agreement is natural, not transfer. > >would double because of the 50% chance that opponents are > >having a misunderstanding. > > I have not said that opponents are entitled to the information that my > pair might be having a misunderstanding, so I am not saying that we should > protect the rights of defenders to double based simply on the knowledge > that the pair might be having a misunderstanding. I am saying that if a > pair has information about their agreements they must reveal it, even if > some of that information suggests that the player's favored interpretation > might be incorrect. > Well, that is precisely what I have been saying all along ! The information content that suggests the meaning of the bid must be complete, including those explicit agreements that lead to the implicit ones. But the player is not obliged to tell about the doubt ! > >If the bid is explained as "Transfer!", there is MI, there > > I have not yet been given any evidence that there is MI. Well, I'm telling you that it is. [Yes, I know > this is a hypothetical case, but Eric and I think this is crucial.] What > evidence was given to the TD that allowed him to determine that this pair > had an agreement that the bid was natural? > I don't care what that was. Suffice to say that the TD has determined that the agreement was "natural". Remember that the TD must assume this barring proof of the opposite. > >is no damage, there would be no adjustment, and then south > >says, "I would have doubled if I had known there was doubt". > > No adjustment, if that's all there is to the case. > Thank you. I think we have now settled this - and it has taken far too long for my point to get accross to Eric and Grant - sorry about that. In explaining the meaning of a bidding sequence, a player is not obliged to reveal the degree of certainty he has about the truth of his statements. If it turns out he is right, there is no MI. If it turns he is wrong, there is MI. That's all folks. > >> Again, for me it is almost impossible to imagine a case where: > >> a) There really is MI. > > > >see above. > > > >> b) There was no difference between the result given the actual > explanation > >> and the likely result given the correct explanation. > > > >see above. S has 3 hearts and 3 spades. > > > >> c) There was a difference between the result given the actual > explanation > >> and the likely result given a more complete original explanation. > > > >see above. S could have doubled if EW had shown doubt. > > > > Of course, you must do more to convince me that it was likely that S > _really would have_ doubled. > Well, the usual standard is "could". Quite possible. > >> d) The more complete original explanation would still have been MI. > >> > > > >Of course, "I think it is Spades, but it might be hearts" is > >MI. > > Of course, it isn't, or at any rate it might very well not be. Yes it is, if it turns out the agreement is hearts, then the above statement is MI. I don't want to add my guesses to those of opponent. If my opponent says the above, I will assume it is spades and no director should rule against me if I fail to take the other possibility into account. I don't have to play that way. > Again, I think this may be what's really at the 'heart' of our > disagreement. If I explain partner's bid by saying, e.g., "We agreed last > night in the bar to play that as a transfer, but Jim was pretty drunk then > so he may well have forgotten", and Jim in fact has forgotten, then there > was no MI. Agreed, if you can prove this statement by some means. I may even be inclined to believe Jim. But if you simply alert, say "transfer", and explain the same sentence to the director afterwards, exactly the same situation exists. There is no need to add "Jim was pretty drunk" at the time of the explanation. Afterwards is just as good. The opponents aren't helped, and the MI ruling is the same. > I have correctly described our agreements. If I say > [truthfully] "We haven't discussed that sequence, but I think Jim usually > plays those bids as transfers", and Jim in fact wasn't transferring, there > was still no MI. There is no MI when a player truthfully and accurately > reveals his partnership agreements, even if his explanation does not match > his partner's hand. > Again, simply stating "transfer" at the time, and giving the full explanation later, gives exactly the same result. It is up to the director to rule if there is MI or not, and the evidence he uses will include the statements you give to him. > >> But in such an imaginary case, I rule damage, and as a PP I fine > the > >> offenders a pair of Red Sox-Cubs world series tickets for DWS and I. :) > >> > > > >Not imaginary at all. Can I come too ? > > Well, if there are any tickets left after we make room for all the 'two > L25b calls on the same hand' people. :) > > >-- > >Herman DE WAEL > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 7 23:29:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:29:46 +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 XAA19799 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:29:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA24778 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:30:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991007093120.00720880@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:31:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Special agreements (was: Re: A Multi Case) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991007000719.012ca5f0@pop.mindspring.com> References: <4.1.19991007111706.009c4600@sercit> <3.0.1.32.19991006092349.0070d894@pop.cais.com> <4.1.19991006105326.0091def0@sercit> <19991004233904.15694.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:07 AM 10/7/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >>At 09:23 06-10-99 -0400, Eric wrote: >>>At 11:17 AM 10/6/99 +1000, Peter wrote: >>> >>>>1NT (P) 2C (X) >>>>P >>>> >>>>Do you think without an alert this shows clubs - or just denies a major? >>>>Personally I would think a Pass showing clubs (rather than no Major) would >>>>be alertable. >>> >>>I would assume without discussion that pass was natural, i.e. showed a >>>willingness to play in 2CX... > >In fact, your opening paragraph illustrates the point precisely. You and >Eric, whom I presume to both be competent players, each make certain >assumptions about the meaning of this pass. Neither of you is wrong, except >in believing that your own view is the "standard" one. If either of you >heard this sequence with a new partner, having failed to cover this >particular sequence in the 15-minutes you had to discuss methods, then the >only correct explanation is that you have no agreement. Period. If you >offer the explanation and it happens that partner's understanding was >different, then you will have committed MI, even if you've advised the >opponents about your uncertainty. Michael misunderstands my position. I would not assume that a pass showed a willingness to play in 2C because that is "standard". I would assume it because when partner makes a call about which we have no relevant agreement, which could have two possible meanings, one of which is natural, common sense says that I should assume that it is the natural meaning which was intended (perhaps what I'm saying is that I consider such an assumed fallback position to be "standard"). I do not assume that partner thinks that the natural meaning is "standard"; I assume only that partner recognizes that the call is ambiguous in our methods, and will attempt to resolve the ambiguity in what seems to me to be the "obvious" way, i.e. natural rather than not. There might be times and places where either my interpretation or Peter's might be considered "standard", but not where I play. Different partnerships who have discussed this auction will have come to different agreements; there is no "standard" agreement here. The point of my second paragraph (not quoted by Michael) was that while neither interpretation is "standard", as Michael correctly argues, neither interpretation is uncommon, unusual or unexpected, and hence I would expect neither interpretation to require an alert. If my opponents believed (incorrectly) that one interpretation or the other was standard, and so assumed from my failure to alert that I was interpreting my partner's call in the same way they would, that is a mistake on their part, not the result of MI from my failure to alert. I am in complete agreement with Michael that the only correct explanation of our agreement about this call is "we have no agreement". I am under no obligation to reveal (much less alert) what I would deduce from what I consider to be common sense, and to do so *would* be MI. Of course, if I had explicitly agreed with partner (as I would be likely to have done with an unfamiliar partner; I usually do) that we will resolve such undiscussed ambiguous situations in favor of the natural interpretation, I would tell my opponents exactly that: "We haven't discussed it, but we have agreed that ambiguous calls are natural if that is one of the possible meanings." 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 Oct 7 23:38:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:22:09 +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 WAA19488 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:22:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ZCYF-000Ahk-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:21:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:19:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Multi Case References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Aavo Heinlo wrote: >Aavo Heinlo wrote: > >>One question from TD would enlighted the problem: >>Must N after >>2D X PASS PASS >>automatically pass with 3-card diamond fit? >>If the answer is yes the S's pass should be alerted, >>otherwise certainly not. > >David Stevenson wrote: >> Should it not be the other way round? If pass tells opener to >> describe his hand then it requires an alert? You are >> suggesting the >> alert if it is natural and not if it is artificial. > >It is not artificial. As after any doubled natural opening >bid one can choose the option to pass >with any holding, 1S X Pass is never alerted >if it hasn't special meaning. >I presume that after 2D X Pass >the same applies. Any other response is quite >determined but the PASS is loose. It is NF and >partner has the liberty to pass or bid, whatever. Sorry, Aavo, I do not buy it. If it goes 2D Dbl Pass then you are saying that it is natural when partner is expected to describe his hand. That is not natural: that is an artificial enquiry. The Pass is not "LOOSE": partner is not expected to pass it. 1S X XX is not the same: partner is expected to pass it unless he has some compelling reason not to: it is not an enquiry so it is not artificial. The only meaning for 2D [Multi] Pass that is not artificial is one that suggests playing there, and that shows diamonds. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 8 01:01:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:22:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19477 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:21:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ZCYC-000FbJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:21:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:27:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Protection Racket References: <003b01bf107c$0a4757a0$8fc556d8@mminternet.com> In-Reply-To: <003b01bf107c$0a4757a0$8fc556d8@mminternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Phillip Mendelsohn wrote: >Auction > >N E S W >P P 1NT P(agreed hesitation) >P 2C* P 3NT >AP > >* 2C shows Clubs and Hearts 4/4 > > >E/W game. dealer N > > 10 2 > 10 9 6 4 > 10 4 2 > J 8 4 2 >A 9 5 3 J 8 6 >A K J Q 7 3 2 >J 7 6 3 A 9 >K 10 A 9 5 3 > K Q 7 4 > 8 5 > K Q 8 5 > Q 6 7 > >* * * * * > >1. There was an agreed break in tempo, so there is no question there may be >UI available to East. >2. Does West's break in tempo "demonstrably suggest" that bidding 2C was >more likely to be a winning action? While I would like to know more about >E-W's agreements in situations of this type (what does double mean by West? >by East? how does West show a one-suiter? a two-suiter?), West's >hesitation almost certainly shows "values," and thus, I feel West's break in >tempo does "demonstrably suggest" that East bid. >3. In ACBL-land, a logical alternative is a call that would be seriously >considered by at least a substantial minority of equivalent players acting >on the basis of all the information legitimately available (see Case 4, 1999 >Vancouver NABC Appeals). East has an effective eight-count, poor >distribution, and unfavorable vulnerability. Why has East got an "effective eight-count"? He has an eleven-count, with no singleton honours. J86 plays better opposite [say] AKT3 than 986 does: that is why the Milton Work count gives a Jack one point. While I might agree with your other comments, there is no doubt that East has an effective eleven-count. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 8 01:15:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:18:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19449 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:17:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ZCUV-000JHI-0C; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:17:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:16:08 +0100 To: Peter Newman Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: michael amos Subject: Re: Special agreements (was: Re: A Multi Case) References: <4.1.19991006105326.0091def0@sercit> <19991004233904.15694.qmail@hotmail.com> <3.0.1.32.19991006092349.0070d894@pop.cais.com> <4.1.19991007111706.009c4600@sercit> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991007111706.009c4600@sercit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <4.1.19991007111706.009c4600@sercit>, Peter Newman writes >Hi all, > >Time for a topic change... > >At 09:23 06-10-99 -0400, Eric wrote: >>At 11:17 AM 10/6/99 +1000, Peter wrote: >> >>>1NT (P) 2C (X) >>>P >>> >>>Do you think without an alert this shows clubs - or just denies a major? >>>Personally I would think a Pass showing clubs (rather than no Major) would >>>be alertable. >> >>I would assume without discussion that pass was natural, i.e. showed a >>willingness to play in 2CX, and that partner would redouble to force a >>normal Stayman response. I would expect the pass to be non-alertable (but >>I would alert the redouble, since it does not show a willingness to play in >>2CXX). >> > >It is interesting to me what Eric would assume vs. what I would assume. >This also seems the case for the Pass of the double of a multi. >I think this is important in the context of L75A. I have always been >uncomfortable with the view "I don't need to explain that - it is just >normal bridge and not a *special* understanding". Perhaps when the law was >written there was much more common ground about the meanings of bids. > >I don't think that there are many situations that could be considered like >that any more. As such I think almost any understanding becomes a "special >agreement". Special in that it has been built up based upon the region you >play, your peers, how long you have been playing etc. > >I think that everybody has a duty to explain as much as possible to their >opponents without trying to hide under the shield of "it's just bridge". > >Cheers, > >Peter >http://www.nswba.com.au mmmm - I think that in the original Multi case that I had little sympathy for East West - especially after 4S was pulled to 4NT - but I think Peter has a case here that has not really been answered To make it clear 2D Double Pass Under English Bridge Union rules a pass is considered 'natural' for alerting purposes (and therefore is not-alertable) if it " does not convey values or specify suit holdings) It seems therefore entirely reasonable to conclude that a Pass that promises Diamonds must be alerted if pass just says "I've nothing to contribute or no preference" then IMHO it's not Mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 02:18:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:18:23 +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 CAA20630 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:18:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA15926; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:17:24 -0700 Message-Id: <199910071617.JAA15926@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A Hesitation In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Oct 1999 03:59:06 PDT." Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:17:24 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Well, I do not agree. If you believe that for this declarer he would > finesse given an illegal 4S bid, and would not otherwise, then he has > been damaged. The fact that you as a better analyst [and I can assure > you *most* of us are better analysts when we can see four hands] see the > play is imperfect does not affect the concept of damage. You're right, of course. In my defense, I was not trying to say that declarer's play at 5H was definitely unaffected by the auction---only that it *might* have been, and it's something we need to take into account when considering what score to adjust to, and the fact that the finesse never gains *might* be a factor, depending on declarer's skill level. Also, I haven't ever said "we should adjust to 420" on this thread; if, at the table, there was any doubt in my mind about the correct score, I'd adjust to +450/-450. However, while I'm definitely a better analyst when I can see all four hands and have a couple hours to think about the play, I think I would have gotten *this* one right at the table, assuming I was fully awake. This kind of position (where a finesse doesn't gain when it works because it's canceled out by the ability to take fewer ruffs) is one I've run across several times at the table and in books. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 02:27:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:27:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA20677 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:27:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22851 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:26:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199910071626.MAA22851@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: A Hesitation To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:26:57 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Oct 7, 99 03:59:06 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Well, I do not agree. If you believe that for this declarer he would > finesse given an illegal 4S bid, and would not otherwise, then he has > been damaged. The fact that you as a better analyst [and I can assure > you *most* of us are better analysts when we can see four hands] see the > play is imperfect does not affect the concept of damage. > A point that I think is missed by many ACs. I would really like to see this point included in any AC guidlines. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 02:49:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:49:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA20744 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:49:33 +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 LAA23067 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:51:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:50:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <37FC8F81.6D40AF16@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:18 PM 10/7/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: >> >> >> >1NT - 2He - pass - 2Sp >> >pass - pass >> >explained as transfer, but actually showing hearts. >> >> Hold on, Herman. By "actually showing hearts" do you mean that hearts >> were what the bidder in fact held, or do you mean that examination of the >> cc, or discussion with the players, etc., demonstrated that their agreement >> was that the bid really was supposed to show hearts all along? >> > >Of course I mean that, please allow me some shorthand ! I would gladly allow you shorthand, except that this is a potential problem area. Eric and I are having trouble figuring out how the TD could determine that there was MI [they really have an agreement that the bid is natural and not a transfer], without determining that the player had reason to doubt his explanation that it was a transfer. >> >Third hand would not double either hearts or spades, because >> >he has 3 of each, but he might well double if the bid is >> >explained, "I'm not certain if it is transfer or not". He >> >> I haven't claimed that one should say this. One should, if it is true, >> say something like: >> "We agreed to play this as a transfer, but Joe usually forgets that." >> "We used to play this as natural, but I think we changed to transfers >> yesterday." >> "I've never played with Joe before, but I seem to remember he usually >> plays that as a transfer." >> Whatever. The player should make available to the opponents the >> information he is using to determine the meaning of that bid. [Except >> things like the content of his own hand.] >> > >Well, in my mind, all these are exactly the same. > >They all tell the opponents that the bid is meant as a >transfer, and they add some doubt to that. I don't care how No, they tell the opponents that there is evidence that the bid is a transfer, and add evidence that it isn't. >one says it, how one tries "not to lie". My point is that >the doubt showing is unnecessary. >All these responses will result in the same ruling, if it >turns out the actual agreement is natural, not transfer. a) Even if they yield the same ruling, that does not necessarily prove that they are the same for legal purposes. b) _I_ will not always give the same ruling. >> >would double because of the 50% chance that opponents are >> >having a misunderstanding. >> >> I have not said that opponents are entitled to the information that my >> pair might be having a misunderstanding, so I am not saying that we should >> protect the rights of defenders to double based simply on the knowledge >> that the pair might be having a misunderstanding. I am saying that if a >> pair has information about their agreements they must reveal it, even if >> some of that information suggests that the player's favored interpretation >> might be incorrect. >> > >Well, that is precisely what I have been saying all along ! > >The information content that suggests the meaning of the bid >must be complete, including those explicit agreements that >lead to the implicit ones. >But the player is not obliged to tell about the doubt ! No, but the player _is_ obliged to tell information that suggests that his own interpretation is wrong, which amounts to the same thing. >> this is a hypothetical case, but Eric and I think this is crucial.] What >> evidence was given to the TD that allowed him to determine that this pair >> had an agreement that the bid was natural? >> > >I don't care what that was. Suffice to say that the TD has >determined that the agreement was "natural". Remember that >the TD must assume this barring proof of the opposite. Again, this may be a case where the _ruling_ doesn't correspond to the player's legal obligations. [I.e., the TD may have to rule MI even though there was in fact no MI.] But, again, you're missing my point. What was it that made the explainer uncertain about his explanation, and how could the TD have determined the real agreement without eliciting that information? >> >is no damage, there would be no adjustment, and then south >> >says, "I would have doubled if I had known there was doubt". >> >> No adjustment, if that's all there is to the case. >> > >Thank you. > >I think we have now settled this - and it has taken far too >long for my point to get accross to Eric and Grant - sorry >about that. > >In explaining the meaning of a bidding sequence, a player is >not obliged to reveal the degree of certainty he has about >the truth of his statements. If it turns out he is right, >there is no MI. If it turns he is wrong, there is MI. >That's all folks. If all we're talking about is _uncertainty_, then I agree. OTOH, cases like this virtually never deal with just uncertainty. >> >> d) The more complete original explanation would still have been MI. >> >> >> > >> >Of course, "I think it is Spades, but it might be hearts" is >> >MI. >> >> Of course, it isn't, or at any rate it might very well not be. > >Yes it is, if it turns out the agreement is hearts, then the >above statement is MI. This is where I think we disagree, although perhaps I'm wrong. Certainly if the agreement "really is" hearts, there's a problem. But there are many cases where the agreement "really isn't" anything at all, and in those cases the additional information may make the difference between MI and not-MI. See below. >I don't want to add my guesses to those of opponent. If my >opponent says the above, I will assume it is spades and no >director should rule against me if I fail to take the other >possibility into account. I don't have to play that way. Yes, you do, if I'm directing. :) >> Again, I think this may be what's really at the 'heart' of our >> disagreement. If I explain partner's bid by saying, e.g., "We agreed last >> night in the bar to play that as a transfer, but Jim was pretty drunk then >> so he may well have forgotten", and Jim in fact has forgotten, then there >> was no MI. > >Agreed, if you can prove this statement by some means. I >may even be inclined to believe Jim. > >But if you simply alert, say "transfer", and explain the >same sentence to the director afterwards, exactly the same >situation exists. >There is no need to add "Jim was pretty drunk" at the time >of the explanation. Afterwards is just as good. >The opponents aren't helped, and the MI ruling is the same. Again, the opponents might be helped, if they have hands whereby they could figure out that it wasn't a transfer. A slightly modified example from my unlucky game last night: West: 2 Diamonds [no alert from E] North to East: Explain please. East: We didn't actually discuss this, so I think it's a diamond pre-empt, but she does play Flannery with her usual partner. North: Double East: Pass South holds 6 diamonds. He has good reason to believe that the opening bid was in fact Flannery, especially since he is 2-1 in the majors. If S passes to convert the double to penalty, and somehow gets a bad result and complains to me as TD saying "She said it was a diamond pre-empt--if I'd have known it was Flannery I would have bid my diamonds", it is very unlikely he will be rewarded with an adjustment by me. OTOH, if East simply answers confidently "It's a diamond pre-empt" I am much more likely to rule in S's favor. Diamonds _could_ be 6-0-1-6, and if E's explanation is correct they must be. >Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 03:10:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 03:10:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA20800 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 03:10:19 +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 MAA28846 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:12:33 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991007121046.007b4490@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:10:46 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Protection racket. In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:08 AM 10/7/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>If East had said that he would always protect, i.e. would never consider >>not protecting, he would still be ruled against in the ACBL, where the >>guidelines for adjudicating UI would require us to "discount" his statement >>as obviously self-serving. > > I know that some people do this. But I have never seen any guideline >to actually discount it, and the NABC Casebooks make clear that most ACs >do not follow it. > > If it were true, why do the ACBL waste time taking evidence from the >offenders? That's easy, David. You have to take evidence from them to see if they make damaging statements that can be used against them. It's only the non-damaging statements that are 'self-serving'. :) [Actually, with my limited tournament experience in ACBL-land, I should say that I haven't had problems with this.] > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 03:49:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 03:49:17 +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 DAA20941 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 03:49:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from neptune.math.uga.edu (neptune [128.192.3.111]) by alpha.math.uga.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08089 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:45:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by neptune.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA28887 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:33:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:33:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199910071733.NAA28887@neptune.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Special agreements (was: Re: A Multi Case) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: 22S+ITDtUAgIZPTMKuVzJA== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: > mmmm - I think that in the original Multi case that I had little > sympathy for East West - especially after 4S was pulled to 4NT - but I > think Peter has a case here that has not really been answered > > To make it clear > > 2D Double Pass > > Under English Bridge Union rules a pass is considered 'natural' for > alerting purposes (and therefore is not-alertable) if it > > " does not convey values or specify suit holdings) > > It seems therefore entirely reasonable to conclude that a Pass that > promises Diamonds must be alerted > > if pass just says "I've nothing to contribute or no preference" then > IMHO it's not Hmm. This does seem to follow from the letter of 5.3.1 of the Orange Book. The double doesn't make any difference as far as the regulation goes, so 2D (pass) pass showing diamonds would also be alertable (2D=multi or Flannery or whatever). So would (1S) dbl (pass) pass. By the way, OB 5.3.1 doesn't admit the possibility of a natural suit bid on less than 3 cards, so 1H (pass) 1S (pass) 2C (pass) 2H is also alertable according to the letter of the regulation. I think maybe this regulation needs a little more thought. Was the hand that started this thread played under EBU alerting regulations, anyway? Jeremy. --------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ --------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 05:17:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 05:17:49 +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 FAA21305 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 05:17:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.2.204] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11ZJ2h-0007fe-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 20:17:31 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01bf10f8$7c66a9e0$cc02063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199910061707.KAA30492@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: A Hesitation Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 20:16:38 +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 The ruling itself is not, in my view, easy. But the analysis below appears to me flawed: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > 7/S/ALL --- W N E S > > PAIRS KJ642 P > > A83 P 1H 3S P > > 87 KQ983 AKJT952 ..P 4C 4S 5H > > T8 Q3 AP > > KQ965 42 > > AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 > > A975 Result: 5H-1 > > JT7 > > 74 > > > > Declarer misguessed the hearts because "The 4S bid suggested freakish > > distribution". How do you rule? Adam wrote: > One other question that has to be answered: Suppose West had Qxx of > hearts and the finesse had won. How does North intend to come to 11 > tricks if East has the freakish distribution North suspects? If East has 8-1-2-2 with a doubleton honour in diamonds 7/S/ALL --- W N E S PAIRS KJ642 P A83 P 1H 3S P 8 KQ983 AKJT9752 ..P 4C 4S 5H QT8 3 AP K9654 Q2 AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 A975 Result: 5H-1 JT7 74 then declarer can play as follows (assuming a club to the ace and a spade shift from West): ruff the spade, HA and a heart to the jack, CK, club ruff, DJ. If West covers, the hand is over. If he does not, declarer runs the diamond to East. He can later discard a diamond on CQ and ruff a diamond in dummy. GIB's double-dummy analyser has confirmed this analysis (not that it needed much confirmation, being fairly obvious). David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 06:21:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 06:21:28 +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 GAA21615 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 06:21:21 +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 NAA20187; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:20:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199910072020.NAA20187@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A Hesitation In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Oct 1999 20:16:38 PDT." <002b01bf10f8$7c66a9e0$cc02063e@davidburn> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 13:20:44 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > One other question that has to be answered: Suppose West had Qxx of > > hearts and the finesse had won. How does North intend to come to 11 > > tricks if East has the freakish distribution North suspects? > > If East has 8-1-2-2 with a doubleton honour in diamonds > > 7/S/ALL --- W N E S > PAIRS KJ642 P > A83 P 1H 3S P > 8 KQ983 AKJT9752 ..P 4C 4S 5H > QT8 3 AP > K9654 Q2 > AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 > A975 Result: 5H-1 > JT7 > 74 > > then declarer can play as follows (assuming a club to the ace and a > spade shift from West): > > ruff the spade, HA and a heart to the jack, CK, club ruff, DJ. If West > covers, the hand is over. If he does not, declarer runs the diamond to > East. He can later discard a diamond on CQ and ruff a diamond in > dummy. GIB's double-dummy analyser has confirmed this analysis (not > that it needed much confirmation, being fairly obvious). I'm hesitant to disagree with GIB's double-dummy analyzer (although it has been wrong at least once in the past). But there seems to be a problem. Suppose East wins the DQ. At this point, the position is: --- K 6 A 8 Q 9 --- A K J 10 9 Q --- K 9 6 5 2 J --- Q 6 4 9 10 7 --- East to lead, North needs the remaining tricks. East leads a high spade and West pitches the club. When do you propose that declarer can discard a diamond on the CQ and ruff a diamond? Not after drawing trump---there won't be a trump in dummy to ruff the diamond---and not before drawing trump, because West will ruff the CQ. Something's wrong here. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 06:32:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 06:32:21 +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 GAA21651 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 06:32:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA24442; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:31:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-42.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.42) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma024277; Thu Oct 7 15:29:57 1999 Message-ID: <007c01bf1102$c8b9f4a0$2a84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Grabiner" , Subject: Re: Law 75 - Flannery rides again Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 16:30:21 -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: David Grabiner >North has UI, and therefore he may not bid 3D over another LA which is >not suggested by the UI Actually I don't think that this is correct. If the 3D is not demonstrably suggested over another LA then it is lawful. Even if the other LA is NOT suggested, if 3D is not DEMONSTRABLY suggested over it, there is no violation. (I do not mean that 3D is acceptable in the instant case, imo it is pretty clearly a violation demonstrably suggested over pass, 3s or 4s.) Just wanted to stress that there was a reason for adding "demonstrably" to the law; it is not an infraction merely to pick the winning alternative...the UI must rather convincingly point you in that direction. == Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 06:41:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 06:41:07 +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 GAA21677 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 06:40:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-4-19.access.net.il [213.8.4.19] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02256; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:39:18 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37FD0548.385A9397@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 22:40:40 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney References: <0.37051cb6.252b8c55@aol.com> <37FBACCA.B74E4BD1@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, actually I hesitated for a while before i asked for a poll among the top players ( I hope you'll not penalize me for that hesitation.!!) The question was : "where did those problems arise ??" - as much as I remember it came from top players (including Kaplan...) who played in an absurd contract not because a mistake ..but because a bidding card felt on the table or was caught in the wrong way or because he didn't see a bid on the table ...or whatever , but not a bridge mistake. In a regular club there will not be such problems because 90% or more players will let the "poor offender" to change the call - I know it from my experience when as a TD I "warn" the offender but advice the opponents to agree ..... I agree that an artificial 40% score isn't so nice , maybe give a "natural score" not more than 40% (as the law says..) or anything which will be appropriate .. Well David , do you think Law 25B is a reasonable one , if updated or rectified the way I suggested ?? I'd like to see the H-BLML members' opinion (I know the opinions of 70% of the C-BLML and D-BLML members..!!!!) Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > >I learnt from Ton , two years ago , that the basic Idea > >(behind or under ..) of 25B was "not to play an absurd contract"- > >it isn't bridge ..... > > Bridge is a game of mistakes. What L25B does is to substitute an > arbitrary score instead of playing bridge. Playing absurd contracts is > bridge. > > >As I emphasize every time I think it's relevant ,we are NOT allowed to > >forget that the main flavor of bridge is the "joy of playing..." and not > >the laws . > > > >I think - and it is my personal opinion only - that before the WBFLC > >will discuss any change of 25B , it will be very useful to run a poll > >among the 200 world top players (or any number they will decide ) . > > Oh no, Dany, please, we want Laws for ordinary players: we don't want > top players deciding Laws! > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 08:13:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 08:13:28 +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 IAA21880 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 08:13:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [212.140.17.15] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11ZLme-0003Sm-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:13:08 +0100 Message-ID: <00c501bf1111$04b12e20$0f118cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199910072020.NAA20187@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: A Hesitation Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:12:16 +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 Adam wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > > > One other question that has to be answered: Suppose West had Qxx of > > > hearts and the finesse had won. How does North intend to come to 11 > > > tricks if East has the freakish distribution North suspects? > > > > If East has 8-1-2-2 with a doubleton honour in diamonds > > > > 7/S/ALL --- W N E S > > PAIRS KJ642 P > > A83 P 1H 3S P > > 8 KQ983 AKJT9752 ..P 4C 4S 5H > > QT8 3 AP > > K9654 Q2 > > AJT5 Q643 62 Lead: C6 > > A975 Result: 5H-1 > > JT7 > > 74 > > > > then declarer can play as follows (assuming a club to the ace and a > > spade shift from West): > > > > ruff the spade, HA and a heart to the jack, CK, club ruff, DJ. If West > > covers, the hand is over. If he does not, declarer runs the diamond to > > East. He can later discard a diamond on CQ and ruff a diamond in > > dummy. GIB's double-dummy analyser has confirmed this analysis (not > > that it needed much confirmation, being fairly obvious). > > I'm hesitant to disagree with GIB's double-dummy analyzer (although it > has been wrong at least once in the past). But there seems to be a > problem. Suppose East wins the DQ. At this point, the position is: > > --- > K 6 > A 8 > Q 9 > --- A K J 10 9 > Q --- > K 9 6 5 2 > J --- > Q 6 4 > 9 > 10 7 > --- > > East to lead, North needs the remaining tricks. East leads a high > spade and West pitches the club. When do you propose that declarer > can discard a diamond on the CQ and ruff a diamond? Not after drawing > trump---there won't be a trump in dummy to ruff the diamond---and not > before drawing trump, because West will ruff the CQ. > > Something's wrong here. So it is. And it was me, not GIB - apologies. However, after ruffing the spade return: CKQ pitching a diamond, club ruff, DJ. If West covers, play DA and another, later ruffing a diamond in dummy; if West does not cover, run DJ, later ruffing a diamond in dummy. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 08:28:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 08:28:32 +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 IAA21912 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 08:28:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA27808 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 18:28:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA00638 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 18:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 18:28:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910072228.SAA00638@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Pardon? You are not allowed to point out when a card is wrong. You > don't do it. What is difficult about it? Except that dummy is allowed to point it out, if he is quick enough. Defenders used to be allowed to do it, but it was forbidden in 1987. I suppose a rule saying nobody can ever point out another player's wrongly-turned card is simple, but it will lead to unnecessary confusion at the end of the hand. > Difficult is not taking advantage of UI! You mean that partner's card being wrong is UI? I suppose it is. What about an opponent's card? AI ("mannerism")? Isn't it easier just to get the cards turned right in the first place? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 08:43:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 08:43:28 +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 IAA21959 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 08:43:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22822; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:42:13 -0700 Message-Id: <199910072242.PAA22822@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A Hesitation In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Oct 1999 23:12:16 PDT." <00c501bf1111$04b12e20$0f118cd4@davidburn> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 15:42:16 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > So it is. And it was me, not GIB - apologies. However, after ruffing > the spade return: CKQ pitching a diamond, club ruff, DJ. If West > covers, play DA and another, later ruffing a diamond in dummy; if West > does not cover, run DJ, later ruffing a diamond in dummy. Still no good. I assume you mean that you cash HA, HJ before leading the high clubs (else East will ruff the third round of clubs with his stiff trump). OK, suppose it goes as above; East wins the diamond queen and forces you with a spade; now you take your diamond ruff. Now the position is: -- K -- 9 -- K J Q -- K -- -- -- Q 6 -- -- -- With South on lead, declarer will only take one more trick. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 14:10:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:10:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22476 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:10:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.14.151] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11ZRMi-0005ei-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 05:10:45 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bf1142$f8dcd900$970e063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199910072242.PAA22822@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: A Hesitation Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 05:09:51 +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 Adam wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > > So it is. And it was me, not GIB - apologies. However, after ruffing > > the spade return: CKQ pitching a diamond, club ruff, DJ. If West > > covers, play DA and another, later ruffing a diamond in dummy; if West > > does not cover, run DJ, later ruffing a diamond in dummy. > > Still no good. I assume you mean that you cash HA, HJ before leading > the high clubs (else East will ruff the third round of clubs with his > stiff trump). No, just HA. After all, if you're playing for hearts 3-1, that's all you need to cash. > OK, suppose it goes as above; East wins the diamond > queen and forces you with a spade; now you take your diamond ruff. Now the position is: > -- > KJ > -- > 9 > -- KJ10 > Q10 -- > K -- > -- -- > Q6 > 9 > -- > -- and declarer can finally take the heart finesse. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 17:15:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 17:15:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from stat.ee (gatekeeper.stat.ee [193.40.95.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA22711 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 17:15:38 +1000 (EST) Received: by stat.ee id HAA09026; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 07:13:20 GMT Received: from ESA-Message_Server by stat.ee with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 08 Oct 1999 10:12:21 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 10:14:46 +0200 From: Aavo Heinlo To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: A Multi Case Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Aavo Heinlo wrote: > >>One question from TD would enlighted the problem: >>Must N after >>2D X PASS PASS >>automatically pass with 3-card diamond fit? >>If the answer is yes the S's pass should be alerted, >>otherwise certainly not. > >David Stevenson wrote: >> Should it not be the other way round? If pass tells opener to >> describe his hand then it requires an alert? You are >> suggesting the >> alert if it is natural and not if it is artificial. > >Aavo Heinlo wrote: >It is not artificial. As after any doubled natural opening >bid one can choose the option to pass >with any holding, 1S X Pass is never alerted >if it hasn't special meaning. >I presume that after 2D X Pass >the same applies. Any other response is quite >determined but the PASS is loose. It is NF and >partner has the liberty to pass or bid, whatever. >David Stevenson wrote: >Sorry, Aavo, I do not buy it. If it goes 2D Dbl Pass then you are >saying that it is natural when partner is expected to describe his >hand. >That is not natural: that is an artificial enquiry. The Pass is not >"LOOSE": partner is not expected to pass it. >1S X XX is not the same: partner is expected to pass it unless >he has >some compelling reason not to: it is not an enquiry so it is not >artificial. > The only meaning for 2D [Multi] Pass that is not artificial is one >that suggests playing there, and that shows diamonds. It seems we are playing different games. N E S 2D X PASS S's PASS is a strategic effort to put strain on opponents. West can now pass only with some length in diamonds, otherwise it's great risk. I think in 90% of cases he chooses option to bid. But after his pass N can decide whether he wants to play 2-4 or 3-3 diamonds against opponents 2-5 or something similar. He should prefer to play his 6-1 major. It is not the case he must describe his hand, he just choose between options. Aavo Heinlo Tel (+372) 6259217 Fax (+372-2) 453923 E-mail aavo.heinlo@stat.ee From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 22:08:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:08:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23582 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:07:55 +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 IAA19805 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 08:08:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991008080942.0071cd78@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 08:09:42 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Protection racket. In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:08 AM 10/7/99 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>If East had said that he would always protect, i.e. would never consider >>not protecting, he would still be ruled against in the ACBL, where the >>guidelines for adjudicating UI would require us to "discount" his statement >>as obviously self-serving. > > I know that some people do this. But I have never seen any guideline >to actually discount it, and the NABC Casebooks make clear that most ACs >do not follow it. > > If it were true, why do the ACBL waste time taking evidence from the >offenders? Because "discount" is not the same as "ignore". Self-serving statements are still evidence, but carry significantly less weight than other evidence. In practice, they tend to be ignored unless there is at least some hint of corroboration. 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 Oct 8 22:10:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:10:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23599 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:10:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-109.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.109]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA21468 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:10:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 13:46:10 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This simply won't come to an end - I'm sorry to all other readers. However, the last part of this post is something rather new, I would like those of you who want to take the time to read that - even if you had decided not to follow this thread any longer. Grant Sterling wrote: > > >> cc, or discussion with the players, etc., demonstrated that their agreement > >> was that the bid really was supposed to show hearts all along? > >> > > > >Of course I mean that, please allow me some shorthand ! > > I would gladly allow you shorthand, except that this is a potential problem area. > Eric and I are having trouble figuring out how the TD could determine that there was MI [they really have an agreement that the bid is natural and not a transfer], without determining that the player had reason to doubt his explanation that it was a transfer. > Well, the case are legion - a hand has hearts, and the TD sees all the evidence and determines that he will consider the agreement to be that the call showed hearts. The partner has stated that the call showed spades (with some showing of doubt, I don't mind) and the TD determines that the explanation was "spades". That is MI. Whether or not the TD also determines that the partner was correct in his statements about the doubt is of no importance, IMO. I am not saying that partner was lying, I am simply stating that opponents were misinformed. [snip] > > > >Well, in my mind, all these are exactly the same. > > > >They all tell the opponents that the bid is meant as a > >transfer, and they add some doubt to that. I don't care how > > No, they tell the opponents that there is evidence that the bid > is a transfer, and add evidence that it isn't. > And the TD determines which piece of evidence has the most value, and makes his ruling. An explanation that gives to opponents two possible meanings is not permitted IMO. So the second meaning must be disregarded. Opponents should only follow the first meaning, and they can be damaged if the second meaning turns out to be the correct one. > >one says it, how one tries "not to lie". My point is that > >the doubt showing is unnecessary. > >All these responses will result in the same ruling, if it > >turns out the actual agreement is natural, not transfer. > > a) Even if they yield the same ruling, that does not necessarily > prove that they are the same for legal purposes. I may even agree with that statement. But I don't see it's value. I was trying to give an advice to players. If two possible courses of action yield the same ruling, aren't they to be considered equal for the player? > b) _I_ will not always give the same ruling. > Give me an example. Stick to "doubt-showing" please. Compare "It's a transfer to spades" with "I think it's a transfer to spades, but it might be natural". Tell me in which circumstances you would rule differently, after you have determined that it was in fact natural. > >> >would double because of the 50% chance that opponents are > >> >having a misunderstanding. > >> > >> I have not said that opponents are entitled to the information that my > >> pair might be having a misunderstanding, so I am not saying that we should > >> protect the rights of defenders to double based simply on the knowledge > >> that the pair might be having a misunderstanding. I am saying that if a > >> pair has information about their agreements they must reveal it, even if > >> some of that information suggests that the player's favored interpretation > >> might be incorrect. > >> > > > >Well, that is precisely what I have been saying all along ! > > > >The information content that suggests the meaning of the bid > >must be complete, including those explicit agreements that > >lead to the implicit ones. > >But the player is not obliged to tell about the doubt ! > > No, but the player _is_ obliged to tell information that suggests > that his own interpretation is wrong, which amounts to the same thing. > Whyever would he be obliged to say this ? > >> this is a hypothetical case, but Eric and I think this is crucial.] What > >> evidence was given to the TD that allowed him to determine that this pair > >> had an agreement that the bid was natural? > >> > > > >I don't care what that was. Suffice to say that the TD has > >determined that the agreement was "natural". Remember that > >the TD must assume this barring proof of the opposite. > > Again, this may be a case where the _ruling_ doesn't correspond > to the player's legal obligations. [I.e., the TD may have to rule MI > even though there was in fact no MI.] How can a ruling not correspond to legal obligations. If you break your legal obligations, you must be ruled against. If you cannot be ruled against, you have no legal obligations. If you don't agree with those statements, let's proceed in alt.english.semantics or something but stop here. > But, again, you're missing my point. What was it that made the > explainer uncertain about his explanation, and how could the TD have > determined the real agreement without eliciting that information? > I don't care ! The TD could have asked. And chose to believe. But I don't believe it is important. The TD determines MI. period. > >> >is no damage, there would be no adjustment, and then south > >> >says, "I would have doubled if I had known there was doubt". > >> > >> No adjustment, if that's all there is to the case. > >> > > > >Thank you. > > > >I think we have now settled this - and it has taken far too > >long for my point to get accross to Eric and Grant - sorry > >about that. > > > >In explaining the meaning of a bidding sequence, a player is > >not obliged to reveal the degree of certainty he has about > >the truth of his statements. If it turns out he is right, > >there is no MI. If it turns he is wrong, there is MI. > >That's all folks. > > If all we're talking about is _uncertainty_, then I agree. > OTOH, cases like this virtually never deal with just uncertainty. > But I have been talking all along about uncertainty and doubt. All other aspects of the case were carefully stripped from my example, and you have continuously been trying to put them back in. > >> >> d) The more complete original explanation would still have been MI. > >> >> > >> > > >> >Of course, "I think it is Spades, but it might be hearts" is > >> >MI. > >> > >> Of course, it isn't, or at any rate it might very well not be. > > > >Yes it is, if it turns out the agreement is hearts, then the > >above statement is MI. > > This is where I think we disagree, although perhaps I'm wrong. > Certainly if the agreement "really is" hearts, there's a problem. > But there are many cases where the agreement "really isn't" anything at > all, and in those cases the additional information may make the difference > between MI and not-MI. See below. > I agree that it's the TD's duty to determine what the agreement is. All pieces of evidence will tell him that. Some statement of doubt may well be influence to that effect. All I am saying is that this statement can be given after the hand, to the TD, rather than accompanying the explanation at the time. As TD, I will not put more weight on the statement if made at the time than later. Remember that I was not at the table at the time. > >I don't want to add my guesses to those of opponent. If my > >opponent says the above, I will assume it is spades and no > >director should rule against me if I fail to take the other > >possibility into account. I don't have to play that way. > > Yes, you do, if I'm directing. :) > No I don't. I don't have to cater for both meanings. I am allowed to cater for just the one meaning. A bid cannot show hearts and spades at the same time (well it can, but that's another sort of bid). I ask if it is hearts or spades and whatever the partner tells me as his first guess, is what I go on. > >> Again, I think this may be what's really at the 'heart' of our > >> disagreement. If I explain partner's bid by saying, e.g., "We agreed last > >> night in the bar to play that as a transfer, but Jim was pretty drunk then > >> so he may well have forgotten", and Jim in fact has forgotten, then there > >> was no MI. > > > >Agreed, if you can prove this statement by some means. I > >may even be inclined to believe Jim. > > > >But if you simply alert, say "transfer", and explain the > >same sentence to the director afterwards, exactly the same > >situation exists. > >There is no need to add "Jim was pretty drunk" at the time > >of the explanation. Afterwards is just as good. > >The opponents aren't helped, and the MI ruling is the same. > > Again, the opponents might be helped, if they have hands > whereby they could figure out that it wasn't a transfer. > When was the last time an opponent called your six-card suit? it happened to me twice in the last week. There was no MI, they really held five, and I happily defeated their contracts. I am not supposed to work out from "hearts, but maybe spades", that they have spades if I have 5 hearts. I can work it out, and it is AI, but I won't be ruled against if I simply play as if there are hearts. --- new case starts here --- > A slightly modified example from my unlucky game last night: > > West: 2 Diamonds [no alert from E] > North to East: Explain please. > East: We didn't actually discuss this, so I think it's a diamond > pre-empt, but she does play Flannery with her usual partner. > North: Double > East: Pass > South holds 6 diamonds. He has good reason to believe that the > opening bid was in fact Flannery, especially since he is 2-1 in the > majors. If S passes to convert the double to penalty, and somehow gets > a bad result and complains to me as TD saying "She said it was a diamond > pre-empt--if I'd have known it was Flannery I would have bid my diamonds", > it is very unlikely he will be rewarded with an adjustment by me. Well, he will get one from me. As I said, 6-6 breaks are not as uncommon as you might think. He has been told it was diamonds. Whyever should he bid as if it was Flannery ? Suppose the example is changed and East says : > East: We didn't actually discuss this, so I think it's a Flannery, > but she does play pre-empt with her usual partner. Now South will bid according to Flannery, and you will change that to a pass if West has diamonds. You should not allow double explanations. > OTOH, if East simply answers confidently "It's a diamond pre-empt" > I am much more likely to rule in S's favor. Diamonds _could_ be 6-0-1-6, > and if E's explanation is correct they must be. > Sorry, but I don't agree with this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 8 23:39:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:18:38 +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 XAA23814 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:18:22 +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 11ZZuP-000Pz2-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 13:18:06 +0000 Message-ID: <0YUGiKAL3U$3Ew7J@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:50:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Special agreements (was: Re: A Multi Case) References: <199910071733.NAA28887@neptune.math.uga.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910071733.NAA28887@neptune.math.uga.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: >By the way, OB 5.3.1 doesn't admit the possibility of a natural suit >bid on less than 3 cards, so > >1H (pass) 1S (pass) >2C (pass) 2H > >is also alertable according to the letter of the regulation. > >I think maybe this regulation needs a little more thought. If you had been attending, young Jeremy, you would have realised that this has been pointed out on RGB and that I have agreed to look into it in time for OB 03. >Was the hand that started this thread played under EBU alerting >regulations, anyway? No. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 00:39:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:37:56 +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 WAA23717 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:37:47 +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 OAA16868 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:37:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199910081237.OAA16868@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: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:36:24 +0200 Subject: L82C in a teams-of-four match 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 The following happened in a teams-of-four match: East opens 1S, South doubles, West takes a pack of bidding cards out of the box (under Dutch regulations meaning that he has made a call), and says: "Hold it, I didn't see the double". TD lets him substitute this for a redouble (erroneously aplying L25a), and NS go for -1400, which, combined with the result at the other table, costs 16 imps. At the end of the match (EW's team won, 22-8) the TD realises his error and applies L82C. He reasons that he has to consider both parties to be non-offending, so EW's team keep their 16 imps and win by 22-8, NS's team do not have to suffer the loss of 16 imps and lose by 11-19, so the final result of the match becomes 22-11. Agree? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 00:37:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:37:31 +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 AAA24126 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:37:23 +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 11Zb8m-000EeX-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:37:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:36:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Multi Case References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Aavo Heinlo wrote: >>Aavo Heinlo wrote: >> >>>One question from TD would enlighted the problem: >>>Must N after >>>2D X PASS PASS >>>automatically pass with 3-card diamond fit? >>>If the answer is yes the S's pass should be alerted, >>>otherwise certainly not. >> >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> Should it not be the other way round? If pass tells opener to >>> describe his hand then it requires an alert? You are >>> suggesting the >>> alert if it is natural and not if it is artificial. >> >>Aavo Heinlo wrote: >>It is not artificial. As after any doubled natural opening >>bid one can choose the option to pass >>with any holding, 1S X Pass is never alerted >>if it hasn't special meaning. >>I presume that after 2D X Pass >>the same applies. Any other response is quite >>determined but the PASS is loose. It is NF and >>partner has the liberty to pass or bid, whatever. > >>David Stevenson wrote: >>Sorry, Aavo, I do not buy it. If it goes 2D Dbl Pass then you are >>saying that it is natural when partner is expected to describe his >>hand. >>That is not natural: that is an artificial enquiry. The Pass is not >>"LOOSE": partner is not expected to pass it. > >>1S X XX is not the same: partner is expected to pass it unless >>he has >>some compelling reason not to: it is not an enquiry so it is not >>artificial. > >> The only meaning for 2D [Multi] Pass that is not artificial is one >>that suggests playing there, and that shows diamonds. > >It seems we are playing different games. >N E S >2D X PASS >S's PASS is a strategic effort to put strain on opponents. >West can now pass only with some length in diamonds, >otherwise it's great risk. I think in 90% of cases >he chooses option to bid. With my partners we have an agreement to pass routinely here. >But after his pass N can decide whether he wants to play >2-4 or 3-3 diamonds against opponents 2-5 or something >similar. He should prefer to play his 6-1 major. >It is not the case he must describe his hand, >he just choose between options. You are not making it clear what the pass shows to partner. Are you suggesting that 2D X Pass shows any thirteen cards and partner guesses whether to describe his hand or not? Well, that may not be alertable, but it is a completely stupid way of playing the pass and not one competent player in a thousand would play that. Competent players - and I do not mean good players, I mean players with any commonsense here - agree on one of two approaches: [1] 2D X Pass shows some number of diamonds and suggests to partner the possibility of playing in 2DX. this is the natural approach, and different players have different agreements as to how many diamonds are shown. I play a good five-plus card holding myself. [2] 2D X Pass tells opener to describe his hand and he will bid his major [or whatever else he has]. Granted he might pass if he has an Acol Two in diamonds. But they do not tell partner to guess whether to leave it in without telling him whether they have any reason to based on their hand. KJ9xxx QTx xx xx 2D X P ? What do you 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 Sat Oct 9 00:50:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:50:17 +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 AAA24157 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:50:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA05767; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:48:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-65.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.65) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma005363; Fri Oct 8 09:46:44 1999 Message-ID: <003601bf119c$0136c440$4184d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Protection racket. Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 10:46:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Perhaps because there is a significant difference between discount and ignore? Evidence which could be self serving is less compelling than independent evidence or evidence that could be adverse...but it IS evidence and it is not worthless. You just do not automatically attach as much weight to it if you are discounting it. (Why do I feel I am paraphrasing you...was your tongue in cheek?) If a merchant were discounting the price, that would not make the merchandise free; the term should have the same meaning in this setting, no? -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 10:43 PM Subject: Re: Protection racket. >Eric Landau wrote: > >>If East had said that he would always protect, i.e. would never consider >>not protecting, he would still be ruled against in the ACBL, where the >>guidelines for adjudicating UI would require us to "discount" his statement >>as obviously self-serving. > > I know that some people do this. But I have never seen any guideline >to actually discount it, and the NABC Casebooks make clear that most ACs >do not follow it. > > If it were true, why do the ACBL waste time taking evidence from the >offenders? > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 9 01:39:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:18:41 +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 XAA23816 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:18:24 +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 11ZZuP-000Eqc-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 13:18:05 +0000 Message-ID: <4IVF2SAO9U$3Ew7Z@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:56:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Hesitation References: <199910071626.MAA22851@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <199910071626.MAA22851@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > >> Well, I do not agree. If you believe that for this declarer he would >> finesse given an illegal 4S bid, and would not otherwise, then he has >> been damaged. The fact that you as a better analyst [and I can assure >> you *most* of us are better analysts when we can see four hands] see the >> play is imperfect does not affect the concept of damage. >> > >A point that I think is missed by many ACs. I would really like to >see this point included in any AC guidlines. Right. I shall look for a suitable hand in the NABC Casebooks and make the point. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 9 02:14:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:18:36 +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 XAA23815 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:18:22 +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 11ZZuQ-000Pz1-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 13:18:07 +0000 Message-ID: <14BG6HAd1U$3Ew5K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:48:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Special agreements (was: Re: A Multi Case) References: <4.1.19991006105326.0091def0@sercit> <19991004233904.15694.qmail@hotmail.com> <3.0.1.32.19991006092349.0070d894@pop.cais.com> <4.1.19991007111706.009c4600@sercit> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: >To make it clear > >2D Double Pass > >Under English Bridge Union rules a pass is considered 'natural' for >alerting purposes (and therefore is not-alertable) if it > >" does not convey values or specify suit holdings) > >It seems therefore entirely reasonable to conclude that a Pass that >promises Diamonds must be alerted > >if pass just says "I've nothing to contribute or no preference" then > IMHO it's not Hah! Is it forcing? But in fact the main thrust of the argument here has been whether it is alertable under the simple rule "Alert any artificial call". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 9 02:32:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 02:32:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24570 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 02:32:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from p73s07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.116] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Zcwd-0003rm-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 17:32:36 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L82C in a teams-of-four match Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 17:38:03 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf11ab$7d9ec460$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: Friday, October 08, 1999 4:20 PM Subject: L82C in a teams-of-four match >The following happened in a teams-of-four match: > >East opens 1S, South doubles, West takes a pack of bidding >cards out of the box (under Dutch regulations meaning that he has >made a call), and says: "Hold it, I didn't see the double". TD lets >him substitute this for a redouble (erroneously aplying L25a), and >NS go for -1400, which, combined with the result at the other table, >costs 16 imps. >At the end of the match (EW's team won, 22-8) the TD realises his >error and applies L82C. He reasons that he has to consider both >parties to be non-offending, so EW's team keep their 16 imps and >win by 22-8, NS's team do not have to suffer the loss of 16 imps >and lose by 11-19, so the final result of the match becomes 22-11. > >Agree? No. This is a fun one. If the TD had not erred, he would have looked at Law 25B and after deciding that it applied, he would remember the Lille decision, and would disallow the change of call. (If L25B was ON then it would be -1400/-3imps) We were not told what he had actually bid, or the hands, so we cannot decide on the Law12 C2 assigned score, but he should have awarded to both sides, the most favourable result that was likely if the irregularity (the TD error) had not occurred. The difficulty about this is that both teams can win or lose the match as the result of either of these rulings. Get an extra board played before the result of the match is known (ready for the AC decision to cancel the board:-)) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 02:39:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:18:41 +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 XAA23818 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:18:25 +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 11ZZuR-000Ihy-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 13:18:08 +0000 Message-ID: <44XFaOAF6U$3EwYB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:53:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney References: <0.37051cb6.252b8c55@aol.com> <37FBACCA.B74E4BD1@internet-zahav.net> <37FD0548.385A9397@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <37FD0548.385A9397@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >In a regular club there will not be such problems because 90% or more >players will let the "poor offender" to change the call - I know it from >my experience when as a TD I "warn" the offender but >advice the opponents to agree ..... Oh, come on, Dany, in a club 99.9% of people will not ask for a change because it would never occur to them they are allowed to change a call after you have made it. It is a BL's Law. >I agree that an artificial 40% score isn't so nice , maybe give a >"natural score" not more than 40% (as the law says..) or anything >which will be appropriate .. > >Well David , do you think Law 25B is a reasonable one , if updated or >rectified the way I suggested ?? Deep six it! >I'd like to see the H-BLML members' opinion (I know the opinions of >70% of the C-BLML and D-BLML members..!!!!) Quango says that if a human cannot make his mind up first time, why should he be given a second chance? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 9 02:47:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 02:47:22 +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 CAA24599 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 02:47:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from svk.int.kiev.ua (pc144.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.144]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA14627 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 19:51:42 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <000d01bf11ac$76fe7d20$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L82C in a teams-of-four match Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 19:44:56 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: ->The following happened in a teams-of-four match: > >East opens 1S, South doubles, West takes a pack of bidding >cards out of the box (under Dutch regulations meaning that he has >made a call), and says: "Hold it, I didn't see the double". TD lets >him substitute this for a redouble (erroneously aplying L25a), and >NS go for -1400, which, combined with the result at the other table, >costs 16 imps. >At the end of the match (EW's team won, 22-8) the TD realises his >error and applies L82C. He reasons that he has to consider both >parties to be non-offending, so EW's team keep their 16 imps and >win by 22-8, NS's team do not have to suffer the loss of 16 imps >and lose by 11-19, so the final result of the match becomes 22-11. > >Agree? For EW -Yes But for NS -NO. Only if the TD considers that "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" for NS is the same as the result at the other table, NS's team do not have to suffer the loss of 16 imps. If TD considers that "the most favourable result…" is another, this artificial adjusted score should be combined with the result at the other table. Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 03:25:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:18:55 +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 XAA23839 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:18:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ZZuT-000IiX-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 13:18:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:45:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner References: <199910072228.SAA00638@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910072228.SAA00638@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 >> Pardon? You are not allowed to point out when a card is wrong. You >> don't do it. What is difficult about it? > >Except that dummy is allowed to point it out, if he is quick enough. >Defenders used to be allowed to do it, but it was forbidden in 1987. > >I suppose a rule saying nobody can ever point out another player's >wrongly-turned card is simple, but it will lead to unnecessary confusion >at the end of the hand. Not unnecessary. There is a known abuse which is controlled by a Law. You may or may not think the control is a good idea, but it is not just an unnecessary Law change with no meaning. Furthermore, it does not lead to too much confusion. Why do you want communication between partners? I don't: it encourages bad ethics. There is far too much recovery from errors in the game already. Players can enjoy the game even if they have to stick with their errors, y'know! >> Difficult is not taking advantage of UI! >You mean that partner's card being wrong is UI? I suppose it is. What >about an opponent's card? AI ("mannerism")? Isn't it easier just to >get the cards turned right in the first place? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Steven !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK, back to the long posts !!!!!!!!!! You take an easy Law, no complications, easily applied, easily followed [except for Merkins ]. You say it is difficult, when it clearly isn't. As a comparison, I quote what is a difficult Law. Suppose the bidding goes 1S 2C 3S 4C P P 4S ...X P ? Should you bid 5C or not? How does partner's slow double affect you? What is ethical? Even if you are a highly ethical player, it is often not obvious what you should do. Suppose your first instinct is to bid 5C because of the contents of your hand: is that illegal now because of the UI? Does the UI suggest passing? It is not easy to follow L73C. It is not easy to rule on UI cases. It is not an easy set of Laws, the UI Laws. So when you say that not telling partner it is time to cash the setting trick is difficult, no it isn't, it is an easily followed simple Law: a difficult law to follow and apply is a UI 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 Sat Oct 9 03:40:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 03:40:14 +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 DAA24698 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 03:40:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07339; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 10:39:26 -0700 Message-Id: <199910081739.KAA07339@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A Hesitation In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 08 Oct 1999 05:09:51 PDT." <000d01bf1142$f8dcd900$970e063e@davidburn> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 10:39:26 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Adam wrote: > > > > David Burn wrote: > > > > > So it is. And it was me, not GIB - apologies. However, after > ruffing > > > the spade return: CKQ pitching a diamond, club ruff, DJ. If West > > > covers, play DA and another, later ruffing a diamond in dummy; if > West > > > does not cover, run DJ, later ruffing a diamond in dummy. > > > > Still no good. I assume you mean that you cash HA, HJ before > leading > > the high clubs (else East will ruff the third round of clubs with > his > > stiff trump). > > No, just HA. After all, if you're playing for hearts 3-1, that's all > you need to cash. > > > OK, suppose it goes as above; East wins the diamond > > queen and forces you with a spade; now you take your diamond ruff. > > Now the position is: > > > -- > > KJ > > -- > > 9 > > -- KJ10 > > Q10 -- > > K -- > > -- -- > > Q6 > > 9 > > -- > > -- > > and declarer can finally take the heart finesse. > > David Burn Yep, I finally figured that out late last night. It looks like this might be the basis for a good "Test Your Play" problem. You have to get the timing just right. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 03:57:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 03:57:38 +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 DAA24730 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 03:57:27 +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 MAA03310 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 12:59:38 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991008125752.007ab6c0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 12:57:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:46 PM 10/8/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >This simply won't come to an end - I'm sorry to all other >readers. I am willing to take this off-list as of now, if Herman wishes. >However, the last part of this post is something rather new, >I would like those of you who want to take the time to read >that - even if you had decided not to follow this thread any >longer. Yes--I, too, would like some comments from others as to how they would rule. I will snip most of the rest of this [I know it doesn't look like it, but I really did!] to get to the end. >Grant Sterling wrote: >Well, the case are legion - a hand has hearts, and the TD >sees all the evidence and determines that he will consider >the agreement to be that the call showed hearts. Again, the fact that the hand had hearts is, in my mind, very little evidence that they have agreed the bid means hearts. >> No, they tell the opponents that there is evidence that the bid >> is a transfer, and add evidence that it isn't. >> > >And the TD determines which piece of evidence has the most >value, and makes his ruling. >An explanation that gives to opponents two possible meanings >is not permitted IMO. So the second meaning must be >disregarded. Opponents should only follow the first >meaning, and they can be damaged if the second meaning turns >out to be the correct one. Obviously, I completely disagree. >> a) Even if they yield the same ruling, that does not necessarily >> prove that they are the same for legal purposes. > >I may even agree with that statement. >But I don't see it's value. >I was trying to give an advice to players. If two possible >courses of action yield the same ruling, aren't they to be >considered equal for the player? Of course not. If a defendant at a trial faces overwhelming evidence, it may be irrelevant to the verdict how he testifies. But that does not mean that "tell the truth" and "lie" are equally good pieces of advice. Merely because a two players were both ruled against doesn't mean their actions are equally correct. [And, yes, I am one of those who think that bridge ethics goes beyond even the requirements of the law. But I am not saying even that here--I am saying that following your legal obligations fully rather than partially might in some cases not make any difference to the ruling, but we should advise players to do it nonetheless.] >> >But the player is not obliged to tell about the doubt ! >> >> No, but the player _is_ obliged to tell information that suggests >> that his own interpretation is wrong, which amounts to the same thing. >> > >Whyever would he be obliged to say this ? Because he is supposed to explain his agreements, and make available partnership experience. If I have agreed to play transfers, but partner usually forgets, I think I am legally obligated to reveal both the fact that I have agreed to play transfers and the partnership experience that, in fact, partner probably hasn't got what we've agreed he's supposed to have. I fail to see why you think I must pick one or the other and deny it to opponents. >> Again, this may be a case where the _ruling_ doesn't correspond >> to the player's legal obligations. [I.e., the TD may have to rule MI >> even though there was in fact no MI.] > >How can a ruling not correspond to legal obligations. >If you break your legal obligations, you must be ruled >against. If you cannot be ruled against, you have no legal >obligations. If you don't agree with those statements, >let's proceed in alt.english.semantics or something but stop >here. A player in soccer [or, in Europe, football] tries to kick the ball, but accidentally trips an opponent. The referee, seeing the case from the outside, judges it to have been intentional and cards the player. The player _in fact_ met his legal obligations not to intentionally trip an opposing player, but the referee still [rightly, given _his_ evidence] rules against him. The law tells me to reveal my agreements and partnership experience. Sometimes a TD may rule that MI was given even though I have fullfilled my obligation. Some TD's may make the exact same ruling even if I have not fulfilled my obligations. There are cases where the TD rules MI but, in fact, the player knows there was none. >> If all we're talking about is _uncertainty_, then I agree. >> OTOH, cases like this virtually never deal with just uncertainty. >> > >But I have been talking all along about uncertainty and >doubt. >All other aspects of the case were carefully stripped from >my example, and you have continuously been trying to put >them back in. Yes, of course. Because I cannot imagine there are many cases where I am uncertain, but have no partnership experience [or inexperience] relevant to the doubt. So, Herman, I agree that we need not ever say "but I'm not sure". We must, however, say, "but there is evidence from partnership experience that may explanation may be wrong". >Some statement of doubt may well be influence to that >effect. >All I am saying is that this statement can be given after >the hand, to the TD, rather than accompanying the >explanation at the time. As a TD, I will be much less impressed with a player who mentions such things after he has seen that the explanation was wrong, than with a player who made them explicit in advance. >As TD, I will not put more weight on the statement if made >at the time than later. Remember that I was not at the table >at the time. So? Four players were. >No I don't. I don't have to cater for both meanings. I am >allowed to cater for just the one meaning. A bid cannot >show hearts and spades at the same time (well it can, but >that's another sort of bid). I ask if it is hearts or >spades and whatever the partner tells me as his first guess, >is what I go on. Suppose you're playing against two people you've played against a million times, and they make a bid that you know from past experience is alertable, and they don't alert. Can you now play unde the assumption that they have a non-alertable agreement, and then claim damage from MI when it turns out they forgot to alert as you assumed all along? I think not. So I think if you have good reason to think the opponents' first explanation is incorrect, you must try to avoid being damaged by using the second. >--- new case starts here --- > >> A slightly modified example from my unlucky game last night: >> >> West: 2 Diamonds [no alert from E] >> North to East: Explain please. >> East: We didn't actually discuss this, so I think it's a diamond >> pre-empt, but she does play Flannery with her usual partner. >> North: Double >> East: Pass >> South holds 6 diamonds. He has good reason to believe that the >> opening bid was in fact Flannery, especially since he is 2-1 in the >> majors. If S passes to convert the double to penalty, and somehow gets >> a bad result and complains to me as TD saying "She said it was a diamond >> pre-empt--if I'd have known it was Flannery I would have bid my diamonds", >> it is very unlikely he will be rewarded with an adjustment by me. > >Well, he will get one from me. As I said, 6-6 breaks are >not as uncommon as you might think. >He has been told it was diamonds. Whyever should he bid as >if it was Flannery ? Because he has very good evidence [not absolutely conclusive evidence, but very good evidence] that it was Flannery. Which is more likely given the bidding, your holding, and the fact that the opponent has admitted the bid might have been intended as Flannery: that the bid was a diamond pre-empt, or that it was Flannery? I think the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the latter, and I would regard not rule in favor of a player who said "Sure, I saw my hand and heard the explanation and the bidding, but I think I was _misinformed_ and _damaged_ by the explanation." >Suppose the example is changed and East says : > >> East: We didn't actually discuss this, so I think it's a Flannery, >> but she does play pre-empt with her usual partner. > >Now South will bid according to Flannery, and you will >change that to a pass if West has diamonds. > >You should not allow double explanations. Now if South bid assuming it's Flannery, and it's diamonds, I will rule in South's favor, yes. >> OTOH, if East simply answers confidently "It's a diamond pre-empt" >> I am much more likely to rule in S's favor. Diamonds _could_ be 6-0-1-6, >> and if E's explanation is correct they must be. >> > >Sorry, but I don't agree with this. Well, you certainly do agree, I take it, that if East says "it's diamonds [sans qualification]" and S assumes it's diamonds and is damaged, you'll rule for South, right? >-- >Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 04:01:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:29:15 +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 XAA23921 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:29:05 +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 NAA23589 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 13:28:27 GMT Message-ID: <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 15:28:27 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@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 : > > This simply won't come to an end - I'm sorry to all other > readers. > > ... > > Grant Sterling wrote: > > > > > >I don't want to add my guesses to those of opponent. If my > > >opponent says the above, I will assume it is spades and no > > >director should rule against me if I fail to take the other > > >possibility into account. I don't have to play that way. > > > > Yes, you do, if I'm directing. :) > > > > No I don't. I don't have to cater for both meanings. I am > allowed to cater for just the one meaning. A bid cannot > show hearts and spades at the same time (well it can, but > that's another sort of bid). I ask if it is hearts or > spades and whatever the partner tells me as his first guess, > is what I go on. > Something seems wrong with this: the disclosure procedure is not about guesses but about agreements: the partner tells you about agreements and lack of agreements and he and you may use these informations as you like. The TD will eventually have to determine (MI or not) whether the partner's answer reflected the actual partnership's agreements (or experience...) . You seem to think that not to have an agreement (or, said otherwise, to improvise a bid not based on a settled agreement) is an infraction as soon as the partner fails to guess its meaning. JP Rocafort > > > -- > 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 Sat Oct 9 04:14:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 04:14:29 +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 EAA24812 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 04:14:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02150 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 20:14:12 +0200 Received: from ip80.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.80), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda02148; Fri Oct 8 20:14:08 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: I think partner has... Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 20:14:08 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199910062137.RAA01038@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910062137.RAA01038@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 EAA24814 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:37:26 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> What N really meant is probably something like "We play transfers >> in other situations, and we have no agreement about this >> particular situation. My guess is that it is a transfer.". > >I like the first sentence (maybe with clarification about which other >situations), but I think it would be better to omit the second. The second sentence is problematic, yes. Perhaps it should have been phrased as "It is my judgment that it would be most consistent with our general style to play transfers in this situation", which makes it clear that it is possibly relevant information about partnership agreements and style. Do we agree that if that is what is actually meant, then it is information that the opponents are entitled to? >3. Statements about your uncertainty or how you plan to interpret >partner's call are not needed or appropriate. Herman has this part >right, I think. The facts in item 2 are disclosable; one's own mental >state is not (and creates serious UI for partner if it is disclosed). As shown by the example above, I believe that it can be difficult to distinguish between what you call "one's own mental state" and relevant information about partnership agreements and style. The ideal way would be to enumerate all the situations in which we positively do play transfers and all those in which we positively do not though other players might. Unfortunately that is not possible in practice. A much shorter and more practical way is IMO to simply inform your opponents about your judgment of the probability of partner believing that we play transfers here: instead of giving the opponents a much too long-winded set of facts, give them the conclusion. But it should be made very clear that such a judgment is only a (possibly) helpful addendum to the basic explanation, which is "no agreement", and that the judgment might not be the same as partner's. It is important to distinguish between (a) explanations that sound vague because the agreements are vague and (b) explanations that sound vague because the player cannot remember the agreement. In (a), the explanation is correct, no MI; in (b), the explanation may well be MI. As long as vague agreements can exist, explanations of vague agreements must also exist. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 04:39:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 04:39:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24900 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 04:39:10 +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 OAA22445 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:38:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199910081838.OAA17005@aryabhata.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199910081237.OAA16868@hera.frw.uva.nl> (J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl) Subject: Re: L82C in a teams-of-four match Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals writes: > The following happened in a teams-of-four match: > East opens 1S, South doubles, West takes a pack of bidding > cards out of the box (under Dutch regulations meaning that he has > made a call), and says: "Hold it, I didn't see the double". TD lets > him substitute this for a redouble (erroneously aplying L25a), and > NS go for -1400, which, combined with the result at the other table, > costs 16 imps. > At the end of the match (EW's team won, 22-8) the TD realises his > error and applies L82C. He reasons that he has to consider both > parties to be non-offending, so EW's team keep their 16 imps and > win by 22-8, NS's team do not have to suffer the loss of 16 imps > and lose by 11-19, so the final result of the match becomes 22-11. No. L82C says that both sides are treated as non-offending for the purpose of assigning an adjusted score. Since the redouble should not have been allowed, neither side can receive a score based on the redouble. The TD needs to determine what would have happened if West had made the bid he was intending to make. If it is reasonably likely that E-W could get to either 4S making for +420 or 3NT down one for -50, then E-W should be awarded +420 (and +10 IMPs if the other table was +50) and N-S should be awarded +50 (and a push). It appears that there is no specific penalty to E-W other than the UI; West didn't make a bid, which would be required to invoke L25B. -- 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 Oct 9 04:58:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 04:58:23 +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 EAA24942 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 04:58:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02250 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 20:58:02 +0200 Received: from ip79.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.79), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda02248; Fri Oct 8 20:57:54 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 20:57:54 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199910072228.SAA00638@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 EAA24943 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:45:39 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: David Stevenson >>> Pardon? You are not allowed to point out when a card is wrong. You >>> don't do it. What is difficult about it? >> >>Except that dummy is allowed to point it out, if he is quick enough. >>Defenders used to be allowed to do it, but it was forbidden in 1987. >> >>I suppose a rule saying nobody can ever point out another player's >>wrongly-turned card is simple, but it will lead to unnecessary confusion >>at the end of the hand. > > Not unnecessary. There is a known abuse which is controlled by a Law. >You may or may not think the control is a good idea, but it is not just >an unnecessary Law change with no meaning. Furthermore, it does not >lead to too much confusion. > > Why do you want communication between partners? I don't: it >encourages bad ethics. There is far too much recovery from errors in >the game already. What you call "communication between partners" is what I call "calling attention to irregularities so they can be handled as early as possible". If my partner leads of out turn, I call attention to that irregularity as allowed by L9A2a. By doing so I communicate with partner as well as the other three players. I do not believe I am guilty of, or encouraging, "bad ethics" by doing so. On the contrary: the simple rule we should teach beginners is to call the TD when there is an irregularity. Now turn to a different irregularity: a defender's turning a card the wrong way. The laws say exactly the same about calling attention to that irregularity. Why should this communication with partner be any worse than the one above? Why should these same beginners not learn to call the TD for this irregularity as for all others? I understand that the WBFLC has issued an interpretation in this specific case, saying that defenders must not call attention to partner's wrongly turned card. However, that is not what the laws say, and the WBFLC did not choose to put it into the law book in 1997, which might be taken as an indication that they had regretted that interpretation. (I do not know when this interpretation was given by the WBFLC; I assume it is before the 1997 laws, since I would probably have heard of it before if it was new.) I agree with David that a law to forbid calling attention to partner's wrongly turned card in all cases would be simple and its application would only extremely rarely be a problem in practice. I do not agree that it is a good idea: I would prefer the just as simple rule that everybody can call attention to it - or even that everybody has a duty to do so. But I certainly see that David's point of view also makes sense, and my primary desire in this matter is to get consistency between the law book and practice - which IMO requires changing one of them. But I completely fail to see what "bad ethics" has to do with any of this. >Players can enjoy the game even if they have to stick >with their errors, y'know! Errors come in two flavours: those that are irregularities and those that are not. I believe it is a good idea to allow calling attention to the former, as L9A2a actually does. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 05:51:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 05:51:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA25382 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 05:51:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.172.95.75] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11Zg2d-0004Qm-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 20:50:59 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bf11c6$4e065d60$4b5fac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199910081739.KAA07339@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: A Hesitation Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 20:49:58 +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 Adam wrote: [snip of by now familiar analysis] > Yep, I finally figured that out late last night. > > It looks like this might be the basis for a good "Test Your Play" > problem. You have to get the timing just right. Slightly more awkward if West returns a club at the second trick, but you can do what I believe chess players call "transpose". Note that the line we have been discussing works if East's doubleton diamond is headed by an honour or the nine, and thus with the odds if we assume he has a doubleton. At any rate, now that we have established that the heart finesse is not by any means a play inferior enough to earn NS an unfavourable score regardless, I suppose we can look at the ruling. Others have said, and I see no reason to disagree, that even though the TD was not directly asked to consider the legality of East's 4S bid, he should nevertheless do so. He may very well take the view that it is an infraction of L16 and L73, and adjust on the basis of a 4H contract. It seems incontrovertible that EW should receive minus 450, since this is "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable" had the 4S bid not occurred. Whether or not NS should receive 450 or 420 is not clear to me; one would need to consider whether North is a player who might simply have taken the heart finesse anyway, on the grounds that East was likely to be short in the suit. Frankly, the whole scenario is one that I find somewhat unconvincing - the grounds on which NS called the TD are not plausible. However, DWS may have been paraphrasing their actual complaint in the interests of setting a problem, or the whole thing may be an imaginary exercise for TDs (in which case, as others have said, it is well constructed). The question to which I would like an answer, though, is this. For many years I and my fellow referees have been in the habit of ruling in such cases along these lines: EW get -450; NS would get 420 or 450 depending on North's view in the play, so we will give them X% of the matchpoints (or IMPs) for 420 and 100-X% of the matchpoints (or IMPs) for 450. None of these rulings have ever been queried, and it has always seemed to me an equitable approach. However, L12C2 does not give the TD the power to award any such score; the TD must make his mind up and give 420 or 450 as he sees fit. Does L12C3 actually give power to ACs to adjust in this fashion, or are ACs as well as TDs bound by the letter of L12C2? David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 06:40:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 04:58:52 +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 EAA24948 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 04:58:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA07725; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 13:57:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa5-65.ix.netcom.com(206.217.132.65) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma007715; Fri Oct 8 13:57:27 1999 Message-ID: <008701bf11bf$08a7bea0$4184d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:57:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Aha! It is only cats who are to be given nine lives, eh? If we were to follow Q's purrfect logic, then we should retain 25B only for women who predate liberation and have the inalienable "right to change their minds." Such sexist silliness if, of course, no worse than 25B itself. :-)) We might, however, clarify bid box regulations to define what constitutes "inadvertancy" for purposes of 25A. This is neither well known nor well understood, and seems to vary considerably by venue. I would think it right to penalise mental error, but not mechanical error. I am however less than enamoured of the right to make a change until partner has called. Something should be done about a situation where partner, suspecting a correctable error, tanks extensively to wake up the incorrect bidder in time for a 25A correction. This does not seem any more ethical than the long tank hoping partner will notice his revoke in jurisdictions that don't allow "having none"...but may not be illegal (L73???) and in practice is being ruled acceptable at least in ACBL games. (I have been victimised by such cuteness.) Perhaps even this is better than the "race to get a bid on the table so he is stuck with his foolishness" which cold be the alternative. What would cats do, Q? Streak disdains to answer and has pledged the others to secrecy. -- Craig Senior > Quango says that if a human cannot make his mind up first time, why >should he be given a second chance? (presuming that it is always permissible to remember to put out the better cat food?) >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 9 07:10:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 07:10:13 +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 HAA25542 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 07:10:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-1-56.access.net.il [213.8.1.56] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA03383; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:08:21 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37FE5DA0.8E01D26@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 23:09:52 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney References: <0.37051cb6.252b8c55@aol.com> <37FBACCA.B74E4BD1@internet-zahav.net> <37FD0548.385A9397@internet-zahav.net> <44XFaOAF6U$3EwYB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quango is one of the most clever cat I heard about and a good bridge player ........ Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > >In a regular club there will not be such problems because 90% or more > >players will let the "poor offender" to change the call - I know it from > >my experience when as a TD I "warn" the offender but > >advice the opponents to agree ..... > > Oh, come on, Dany, in a club 99.9% of people will not ask for a change > because it would never occur to them they are allowed to change a call > after you have made it. > > It is a BL's Law. > > >I agree that an artificial 40% score isn't so nice , maybe give a > >"natural score" not more than 40% (as the law says..) or anything > >which will be appropriate .. > > > >Well David , do you think Law 25B is a reasonable one , if updated or > >rectified the way I suggested ?? > > Deep six it! > > >I'd like to see the H-BLML members' opinion (I know the opinions of > >70% of the C-BLML and D-BLML members..!!!!) > > Quango says that if a human cannot make his mind up first time, why > should he be given a second chance? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 9 11:38:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:38:53 +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 LAA26640 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:38:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ZlT0-000B0I-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 01:38:35 +0000 Message-ID: <7NoVntB5hh$3Ewq7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 17:14:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Protection racket. References: <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >David wrote: >>Eric Landau wrote: >>>If East had said that he would always protect, i.e. would never consider >>>not protecting, he would still be ruled against in the ACBL, where the >>>guidelines for adjudicating UI would require us to "discount" his statement >>>as obviously self-serving. >> I know that some people do this. But I have never seen any guideline >>to actually discount it, and the NABC Casebooks make clear that most ACs >>do not follow it. >> >> If it were true, why do the ACBL waste time taking evidence from the >>offenders? >Because "discount" is not the same as "ignore". Self-serving statements >are still evidence, but carry significantly less weight than other >evidence. In practice, they tend to be ignored unless there is at least >some hint of corroboration. I agree that I missed the difference between discount and ignore, but based on your conclusion and further comments it is beginning to look like a distinction without a difference. I really think that if self-serving statements tend to be ignored without corroboration then it is extremely unfortunate. What that means in English is that if you say something that might be to your benefit then I shall assume you are lying *even if there is no other evidence you are lying* unless there is some other evidence in your favour. I do not like it one little bit: it is not an acceptable approach. Eric Landau wrote: >If East had said that he would always protect, i.e. would never consider >not protecting, he would still be ruled against in the ACBL, where the >guidelines for adjudicating UI would require us to "discount" his statement >as obviously self-serving. But in a jurisdiction that lacked such a >guideline we might accept such a statement at face value and rule in his >favor, on the grounds that his "peers" are limited to players who would >never consider not protecting. So what you are saying here is that if you ask him his system and he says 2C shows 4Cs + 4Hs, eight points or more, agreed always to bid on any hand where there are two suits containing an honour: you then look at his card, and it says C+H, may be 4-4, that you must assume he has just made the rest of the agreement up and you rule against him? Yuk! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 9 11:38:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:38:57 +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 LAA26646 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:38:50 +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 11ZlT0-000B0J-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 01:38:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 17:43:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L82C in a teams-of-four match References: <199910081237.OAA16868@hera.frw.uva.nl> In-Reply-To: <199910081237.OAA16868@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: >The following happened in a teams-of-four match: > >East opens 1S, South doubles, West takes a pack of bidding >cards out of the box (under Dutch regulations meaning that he has >made a call), and says: "Hold it, I didn't see the double". TD lets >him substitute this for a redouble (erroneously aplying L25a), and >NS go for -1400, which, combined with the result at the other table, >costs 16 imps. >At the end of the match (EW's team won, 22-8) the TD realises his >error and applies L82C. He reasons that he has to consider both >parties to be non-offending, so EW's team keep their 16 imps and >win by 22-8, NS's team do not have to suffer the loss of 16 imps >and lose by 11-19, so the final result of the match becomes 22-11. > >Agree? No, sorry. Certainly L82C applies but that does not mean that EW necessarily keep their 16 imps. What he does is to assign scores based on him giving a correct ruling, treating each side as non-offending. Let us consider what might have happened. The bidding goes 1S X ?/TD. The ruling is that no change is permitted under L25A. So the TD moves on to TWL [L25B] and gives the following options: The substituted call may be condoned ....... What substituted call? The trouble is that L25B assumes the player has attempted a substitution. Ok, I suppose we have to ask him what call he is going to substitute. What do we do if he answers "I am not going to change it if I cannot change it under L25A."? Oh, h&d! [1] I think that if West does not wish to substitute a call the bidding goes on with his actual call - and UI to partner. So we allow the original call without penalty. [2] Suppose West says "I want to redouble". The next player could condone this. [3] Now, West could go back to his original call. We were not told what it was, but from the evidence I would guess it is a forcing bid on a strong hand - but partner is now required to pass it!!!!! Let us call it 2C for the sake of argument. [4] Alternatively, West could pick anything else, and play for 40%. In that case he might as well redouble. So, for assigning purposes, we look at these possibilities and see where they lead. [1] West decides not to change under L25B and gets some score like 630 because he reaches game normally. [2] West redoubles, and North condones this. Yeah, and the Red Sox win the World Series [2-0 down now - shame] and I win the lottery. North, whose highest card is probably a 9 would not condone it! [3] West plays in 2C for 150. Will he really pick this option? [4] West redoubles for 40% and gets 1400. That is 3 imps out for EW and 16 imps out for NS. Ok, which of these are likely? [1] certainly is, but he might commit himself to TWL. [2] - not a chance! [3] is possible: now faced with a loss of 3 imps, West might cut his losses and go for this. [4] is also possible, now that West has got embroiled. Given that we now apply L82C, and treat each side as non-offending. Which score is best? For EW +630, 11 imps in, for NS -150, 6 imps out. That's what you assign. Of course, I am guessing as to the results of contracts but this is the correct approach. TDs must assign scores where TFLB tells them 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 Sat Oct 9 12:56:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 12:56:53 +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 MAA26786 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 12:56:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegc3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.65.131]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA14187 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991008225416.012cebc8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 22:54:16 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991008125752.007ab6c0@eiu.edu> References: <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:57 PM 10/8/99 -0500, Grant wrote: >At 01:46 PM 10/8/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >>This simply won't come to an end - I'm sorry to all other >>readers. > > I am willing to take this off-list as of now, if Herman wishes. > >>However, the last part of this post is something rather new, >>I would like those of you who want to take the time to read >>that - even if you had decided not to follow this thread any >>longer. > > Yes--I, too, would like some comments from others as to how they >would rule. I will snip most of the rest of this [I know it doesn't look >like it, but I really did!] to get to the end. I think that there are good arguments on both sides here. Although Herman is, in one sense, completely correct (MI _does_ occur if you offer an incorrect explanation, even if hedged), there is still the matter of damage, and the real question is whether or under what circumstances the expressed uncertainty might be considered to mitigate that damage. Although it might be the case that BL's could claim damage, even when for a variety of reasons they were fully in position to read the situation, I think that on balance I agree with Herman here. The alternative approach of refusing to consider a hedged explanation as MI has a real down-side: it encourages players to hedge their explanations even when completely confident of their agreements. DWS seems to have a greater faith in the integrity of his fellow-bridge players than I do, and is fairly dismissive of this risk. But the truth is that we have Laws in some part because many players cannot be trusted to play honorably in their absence. The practice of hedging your explanations even when you are sure is certainly unethical and probably illegal, but 1) it may also be "technically" legal, since nobody can ever really be sure of anything and 2) at any rate, you are virtually certain not to be penalized for it. When the application of the Laws effectively encourages bad behavior, it is time to question that particular interpretation. BTW, I consider Steve's prototype explanation in the face of uncertainty to be an excellent model, and one which would, IMO, protect you against a charge of MI. The canonical form, I believe is "These are the agreements we do have which might be potentially relevant to this sequence, although we have no specific agreement about how or whether those agreements extend to this particular situation." So long as you have correctly described those facts, it seems to me that you cannot be guilty of MI. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 20:16:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 20:16:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27467 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 20:16:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-161.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.161]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA01140 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 12:16:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 11:24:07 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > > Something seems wrong with this: the disclosure procedure is not about > guesses but about agreements: the partner tells you about agreements and > lack of agreements and he and you may use these informations as you > like. The TD will eventually have to determine (MI or not) whether the > partner's answer reflected the actual partnership's agreements (or > experience...) . > You seem to think that not to have an agreement (or, said otherwise, to > improvise a bid not based on a settled agreement) is an infraction as > soon as the partner fails to guess its meaning. > > JP Rocafort Well, not an infraction of course, but I know what you mean. Yes, I do believe this. Bridge simply isn't played that way. Nobody (well some do) invents conventions at the table. It often happens that one is "in the dark", because a particular piece of system hasn't been talked through. At that moment, one falls back on some perceived "general" system and hopes that partner is on the same wavelength. If it turns out that indeed partner has the same idea, then surely that must constitute some form of "agreement". Even if the agreement is only based on "in our club, most people play it like that", that is an agreement. If partner has the same idea, surely he should disclose this, and not hide behind "no agreement". And if partner happens to have a different perception of the meaning, he should do so as well. The opponents should not suffer. The pair should suffer for agreeing to play without a full set of agreements. I've said so before and I'll say it again : "No agreement" is not a valid response. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 20:16:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 20:16:32 +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 UAA27470 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 20:16:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-161.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.161]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA01158 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 12:16:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37FF0BD0.918722A6@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 11:33:04 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991008125752.007ab6c0@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > >I was trying to give an advice to players. If two possible > >courses of action yield the same ruling, aren't they to be > >considered equal for the player? > > Of course not. If a defendant at a trial faces overwhelming > evidence, it may be irrelevant to the verdict how he testifies. But > that does not mean that "tell the truth" and "lie" are equally good > pieces of advice. > Merely because a two players were both ruled against doesn't > mean their actions are equally correct. > [And, yes, I am one of those who think that bridge ethics goes > beyond even the requirements of the law. But I am not saying even > that here--I am saying that following your legal obligations fully > rather than partially might in some cases not make any difference > to the ruling, but we should advise players to do it nonetheless.] > Circular reasoning. You start by saying they are legally obliged to divulge. You agree that the ruling is the same. Then you advise them to follow their legal obligations. It does not follow from your reasoning that they are legally obliged, does it ? We are trying to find out what the legal obligations are. Of course telling more to opponents helps them. But we are not trying to be helpful, we are trying to win (nothing wrong with that). Thus we have to clearly define where our legal obligations end. Your posts are not helpful. You advise that they should go beyond their legal obligations. That is surely not a good piece of advise. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 20:16:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 20:16:32 +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 UAA27468 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 20:16:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-161.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.161]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA01150 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 12:16:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37FF0A6F.D5F0B4FC@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 11:27:11 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991008125752.007ab6c0@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > > Again, the fact that the hand had hearts is, in my mind, very > little evidence that they have agreed the bid means hearts. > It's not evidence at all, it's the basis from which the director will start. He will need evidence to convince him otherwise ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 21:25:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 21:25:57 +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 VAA27607 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 21:25:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Zud3-000Jkd-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:25:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 03:09:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Hesitation References: <199910081739.KAA07339@mailhub.irvine.com> <000701bf11c6$4e065d60$4b5fac3e@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000701bf11c6$4e065d60$4b5fac3e@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Adam wrote: > >[snip of by now familiar analysis] > >> Yep, I finally figured that out late last night. >> >> It looks like this might be the basis for a good "Test Your Play" >> problem. You have to get the timing just right. > >Slightly more awkward if West returns a club at the second trick, but >you can do what I believe chess players call "transpose". Note that >the line we have been discussing works if East's doubleton diamond is >headed by an honour or the nine, and thus with the odds if we assume >he has a doubleton. At any rate, now that we have established that the >heart finesse is not by any means a play inferior enough to earn NS an >unfavourable score regardless, I suppose we can look at the ruling. I really thought I was saving time. I cannot believe that any of you actually believe that a player in the Great Northern called a TD to the table and said "I have taken a wrong view in trumps: what are you going to do about it?" I have been proved wrong by the response. Of course he asked for a ruling on the hesitation. >Others have said, and I see no reason to disagree, that even though >the TD was not directly asked to consider the legality of East's 4S >bid, he should nevertheless do so. He may very well take the view that >it is an infraction of L16 and L73, and adjust on the basis of a 4H >contract. It seems incontrovertible that EW should receive minus 450, >since this is "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable" >had the 4S bid not occurred. Whether or not NS should receive 450 or >420 is not clear to me; one would need to consider whether North is a >player who might simply have taken the heart finesse anyway, on the >grounds that East was likely to be short in the suit. Frankly, the >whole scenario is one that I find somewhat unconvincing - the grounds >on which NS called the TD are not plausible. However, DWS may have >been paraphrasing their actual complaint in the interests of setting a >problem, or the whole thing may be an imaginary exercise for TDs (in >which case, as others have said, it is well constructed). > >The question to which I would like an answer, though, is this. For >many years I and my fellow referees have been in the habit of ruling >in such cases along these lines: EW get -450; NS would get 420 or 450 >depending on North's view in the play, so we will give them X% of the >matchpoints (or IMPs) for 420 and 100-X% of the matchpoints (or IMPs) >for 450. None of these rulings have ever been queried, and it has >always seemed to me an equitable approach. However, L12C2 does not >give the TD the power to award any such score; the TD must make his >mind up and give 420 or 450 as he sees fit. Does L12C3 actually give >power to ACs to adjust in this fashion, or are ACs as well as TDs >bound by the letter of L12C2? L12C3 allows this, surely? To be honest, I don't understand the problem. Why should not ACs have this power? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 9 21:25:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 21:25:57 +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 VAA27610 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 21:25:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11Zud3-000Jkf-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:25:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 03:12:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L82C in a teams-of-four match References: <01bf11ab$7d9ec460$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf11ab$7d9ec460$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: Jan Peter Pals >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Friday, October 08, 1999 4:20 PM >Subject: L82C in a teams-of-four match > > >>The following happened in a teams-of-four match: >> >>East opens 1S, South doubles, West takes a pack of bidding >>cards out of the box (under Dutch regulations meaning that he has >>made a call), and says: "Hold it, I didn't see the double". TD lets >>him substitute this for a redouble (erroneously aplying L25a), and >>NS go for -1400, which, combined with the result at the other table, >>costs 16 imps. >>At the end of the match (EW's team won, 22-8) the TD realises his >>error and applies L82C. He reasons that he has to consider both >>parties to be non-offending, so EW's team keep their 16 imps and >>win by 22-8, NS's team do not have to suffer the loss of 16 imps >>and lose by 11-19, so the final result of the match becomes 22-11. >> >>Agree? > >No. >This is a fun one. If the TD had not erred, he would have looked at > Law 25B and after deciding that it applied, he would remember the > Lille decision, and would disallow the change of call. >(If L25B was ON then it would be -1400/-3imps) >We were not told what he had actually bid, or the hands, so we cannot >decide on the Law12 C2 assigned score, but he should have awarded > to both sides, the most favourable result that was likely if the >irregularity >(the TD error) had not occurred. >The difficulty about this is that both teams can win or lose the match as > the result of either of these rulings. >Get an extra board played before the result of the match is known >(ready for the AC decision to cancel the board:-)) Absolutely not. It is a very unfortunate practice and should not be done. You will reach interminable arguments when a team knows it has won one way and not the other. It is completely illegal for the AC to cancel the board anyway: why should they? They are required to follow the Law as much as a Director. L82C exists: you can't just decide not to follow it, whether you are a TD or an AC. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 21:25:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 21:25:55 +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 VAA27606 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 21:25:43 +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 11Zud3-000ARm-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:25:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 03:02:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner References: <199910072228.SAA00638@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:45:39 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > >>Steve Willner wrote: >>>> From: David Stevenson >>>> Pardon? You are not allowed to point out when a card is wrong. You >>>> don't do it. What is difficult about it? >>> >>>Except that dummy is allowed to point it out, if he is quick enough. >>>Defenders used to be allowed to do it, but it was forbidden in 1987. >>> >>>I suppose a rule saying nobody can ever point out another player's >>>wrongly-turned card is simple, but it will lead to unnecessary confusion >>>at the end of the hand. >> >> Not unnecessary. There is a known abuse which is controlled by a Law. >>You may or may not think the control is a good idea, but it is not just >>an unnecessary Law change with no meaning. Furthermore, it does not >>lead to too much confusion. >> >> Why do you want communication between partners? I don't: it >>encourages bad ethics. There is far too much recovery from errors in >>the game already. > >What you call "communication between partners" is what I call >"calling attention to irregularities so they can be handled as >early as possible". But the previous Law did not require you to point out your partner had a trick turned wrong *at the time*. So it was perfectly permissible to wait until we want partner to cash the setting trick and then tell him! Thus, it is not as early as possible. I am very happy that players should draw attention to their partner's putting a trick the wrong way if they do it immediately, but not otherwise. Perhaps the WBFLC over-reacted when they took the right away: perhaps they should just have limited it to "before their side plays to the next trick" or something. >If my partner leads of out turn, I call attention to that >irregularity as allowed by L9A2a. By doing so I communicate with >partner as well as the other three players. I do not believe I >am guilty of, or encouraging, "bad ethics" by doing so. On the >contrary: the simple rule we should teach beginners is to call >the TD when there is an irregularity. But in effect you have to draw attention immediately: it is no use to draw attention a trick later. >Now turn to a different irregularity: a defender's turning a card >the wrong way. > >The laws say exactly the same about calling attention to that >irregularity. Why should this communication with partner be any >worse than the one above? Why should these same beginners not >learn to call the TD for this irregularity as for all others? > >I understand that the WBFLC has issued an interpretation in this >specific case, saying that defenders must not call attention to >partner's wrongly turned card. However, that is not what the >laws say, and the WBFLC did not choose to put it into the law >book in 1997, which might be taken as an indication that they had >regretted that interpretation. (I do not know when this >interpretation was given by the WBFLC; I assume it is before the >1997 laws, since I would probably have heard of it before if it >was new.) European Bridge League TD Guide #43.4 refers. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 22:36:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 22:36:37 +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 WAA27769 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 22:36:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04202 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 14:36:19 +0200 Received: from ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.55), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda04199; Sat Oct 9 14:36:13 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 14:36:13 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199910072228.SAA00638@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 WAA27771 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 9 Oct 1999 03:02:38 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > I am very happy that players should draw attention to their partner's >putting a trick the wrong way if they do it immediately, but not >otherwise. Perhaps the WBFLC over-reacted when they took the right >away: perhaps they should just have limited it to "before their side >plays to the next trick" or something. Since this was what Steve's suggested some days ago, I'm sure he would be happy with it; so would I. So let us conclude that this would be a solution that none of us see anything wrong with. It might be worth a few words in the next law book. >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>I understand that the WBFLC has issued an interpretation in this >>specific case, saying that defenders must not call attention to >>partner's wrongly turned card. However, that is not what the >>laws say, and the WBFLC did not choose to put it into the law >>book in 1997, which might be taken as an indication that they had >>regretted that interpretation. (I do not know when this >>interpretation was given by the WBFLC; I assume it is before the >>1997 laws, since I would probably have heard of it before if it >>was new.) > > European Bridge League TD Guide #43.4 refers. Yes, of course. And that was long before the 1997 laws. In principle, a WBFLC interpretation which says that a law should be interpreted in a way that is contrary to the way it would normally be read should no longer have any effect when a new edition of the laws has been issued. If the WBFLC wanted this interpretation to continue to be the law, they ought to have written it into the 1997 laws. Leaving "in principle" and returning to the real world, I have some understanding of how difficult it must be for the WBFLC to keep track of every detail that might need changing, so I'm not claiming that this means that the interpretation should be ignored: I do believe, however, that the authority of such an interpretation is weakened when it is not incorporated in a new issue of the laws. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 22:36:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 22:36:36 +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 WAA27768 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 22:36:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04203 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 14:36:19 +0200 Received: from ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.55), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb04199; Sat Oct 9 14:36:15 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Protection racket. Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 14:36:15 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> <7NoVntB5hh$3Ewq7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <7NoVntB5hh$3Ewq7@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 WAA27770 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 8 Oct 1999 17:14:49 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > I really think that if self-serving statements tend to be ignored >without corroboration then it is extremely unfortunate. What that means >in English is that if you say something that might be to your benefit >then I shall assume you are lying *even if there is no other evidence >you are lying* unless there is some other evidence in your favour. > > I do not like it one little bit: it is not an acceptable approach. I agree completely with this. There are many kinds of self-serving statements, and their credibility must be judged in each case. "I would always bid 4S in this situation" from somebody who did that with UI is self-serving, and does not carry much weight, even though he probably believes so himself, since humans are often very good at convincing themselves of such things. (Fortunately the law-makers knew this and wrote the laws so that it is irrelevant whether he himself would always bid 4S.) "I remember clearly that we were sitting in my partner's living-room a Sunday a few months ago discussing exactly this sequence, and that we agreed to play transfers here" is also self-serving, but should carry much more weight, since it is probably either true or a direct lie. And not very many players will tell direct lies. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 9 22:51:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 22:51:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com [139.134.5.174]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA27833 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 22:50:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id la010801 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 22:40:57 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-223-189.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.189]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Particular-MailRouter V2.5 9/306945); 09 Oct 1999 22:40:57 Message-ID: <005d01bf12e2$72f60d60$ea60868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Lille Appeal No. 20 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 22:43:19 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In Re: A Hesitation on Oct 7 at 6;04, David Stevenson wrote: > >The fact that you as a better analyst [and I can assure you >*most* of us are better analysts when we can see four hands] >see the play is imperfect does not affect the concept of damage. > This reminded me of Appeal 20 at Lille, which can be found at http://www1.bridge.gr/Dept/Appeals/198Lille/Lille20.htm among other places. The sections "TD's Decision" and "Committee's Comments" are those of people looking at all four hands. Curiously, in this Appeal I think they would have come to a different conclusion had they put themselves in West's seat. You hold A5, K4, KQ76532, A3 and open 1D in fourth seat. LHO bids 2NT, explained by your screenmate as spades and clubs. Partner doubles, and doubles again when your LHO bids 3C after two passes. RHO bids 3H. What's going on? It seems to me that RHO passed the double of 2NT trembling with fear, lacking a fit for either clubs or spades. When LHO was doubled in 3C, the RHO desperately tried to bid his heart suit. Being a passed hand with less than 3 cards in each black suit, RHO probably has at least four diamonds. The opponents are in a massive misfit and I shall simply let partner double them. Partner seems to have all three suits except diamonds. Compare this with the situation if the correct explanation (hearts and clubs) were given. Now it seems that RHO would have bid 3H over the double of 2NT with markedly longer hearts than clubs. He therefore probably has three hearts and two clubs. Partner probably has only three hearts, and as a passed hand will be in a difficult position if I pass 3H to him. Perhaps I should bid 4D (or 3NT). In the first paragraph of the "Player's Comments" section, an honest West seems to be trying to express the above situation. I wonder if language problems (France vs Holland) affected this appeal. I don't know if the Appeal 20 decision has been discussed before. Please enlighten me. Peter Gill Sydney, Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 01:19:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:19:46 +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 BAA28283 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:19:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za194687 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:16:11 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-221-214.tmns.net.au ([139.134.221.214]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Infinite-MailRouter V2.5 15/316178); 10 Oct 1999 01:16:11 Message-ID: <026301bf12f8$19c39260$ea60868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: A Multi Case Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:18:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >>> ...The only meaning for 2D [Multi] Pass that is not artificial is one >>>that suggests playing there, and that shows diamonds. The word "only" is too strong. A pair who played for Australia in the Rhodes Olympiad once answered my query about the pass of 2D doubled as "undiscussed". That 'meaning' is not artificial and IMO not alertable. and wrote: >Are you suggesting that 2D X Pass shows any thirteen cards and >partner guesses whether to describe his hand or not? Well, that >may not be alertable, but it is a completely stupid way of playing >the pass and not one competent player in a thousand would play that. > > Competent players - and I do not mean good players, I mean players >with any commonsense here - agree on one of two approaches: > >[1] 2D X Pass shows some number of diamonds and suggests to partner the >possibility of playing in 2DX. this is the natural approach, and >different players have different agreements as to how many diamonds are >shown. I play a good five-plus card holding myself. > >[2] 2D X Pass tells opener to describe his hand and he will bid his >major [or whatever else he has]. Granted he might pass if he has an >Acol Two in diamonds. In the 1980s Ron Klinger (who has commonsense) and I (no such claim) used to play, and alert of course, that the pass of the double showed "a void in a major, rarely a singleton". Opener could then rebid a major playable opposite a void, or guess whether to pass out 2D or redouble for rescue. Usually the latter. Advantages of this approach included: - the pressure on the opponents of 2D being redoubled into game; will one of them run? - some delicate continuations enabling fits to be disclosed at the two or three level in sutis ather than diamonds; better than suffering a penalty in a 6-0 fit. Our agreements also included that (1C) (short) - X - XX - Pass showed 4+ clubs (ditto against a short Precision 1D), alerted of course. Note that these passes are natural, but alertable under Australian regulations as the "4+" is unexpected. and wrote: > KJ9xxx > QTx > xx > xx > > 2D X P ? What do you bid? > After 2D (X) P (P) ?: I vaguely recall RDK and I discussing this sort of position - that we have to redouble rather than bid 2H because otherwise 3-0 fits were possible etc. I don't think we were incompetent or (as a pair) lacking commonsense. We simply came up with a treatment which approached the main issue at stake viz. not whether to play 2DX but whether to play two of the major. I observe that RDK in a 1993 book recommends on page 128 that the pass of 2D doubled says "I want to play in 2D doubled". I guess some treatments are not for mass consumption. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 01:56:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:56:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28394 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:55:48 +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 LAA21967; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:55:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA02193; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:55:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:55:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910091555.LAA02193@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, eajewm@globalnet.co.uk Subject: Re: L82C in a teams-of-four match Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >East opens 1S, South doubles, West takes a pack of bidding > >cards out of the box (under Dutch regulations meaning that he has > >made a call), and says: "Hold it, I didn't see the double". Do we know what his original call was? If not, this demonstrates a problem with the regulation saying the call is made. > From: "Anne Jones" > This is a fun one. If the TD had not erred, he would have looked at > Law 25B and after deciding that it applied, he would remember the > Lille decision, and would disallow the change of call. Why wouldn't L25B apply? The intended bid was a stupid mistake, not a rectification in judgment. And in the (unofficial) revised interpretation, nothing has happened _after_ the intended call. Either way, L25B seems to be one of the options. > (If L25B was ON then it would be -1400/-3imps) The application of L25B is not clear. Among other problems, it isn't clear what option the player would pick if offered L25B. > The difficulty about this is that both teams can win or lose the match as > the result of either of these rulings. We weren't told whether the match was knockout or VP. If the latter, each team keeps its score, converted to VP's. If the former, there's only a problem if there's an exact tie after computing the score according to L(mumble...86 something? the one about non-balancing adjusted scores). Then the tie-break procedure, whatever it is, goes into effect. > Get an extra board played before the result of the match is known > (ready for the AC decision to cancel the board:-)) Under what law would the AC cancel the board? And I wouldn't think the tie-break, even if needed, would be only one board. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 02:39:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 02:28:25 +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 CAA28695 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 02:28:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from p7es02a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.162.127] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11ZzLR-0005kH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 17:27:41 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L82C in a teams-of-four match Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 17:33:23 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1274$00e6df60$f0a493c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; eajewm@globalnet.co.uk Date: Saturday, October 09, 1999 4:55 PM Subject: Re: L82C in a teams-of-four match >> >East opens 1S, South doubles, West takes a pack of bidding >> >cards out of the box (under Dutch regulations meaning that he has >> >made a call), and says: "Hold it, I didn't see the double". > >Do we know what his original call was? If not, this demonstrates a >problem with the regulation saying the call is made. > >> From: "Anne Jones" >> This is a fun one. If the TD had not erred, he would have looked at >> Law 25B and after deciding that it applied, he would remember the >> Lille decision, and would disallow the change of call. > >Why wouldn't L25B apply? The intended bid was a stupid mistake, not a >rectification in judgment. The mistake was not seeing the Double. The need to change his bid once he had sees the double is a rectification of judgement IMO. If you recall the "official" interpretation was that he had made a stupid mistake _*after*_ thinking what to do. If he had not seen the double he could not think what to do over it. Anne And in the (unofficial) revised >interpretation, "As the intention of the Committee this statement of intention constitutes an interpretation of the Law" There's nothing unoficial about that, even if they have now said it's not what they meant :-)) nothing has happened _after_ the intended call. Either >way, L25B seems to be one of the options. I agree it's not too late. > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 06:06:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 06:06:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29242 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 06:06:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-238-147.s147.tnt2.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.238.147]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA26836 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 16:06:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 16:05:24 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, October 09, 1999 5:24 AM Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? [snip] > > Bridge simply isn't played that way. > Nobody (well some do) invents conventions at the table. > It often happens that one is "in the dark", because a > particular piece of system hasn't been talked through. At > that moment, one falls back on some perceived "general" > system and hopes that partner is on the same wavelength. Yes... > If it turns out that indeed partner has the same idea, then > surely that must constitute some form of "agreement". Absolutely not! Assuming no prior experience with this partner in this or a similar situation, the fact that partner got it right may be good deductive reasoning, it may be luck, but it's not an agreement of any kind, explicit or implicit. >Even > if the agreement is only based on "in our club, most people > play it like that", that is an agreement. Yes, common experience can form an implicit agreement. > If partner has the same idea, surely he should disclose > this, and not hide behind "no agreement". How would partner know he had the same idea if the situation were undiscussed? > And if partner happens to have a different perception of the > meaning, he should do so as well. The opponents should not > suffer. The pair should suffer for agreeing to play without > a full set of agreements. > This is pure silliness. What is a "full set of agreements"? The depth of agreements is a complex function of many factors that include the experience of the players, the experience of the partnership, the ability of the players, etc. etc. Even then, don't you think that even top partnerships run into situations that they haven't discussed? When they do, what law says that they should suffer for it? > I've said so before and I'll say it again : > > "No agreement" is not a valid response. > > -- You were wrong before and you're wrong now. "No agreement" is the only valid response when there is in fact no agreement. Anything else is MI. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 07:05:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 07:05:32 +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 HAA29376 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 07:05:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp204-9.worldonline.nl [195.241.204.9]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA00853 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:05:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00bf01bf12a2$6c863580$09ccf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Second revoke in same suit by offender Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:05:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00BC_01BF12AA.CD3E0F80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dit is een meerdelig bericht in MIME-indeling. ------=_NextPart_000_00BC_01BF12AA.CD3E0F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here is the second case from Friday's team-of-fours matches that I = promised in my "Beyond L25 ?" mail. A similar case may have been = discussed a while ago, but I cannot remember it, so here it is.=20 =20 Again, the hands do not matter much. We're in trick six of a No Trump = contract, and declarer (South) has some winning clubs left, which he = cashes: =20 S W N E =20 tr. 6 C9 D5 D3 S2 tr. 7 C8 D2 ..... "Oh No, I've got another club", and West shows = C6 (which really is his last club). I decided that the revoke in trick 6 had become established, and would = be penalised accordingly later, and I also decided D2 had become a major = penalty card. Indeed, East won a trick later and became subjected to a = lead restriction. =20 Now if West had said nothing, and had revoked again, he would have = avoided the lead penalty, and he would have got away with the revoke = penalty only. Now I know doing so intentionally is contrary to L72B4, = but it would have been almost impossible to prove he did so = intentionally.=20 Is it fair that an honest West who discovers his revoke at this = inconvient moment and says so incurs another penalty ? Or should I have = ruled differently ?? =20 Jac ------=_NextPart_000_00BC_01BF12AA.CD3E0F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here is the = second case=20 from Friday's team-of-fours matches that I promised in my "Beyond = L25=20 ?" mail. A similar case may have been discussed a while ago, but I = cannot=20 remember it, so here it is.
 
Again, the = hands do not=20 matter much. We're in trick six of a No Trump contract, and declarer = (South) has=20 some winning clubs left, which he cashes:
 
         =20 S       W     =20 N     E   
tr. 6  = C9   =20 D5    D3    S2
tr. 7  = C8   =20 D2  .....  "Oh No, I've got another club", and West = shows C6=20 (which really is his last club).
I decided that the = revoke in trick 6=20 had become established, and would be penalised accordingly later, and I = also=20 decided D2 had become a major penalty card. Indeed, East won a trick = later and=20 became subjected to a lead restriction.
 
Now if West had said = nothing, and had=20 revoked again, he would have avoided the lead penalty, and he would have = got=20 away with the revoke penalty only. Now I know doing so intentionally is = contrary=20 to L72B4, but it would have been almost impossible to prove he did so=20 intentionally. 
Is it fair that an = honest West who=20 discovers his revoke at this inconvient moment and says so incurs = another=20 penalty ? Or should I have ruled differently ??
 
Jac
------=_NextPart_000_00BC_01BF12AA.CD3E0F80-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 07:05:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 07:05:28 +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 HAA29371 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 07:05:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp204-9.worldonline.nl [195.241.204.9]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA00828 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:05:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00b501bf12a2$691eeea0$09ccf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Beyond Law25 ? Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:05:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B2_01BF12AA.C8F4F420" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dit is een meerdelig bericht in MIME-indeling. ------=_NextPart_000_00B2_01BF12AA.C8F4F420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I came across three rulings during teams-of-four matches yesterday, on = which I would like to have some opinions.=20 Here is the first one: =20 (biddingboxes are used) The hands are irrelevant. The bidding is: North : 1 NT East : 1S/2S *) South : Pass West : TD Please !! *) East did bid 1S, but immediately snatched 2S from her bidding box and = put that pile of cards on top of the 1S card. A direct 2S bid would have = been Multi-Landy (5+ cards in spades, and 4+ cards in one minor). West told me that he wanted to know whether the 1S bid by East had been = intentional (because she had not seen 1NT, or had misread it as 1C, or = for whatever reason), or whether it had been an unintentional bid. =20 I told East NOT to tell, even if NS wanted to know, and ruled that South = had accepted the 2S call, and that West should make up his own mind = about what happened without further help. For those who really want to know: East did NOT have a 4+ major suit, = and afterwards told me she had thought that North had bid 1C .... =20 I wonder whether there's anything more about this case than I thought = there was at the time. Could, e.g., 1S have been U.I. to West, even = though he couldn't be sure what was going on ? Your opinions, please ... =20 Jac =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00B2_01BF12AA.C8F4F420 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I came = across three=20 rulings during teams-of-four matches yesterday, on which I would like to = have=20 some opinions. 
Here is the = first=20 one:
 
(biddingboxes are=20 used)
The hands are irrelevant. The bidding = is:
North  : 1 NT
East    = : 1S/2S=20 *)
South : = Pass
West   : TD = Please=20 !!
*) East did bid 1S, but immediately snatched 2S from her = bidding box and=20 put that pile of cards on top of the 1S card. A direct 2S bid would have = been=20 Multi-Landy (5+ cards in spades, and 4+ cards in one=20 minor).
West told = me that he=20 wanted to know whether the 1S bid by East had been intentional (because = she had=20 not seen 1NT, or had misread it as 1C, or for whatever reason), or = whether it=20 had been an unintentional bid.
 
I told East = NOT to tell,=20 even if NS wanted to know, and ruled that South had accepted the 2S = call, and=20 that West should make up his own mind about what happened without = further=20 help.
For those = who really want=20 to know: East did NOT have a 4+ major suit, and afterwards told me she = had=20 thought that North had bid 1C ....
 
I wonder = whether there's=20 anything more about this case than I thought there was at the time. = Could, e.g.,=20 1S have been U.I. to West, even though he couldn't be sure what was = going on ?=20 Your opinions, please ...
 
Jac
     =20
 
   
------=_NextPart_000_00B2_01BF12AA.C8F4F420-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 07:08:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 07:08:03 +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 HAA29400 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 07:07:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp204-9.worldonline.nl [195.241.204.9]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA01802 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:07:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00cc01bf12a2$c6085520$09ccf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: L6D2 again Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:08:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C9_01BF12AB.26C02F20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dit is een meerdelig bericht in MIME-indeling. ------=_NextPart_000_00C9_01BF12AB.26C02F20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here is the third case from Friday's teams-of-four matches (see "Beyond = L25 ?"). Again, the hands don't matter. =20 South (a home team member), who has just scored -300 in 2S!, tells me = the hand is identical to one that he played in his previous = teams-of-four match, two weeks ago. Now, this is well possible, for the = club has more sets of boards than are necessary, and a set can remain = unused for weeks. When pressed, his story appears convincing, so I ruled = that the board, which had already been played by his teammates, would be = cancelled, unless further investigation would show him to be mistaken. = Later during the match, I consulted his teammates, who chalked up = another -100 on this board, in the presence of their opponents. They = were adamant that they did a correct shuffle and deal, and said it's = impossible that the board is a left-over. This, too, sounded convincing = for various reasons, so now I ruled that the board would NOT be = cancelled unless proof would emerge that the board was not shuffled = after all.=20 As you may have guessed, the memory of the opponents of the previous = match is unlikely to be good enough to be trusted, and no hand records = are kept.=20 Any comments or advice ? =20 Jac ------=_NextPart_000_00C9_01BF12AB.26C02F20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here is the = third case=20 from Friday's teams-of-four matches (see "Beyond L25=20 ?").
Again, the = hands don't=20 matter.
 
South (a = home team=20 member), who has just scored -300 in 2S!, tells me the hand is identical = to one=20 that he played in his previous teams-of-four match, two weeks ago. Now, = this is=20 well possible, for the club has more sets of boards than are necessary, = and a=20 set can remain unused for weeks. When pressed, his story appears = convincing, so=20 I ruled that the board, which had already been played by his teammates, = would be=20 cancelled, unless further investigation would show him to be mistaken. = Later=20 during the match, I consulted his teammates, who chalked up another -100 = on this=20 board, in the presence of their opponents. They were adamant that they = did a=20 correct shuffle and deal, and said it's impossible that the board is a=20 left-over. This, too, sounded convincing for various reasons, so now I = ruled=20 that the board would NOT be cancelled unless proof would emerge that the = board=20 was not shuffled after all.
As you may = have guessed,=20 the memory of the opponents of the previous match is unlikely to be good = enough=20 to be trusted, and no hand records are = kept. 
Any = comments or advice=20 ?
 
Jac
------=_NextPart_000_00C9_01BF12AB.26C02F20-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 07:08:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 07:08:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29407 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 07:08:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp204-9.worldonline.nl [195.241.204.9]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA01949 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:08:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00d601bf12a2$d57b6920$09ccf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: L6D2 - but mainly on language Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:08:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D3_01BF12AB.36334320" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dit is een meerdelig bericht in MIME-indeling. ------=_NextPart_000_00D3_01BF12AB.36334320 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am aware that discussions on language are not generally appreciated at = BLML, but this is about the language used in one of the Laws, so I hope = to receive some replies after all. =20 I am puzzled by the combination of tenses used in L6D2. English is not = my first language, but I would have expected it to read : "No result may stand if the cards **have been** dealt without shuffle = from a sorted pack or if the deal **has** previously been played in a = different session.", but L6D2 combines "are dealt" with "had previously = been played". Is there an Englishman at BLML who wouldn't mind to explain the = subtleties of the use of this combination to a foreigner ? Jac ------=_NextPart_000_00D3_01BF12AB.36334320 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am aware = that=20 discussions on language are not generally appreciated at BLML, but this = is about=20 the language used in one of the Laws, so I hope to receive some replies = after=20 all.
 
I am = puzzled by the=20 combination of tenses used in L6D2. English is not my first language, but = I would=20 have expected it to read :
"No result=20 may stand if the cards **have been** dealt without shuffle from a sorted = pack or=20 if the deal **has** previously been played in a different = session.", but=20 L6D2 combines "are dealt" with "had previously been=20 played".
Is there an=20 Englishman at BLML who wouldn't mind to explain the subtleties of the = use of=20 this combination to a foreigner ?
 
Jac
------=_NextPart_000_00D3_01BF12AB.36334320-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 08:51:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 08:51:37 +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 IAA29783 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 08:51:30 +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 11a5KT-000IU3-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 22:51:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 14:22:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991008125752.007ab6c0@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991008225416.012cebc8@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991008225416.012cebc8@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 alternative approach of refusing to consider a hedged explanation as MI >has a real down-side: it encourages players to hedge their explanations >even when completely confident of their agreements. DWS seems to have a >greater faith in the integrity of his fellow-bridge players than I do, and >is fairly dismissive of this risk. But the truth is that we have Laws in >some part because many players cannot be trusted to play honorably in their >absence. The practice of hedging your explanations even when you are sure >is certainly unethical and probably illegal, but 1) it may also be >"technically" legal, since nobody can ever really be sure of anything Of course they are not "technically legal". Either they are true, or they are not. If the latter, then they are illegal. You are still confusing the baddies and the goodies. If you think there are no goodies at all, well, I am very sorry, but there are some. Now, for the goodies, they will not hedge unnecessarily. Saying you cannot be sure of anything is just a cop-out, and not to be entertained. Suppose I say that 2S shows six spades, but I show doubt in some way. Let us consider the reasons: [1] I cannot remember, and will expect to get ruled against if I am wrong. [2] Partner has a habit of only having five spades. Since my "hedge" is to tell the opponents this then I have informed them correctly. To have said it shows six spades would have been MI. [3] I am lying because I know it shows six spades. I am a cheat. >2) at any rate, you are virtually certain not to be penalized for it. So long as there are good TDs and ACs and C&E/L&EC committees you do not really gain that much from cheating. People get to know you and will bring your antics to the attention of the authorities. > When >the application of the Laws effectively encourages bad behavior, it is time >to question that particular interpretation. It does not encourage bad behaviour. It encourages people to tell the truth about their agreements. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 10:14:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:14:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29940 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:14:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11a6dL-000CuG-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 00:14:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:05:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis>, Hirsch Davis writes snip >> "No agreement" is not a valid response. >> >> -- > >You were wrong before and you're wrong now. "No agreement" is the only >valid response when there is in fact no agreement. Anything else is MI. > >Hirsch So someone was late back from the bar on friday night and I sat down facing a player I've never played with who opened 2H. I got up again before it was my turn to call but in the interim - "No agreement!" chs john > > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 10:33:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:33:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29981 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:32:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-014.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.206]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA13938 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:32:19 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <000701bf12b8$eb3ba3e0$ce307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:46:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > I've said so before and I'll say it again : > > "No agreement" is not a valid response. > > -- Hirsch wrote: You were wrong before and you're wrong now. "No agreement" is the only valid response when there is in fact no agreement. Anything else is MI. Hirsch This has always been my understanding too. "No agreement" is often the correct answer. Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 17:47:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 17:47:22 +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 RAA00742 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 17:47:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.207] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11aDfu-0006HX-00; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 08:45:47 +0100 Message-ID: <003301bf12f3$7276bb80$cf5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "David Stevenson" Cc: Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 09:38:24 +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 Subject: Re: Change of Call in Sydney > >Well David , do you think Law 25B is a reasonable one , if updated or >rectified the way I suggested ?? > >I'd like to see the H-BLML members' opinion (I know the opinions of >70% of the C-BLML and D-BLML members..!!!!) > +=+ As a strictly personal opinion, I can see no good reason why the laws should permit a player to change a deliberate action, other than to rectify under penalty an illegal action. Inadvertent actions are a different matter. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 18:03:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 18:03:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00852 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 18:03:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.251.151] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11aDx0-0007cZ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 09:03:26 +0100 Message-ID: <00fa01bf12f5$bb4c71e0$97fbabc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199910081739.KAA07339@mailhub.irvine.com><000701bf11c6$4e065d60$4b5fac3e@davidburn> Subject: Re: A Hesitation Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 09:01:59 +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 DWS wrote: [snip] [DB] > >The question to which I would like an answer, though, is this. For > >many years I and my fellow referees have been in the habit of ruling > >in such cases along these lines: EW get -450; NS would get 420 or 450 > >depending on North's view in the play, so we will give them X% of the > >matchpoints (or IMPs) for 420 and 100-X% of the matchpoints (or IMPs) > >for 450. None of these rulings have ever been queried, and it has > >always seemed to me an equitable approach. However, L12C2 does not > >give the TD the power to award any such score; the TD must make his > >mind up and give 420 or 450 as he sees fit. Does L12C3 actually give > >power to ACs to adjust in this fashion, or are ACs as well as TDs > >bound by the letter of L12C2? [DWS] > L12C3 allows this, surely? To be honest, I don't understand the > problem. Why should not ACs have this power? Because "in adjudicating appeals, the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director" [L93B3]. Presumably - though I hesitate to say this for fear of the semantic debate it may engender - this implies that they may not exercise any power not assigned by the Laws to the Director. Simply put, this means that if the TD can't award weighted scores of the kind I have mentioned above, neither can the AC. However, L12C2 is (probably) not as inflexible as that. It says that the TD may award an AAS "in matchpoints". This could (probably) be interpreted as meaning that the TD is entitled to go away and work out "half the matchpoints for 420 plus half the matchpoints for 450" and award that to NS. It may be only a question of practice in different jurisdictions. In England, our TDs do not do this; I have always thought that this was because the Laws said that they could not, but it may simply be for reasons of practicality and simplicity. However, if they cannot legally do it, then there may be a problem. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 19:34:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:34:05 +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 TAA01076 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:33:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.48] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11aFMI-0008oK-00; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:33:38 +0100 Message-ID: <005f01bf1302$83a42be0$cf5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: WBF Code of practice - skip bids. Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:21:44 +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; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:33:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.48] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11aFMJ-0008oK-00; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:33:39 +0100 Message-ID: <006001bf1302$844c04a0$cf5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal No. 20 Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:32:29 +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 Mailing List Date: 09 October 1999 14:08 Subject: Lille Appeal No. 20 >In Re: A Hesitation on Oct 7 at 6;04, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>The fact that you as a better analyst [and I can assure you >>*most* of us are better analysts when we can see four hands] >>see the play is imperfect does not affect the concept of damage. >> >This reminded me of Appeal 20 at Lille, which can be found at >http://www1.bridge.gr/Dept/Appeals/198Lille/Lille20.htm among other places. > >The sections "TD's Decision" and "Committee's Comments" are those of >people looking at all four hands. Curiously, in this Appeal I think they >would >have come to a different conclusion had they put themselves in West's seat. > +=+ As I read the report the AC decision rested on the ability of E/W to establish their systemic agreements? This does not seem to say anything about the committee's ability to look at the question from the seat of one of the players, and I think it unguarded to suggest that the committee did not have members with this capability who would do so.~Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 20:39:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:39:02 +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 UAA01202 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:38:45 +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 11aGN7-0002Iv-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:38:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 00:57:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L6D2 again References: <00cc01bf12a2$c6085520$09ccf1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <00cc01bf12a2$c6085520$09ccf1c3@default> 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 UAA01207 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac Fuchs wrote: > Here is the third case from Friday's teams-of-four matches (see > "Beyond L25 ?"). > Again, the hands don't matter. >   > South (a home team member), who has just scored -300 in 2S!, tells > me the hand is identical to one that he played in his previous > teams-of-four match, two weeks ago. Now, this is well possible, for > the club has more sets of boards than are necessary, and a set can > remain unused for weeks. When pressed, his story appears > convincing, so I ruled that the board, which had already been > played by his teammates, would be cancelled, unless further > investigation would show him to be mistaken. I do not like the approach. You should defer your ruling until you have amassed all the evidence rather than giving a ruling subject to later evidence. > Later during the > match, I consulted his teammates, who chalked up another -100 on > this board, in the presence of their opponents. They were adamant > that they did a correct shuffle and deal, and said it's impossible > that the board is a left-over. This, too, sounded convincing for > various reasons, so now I ruled that the board would NOT be > cancelled unless proof would emerge that the board was not shuffled > after all. Again, I don't see the proof emerging bit is the right approach. A player tells you that he has played the hand before. You ask everyone, amass whatever evidence is available, and then rule. You have made a judgement on the available evidence. They could appeal it. If some later evidence appears, so be it, but worry about it if it happens. Make a definite ruling. > As you may have guessed, the memory of the opponents of the > previous match is unlikely to be good enough to be trusted, and no > hand records are kept.  > Any comments or advice ? Not something to worry about. It is the same sort of thing as deciding whether there was a hesitation. However, one thing you may consider: if you ask a table whether they dealt all the boards, they will always be certain that they did! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 10 20:39:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:39:01 +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 UAA01206 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:38:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11aGNB-000Ftk-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:38:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 00:59:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language References: <00d601bf12a2$d57b6920$09ccf1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <00d601bf12a2$d57b6920$09ccf1c3@default> 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 UAA01216 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac Fuchs wrote: > I am aware that discussions on language are not generally > appreciated at BLML, but this is about the language used in one of > the Laws, so I hope to receive some replies after all. >   > I am puzzled by the combination of tenses used in L6D2. English is > not my first language, but I would have expected it to read : > "No result may stand if the cards **have been** dealt without > shuffle from a sorted pack or if the deal **has** previously been > played in a different session.", but L6D2 combines "are dealt" with > "had previously been played". > Is there an Englishman at BLML who wouldn't mind to explain the > subtleties of the use of this combination to a foreigner ? For the niceties of the English language I prefer to rely on Jens Brix Christiansen. Much safer than asking an English person [or even one of those colonists!]. Alternatively, David Burn may help. For my money, it is a mistake. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 20:39:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:39:01 +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 UAA01204 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:38:47 +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 11aGNB-0002Iv-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:38:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:03:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Beyond Law25 ? References: <00b501bf12a2$691eeea0$09ccf1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <00b501bf12a2$691eeea0$09ccf1c3@default> 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 UAA01212 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac Fuchs wrote: > I came across three rulings during teams-of-four matches yesterday, > on which I would like to have some opinions.  > Here is the first one: >   > (biddingboxes are used) > The hands are irrelevant. The bidding is: > North  : 1 NT > East    : 1S/2S *) > South : Pass > West   : TD Please !! > *) East did bid 1S, but immediately snatched 2S from her bidding > box and put that pile of cards on top of the 1S card. A direct 2S > bid would have been Multi-Landy (5+ cards in spades, and 4+ cards > in one minor). > West told me that he wanted to know whether the 1S bid by East had > been intentional (because she had not seen 1NT, or had misread it > as 1C, or for whatever reason), or whether it had been an > unintentional bid. >   > I told East NOT to tell, even if NS wanted to know, and ruled that > South had accepted the 2S call, and that West should make up his > own mind about what happened without further help. Under what Law had he accepted it? There are lots of condoning Laws, for things like LOOTs and POOTs, but I know nothing about condoning L25A. Furthermore, L25A applies until partner calls, so the next call was irrelevant. I think you have gone astray here. L25A would have no aspect of condoning: L25B does include such. I think the players have a *right* to know what Law is being applied 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 Sun Oct 10 20:39:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:39:00 +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 UAA01203 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:38:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11aGN7-000Ftk-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:38:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 00:46:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Multi Case References: <026301bf12f8$19c39260$ea60868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <026301bf12f8$19c39260$ea60868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: >>>> ...The only meaning for 2D [Multi] Pass that is not artificial is one >>>>that suggests playing there, and that shows diamonds. > >The word "only" is too strong. A pair who played for Australia in the >Rhodes Olympiad once answered my query about the pass of 2D >doubled as "undiscussed". That 'meaning' is not artificial and IMO not >alertable. Yes, undiscussed is not artificial. > >and wrote: >>Are you suggesting that 2D X Pass shows any thirteen cards and >>partner guesses whether to describe his hand or not? Well, that >>may not be alertable, but it is a completely stupid way of playing >>the pass and not one competent player in a thousand would play that. >> >> Competent players - and I do not mean good players, I mean players >>with any commonsense here - agree on one of two approaches: >> >>[1] 2D X Pass shows some number of diamonds and suggests to partner the >>possibility of playing in 2DX. this is the natural approach, and >>different players have different agreements as to how many diamonds are >>shown. I play a good five-plus card holding myself. >> >>[2] 2D X Pass tells opener to describe his hand and he will bid his >>major [or whatever else he has]. Granted he might pass if he has an >>Acol Two in diamonds. > > >In the 1980s Ron Klinger (who has commonsense) and I (no such >claim) used to play, and alert of course, that the pass of the double >showed "a void in a major, rarely a singleton". Opener could then >rebid a major playable opposite a void, or guess whether to pass >out 2D or redouble for rescue. Usually the latter. Advantages of >this approach included: > >- the pressure on the opponents of 2D being redoubled into game; >will one of them run? >- some delicate continuations enabling fits to be disclosed at the >two or three level in sutis ather than diamonds; better than suffering >a penalty in a 6-0 fit. > >Our agreements also included that (1C) (short) - X - XX - Pass showed 4+ >clubs (ditto against a short Precision 1D), alerted of course. Note that >these passes are natural, but alertable under Australian regulations as the >"4+" is unexpected. Hmmm. It is going to be a long hard winter ...... I can see the pressure growing amongst certain people to lengthen my posts. When I make any comment at any time about what people do in general in particular bidding positions there will *always* be people who do not follow the mainstream approach by constructing some artificial alternative. It may be far better, as well. No question. I think, if I may, presume that [along with my presumption that when the Director is called after a hesitation that it will be told to him] no methods are universal at any level of player. >and wrote: >> KJ9xxx >> QTx >> xx >> xx >> >> 2D X P ? What do you bid? >> > >After 2D (X) P (P) ?: I vaguely recall RDK and I discussing this sort >of position - that we have to redouble rather than bid 2H because >otherwise 3-0 fits were possible etc. Again, in a strong regular partnership that has discussed these matters, my posts earlier might be seen as irrelevant. but I do not see the fact that a few people play these methods alters the point of my article. >I don't think we were incompetent or (as a pair) lacking commonsense. >We simply came up with a treatment which approached the main issue >at stake viz. not whether to play 2DX but whether to play two of the major. > >I observe that RDK in a 1993 book recommends on page 128 >that the pass of 2D doubled says "I want to play in 2D doubled". >I guess some treatments are not for mass consumption. Perhaps if my article was so badly constructed I could just summarise it again. It is quite normal to play 2D X P as "to play" [not everyone does]. Players that do will know how many diamonds this shows. Players that don't are irrelevant to this bit of the discussion. It is quite normal to play 2D X P as asking opener to describe his hand [not everyone does]. This is artificial. Many players will have more complex agreements. They are not germane to whether it is normal to alert 2D X P under regulations that say "alert anything artificial". In my view 2D X P to play is the only non- alertable treatment under this regulation, apart from "no 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 Sun Oct 10 20:57:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:57:28 +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 UAA01279 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:57:20 +1000 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by agomboc with smtp (Exim 1.92 #2) id 11aGeU-0000cT-00; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 12:56:31 +0200 Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 12:46:23 +0100 (MET DST) To: CSOKONAY , SÜMEGI Subject: New VIRUS Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Microsoft announced a warning yesterday morning which says that if you receive a message with the subject "WIN A HOLIDAY", you must not open it because it contains a virus that erases the complete data stock in HDD. Therefore the message must be deleted immediately. According to AOL, there is no virus killer against it yet so please forward this information to your friends who have internet or e-mail connection to stop the virus. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 21:44:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:44:22 +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 VAA01363 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:44:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.77] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11aHOP-000Cjn-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 12:43:58 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01bf1314$b8364020$4d5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 12:43:02 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 10 October 1999 01:50 Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? >Herman wrote: > >> I've said so before and I'll say it again : >> >> "No agreement" is not a valid response. >> >> -- > >Hirsch wrote: > >You were wrong before and you're wrong now. "No agreement" is the only >valid response when there is in fact no agreement. Anything else is MI. > >Hirsch > > >This has always been my understanding too. "No agreement" is often the >correct answer. > +=+ Absolutely. The proviso is that the Director or AC must not subsequently be able to establish that in truth there was an agreement - explicit or implicit. Players must not hide behind the get-out. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ PS I am just back from a preview of the stage production of 'The Lion King' at the Lyceum in London. Brits addicted to such things can be advised it is spectacular and magnificently done. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 21:44:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:44:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01361 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:44:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.77] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11aHOO-000Cjn-00; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 12:43:57 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bf1314$b78e6760$4d5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jac Fuchs" , "BLML" Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 12:09:13 +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: BLML Date: 09 October 1999 22:31 Subject: L6D2 - but mainly on language I am aware that discussions on language are not generally appreciated at BLML, but this is about the language used in one of the Laws, so I hope to receive some replies after all. I am puzzled by the combination of tenses used in L6D2. English is not my first language, but I would have expected it to read : "No result may stand if the cards **have been** dealt without shuffle from a sorted pack or if the deal **has** previously been played in a different session.", but L6D2 combines "are dealt" with "had previously been played". Is there an Englishman at BLML who wouldn't mind to explain the subtleties of the use of this combination to a foreigner ? +=+ Hi Jac (and gang): No subtlety, I think, just a Kaplanesque construction of the grammar. He was wont to be somewhat extra-ordinary in his phrasing, but usually with a point. You have got the sense right: the use of 'had' possibly attaches to the point that the previous session may have been in a different tournament amongst different players. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 22:06:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:06:51 +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 WAA01414 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:06:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06788 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:06:34 +0200 Received: from ip75.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.75), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda06786; Sun Oct 10 14:06:27 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L6D2 again Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:06:26 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <00cc01bf12a2$c6085520$09ccf1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <00cc01bf12a2$c6085520$09ccf1c3@default> 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 WAA01415 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:08:08 +0100, "Jac Fuchs" wrote: >They were adamant that they did a correct shuffle and deal, and said it's impossible that the board is a left-over. The practical way to avoid these situations is for the TD to turn one hand face up before play in every board that is to be shuffled. In most types of events doing this will take just a few minutes before play. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 22:17:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:17:16 +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 WAA01437 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:17:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06808 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:16:54 +0200 Received: from ip173.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.173), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda06806; Sun Oct 10 14:16:51 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: New VIRUS Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:16:51 +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 WAA01438 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 12:46:23 +0100 (MET DST), Martaandras@uze.net wrote: >Microsoft announced a warning yesterday morning which says that if >you receive a message with the subject "WIN A HOLIDAY", you must not >open it because it contains a virus that erases the complete data >stock in HDD. Therefore the message must be deleted immediately. >According to AOL, there is no virus killer against it yet so please >forward this information to your friends who have internet or e-mail >connection to stop the virus. This is a hoax. There is no such virus, other than this warning message itself; it spreads when well-meaning people send it to their friends. See http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/win.a.holiday.html about this specific hoax, and http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/hoax.html for general information about hoaxes of this kind. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 10 22:31:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:31:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from gadolinium (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01460 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:30:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.172.94.28] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11aI7g-00022v-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:30:45 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bf131b$299f1740$1c5eac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <026301bf12f8$19c39260$ea60868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: A Multi Case Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:29:50 +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 DWS wrote: > Yes, undiscussed is not artificial. Eh? LHO opens 1S, my partner overcalls 2S. We have omitted to discuss whether we play Michaels, or Ghestem, or strong cue bids. Should I not alert? Am I and the table to presume that 2S is being treated as natural? David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 00:16:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 00:16:21 +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 AAA01691 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 00:16:13 +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 11aJlY-000L9x-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:16:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:40:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Hesitation References: <199910081739.KAA07339@mailhub.irvine.com> <000701bf11c6$4e065d60$4b5fac3e@davidburn> <00fa01bf12f5$bb4c71e0$97fbabc3@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <00fa01bf12f5$bb4c71e0$97fbabc3@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: >[DWS] >> L12C3 allows this, surely? To be honest, I don't understand the >> problem. Why should not ACs have this power? >Because "in adjudicating appeals, the committee may exercise all >powers assigned by these Laws to the Director" [L93B3]. Presumably - >though I hesitate to say this for fear of the semantic debate it may >engender - this implies that they may not exercise any power not >assigned by the Laws to the Director. Simply put, this means that if >the TD can't award weighted scores of the kind I have mentioned above, >neither can the AC. > >However, L12C2 is (probably) not as inflexible as that. It says that >the TD may award an AAS "in matchpoints". This could (probably) be >interpreted as meaning that the TD is entitled to go away and work out >"half the matchpoints for 420 plus half the matchpoints for 450" and >award that to NS. It may be only a question of practice in different >jurisdictions. In England, our TDs do not do this; I have always >thought that this was because the Laws said that they could not, but >it may simply be for reasons of practicality and simplicity. However, >if they cannot legally do it, then there may be a problem. No, legally they can not do it. L12C2 says: 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 favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred, or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance, and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. If you just read the second sentence then a reasonable conclusion is that TDs can basically give any score they like. This is quoted by the ACBL [per Chip Martel, Gary Blaiss in private emails] as the legal basis for giving A+/A- under L12C2. But we cannot just take the second sentence and ignore the first. It is that first sentence that makes ArtASs and weighted scores illegal. It requires the TD to assign a score to each side. Split scores are legal: that sentence allows for [and specifically mentions] giving a different score to each side. Personally, I think the second sentence is an anachronism and should be discarded. Moving on to your comments about L93B3 it does say that an AC can do whatever a TD can. However, it does not say this is the only thing an AC can do, and L12C3 give ACs an additional right. The decisions taken in Lausanne suggest that this right may be extended to Chief TDs [DICs]. Before 1987 [?] TDs apparently had that right anyway, though this was only followed in a few parts of the world, England being one of them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 00:59:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 00:59:24 +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 AAA01794 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 00:59:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Ramat-Gan-6-81.access.net.il [213.8.6.81] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14284; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:57:27 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3800A9B3.59DC3A48@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:58:59 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Peter Pals CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L82C in a teams-of-four match References: <199910081237.OAA16868@hera.frw.uva.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am sorry , but I don't understand what does it mean "a call was made" ...what is the denomination of that call ?...and what happened afterwards how did N-S loose 1400 .If they passed or made another bid....it is their problem and the score stands. But before I can write my personal verdict I must know what does it mean "when a pack of bidding cards were caught a call was made.." thanks Dany Jan Peter Pals wrote: > > The following happened in a teams-of-four match: > > East opens 1S, South doubles, West takes a pack of bidding > cards out of the box (under Dutch regulations meaning that he has > made a call), and says: "Hold it, I didn't see the double". TD lets > him substitute this for a redouble (erroneously aplying L25a), and > NS go for -1400, which, combined with the result at the other table, > costs 16 imps. > At the end of the match (EW's team won, 22-8) the TD realises his > error and applies L82C. He reasons that he has to consider both > parties to be non-offending, so EW's team keep their 16 imps and > win by 22-8, NS's team do not have to suffer the loss of 16 imps > and lose by 11-19, so the final result of the match becomes 22-11. > > Agree? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 01:39:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:12:54 +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 BAA01856 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:12:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-177.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.177]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA06544 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 17:12:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38005C04.CD9B948@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 11:27:32 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis>, Hirsch Davis > writes > > snip > > >> "No agreement" is not a valid response. > >> > >> -- > > > >You were wrong before and you're wrong now. "No agreement" is the only > >valid response when there is in fact no agreement. Anything else is MI. > > > >Hirsch > > So someone was late back from the bar on friday night and I sat down > facing a player I've never played with who opened 2H. I got up again > before it was my turn to call but in the interim - > > "No agreement!" chs john > Indeed, the fact that you have not agreed upon them, does not make it less disclosable to opponents which system partner is playing. Leaving the table and having your partner tell opponents what he means is a very good solution. Perhaps the problem arises from the choice of words by the lawmakers. As they wrote agreement, some people started to think this had to be agreed upon. If the word in the FLB had been "method" or "system", we would not be having this discussion, I believe. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 01:48:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:48:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA02113 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:48:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt096nfb.san.rr.com [24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA03616 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 08:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <019a01bf1336$dec24aa0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <00d601bf12a2$d57b6920$09ccf1c3@default> Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 08:44:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac Fuchs wrote: > I am aware that discussions on language are not generally > appreciated at BLML, but this is about the language used > in one of the Laws, so I hope to receive some replies after all. Many of us appreciate discussions on language, even if not directly related to the Laws. > I am puzzled by the combination of tenses used in L6D2. Indeed a strange combination! It reads: "No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck or if the deal had previously been played in a different session." Evidently a result may stand if the cards were dealt from an unsorted pack (the right word) without a shuffle, provided the deal had no history. > English is not my first language, but I would have expected it to > read:: > "No result may stand if the cards **have been** dealt without shuffle > from a sorted pack or if the deal **has** previously been played in a > different session.", but L6D2 combines "are dealt" with "had > previously been played". I would have expected it to read:: "No result may stand if the cards were dealt from a sorted pack without a shuffle or if the deal was previously played in a different session." > Is there an Englishman at BLML who wouldn't mind to explain the > subtleties of the use of this combination to a foreigner? Americans (and others) also use the English language. I thnk we have two errors here, one minor, one major: (1) Doubtful tense. Since a result follows the deal, and does not occur during the deal, I prefer "were dealt" to "are dealt." I see no need here for the present perfect tense ("have been," "has been"), which takes more words than the simple past tense ("were," "was"). (2) Subjunctive mood ("had been") instead of indicative ("was"). There is a common but erroneous belief that "if" must be followed by the subjunctive, which is not true if the stated condition is not "contrary to fact." Perhaps the author did not intend the subjunctive, but that's what he wrote. I repeat my contention that a professional wordsmith should go over the Laws before they are published. He/she would: -- Ensure that the intent is clear -- Simplify the language wherever possible -- Check for acceptable grammar -- Check for correct terminology -- Resolve contradictions -- Point out omissions Etc. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 02:39:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:12:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA01854 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:12:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-177.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.177]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA06533 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 17:12:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38005ACC.B8DFB4B2@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 11:22:20 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > Bridge simply isn't played that way. > > Nobody (well some do) invents conventions at the table. > > It often happens that one is "in the dark", because a > > particular piece of system hasn't been talked through. At > > that moment, one falls back on some perceived "general" > > system and hopes that partner is on the same wavelength. > > Yes... > > > If it turns out that indeed partner has the same idea, then > > surely that must constitute some form of "agreement". > > Absolutely not! Assuming no prior experience with this partner in this or a > similar situation, the fact that partner got it right may be good deductive > reasoning, it may be luck, but it's not an agreement of any kind, explicit > or implicit. > No, you simply cannot allow this. It is far too difficult to draw the line between - "well, we both assumed we would be playing the same methods as those we use with a particular partner we share" - and - "well, we had said beforehand that we would play the system we both play with that partner". You would call the second an agreement, and the first not ? Or if you would call the first an agreement, surely some even lesser form of "getting it right" would not constitute an agreement in your opinion ? Well sorry, but I don't direct that way. Call it implicit agreements if you will, call it "unagreed agreements", but they should be disclosed just as if they were fully written down. The moment one partner starts to describe his hand hoping his partner understands, there is "method", "system" or however you might wish to call it. If they understand one another, there is agreement, right ? I believe the fact that partner does not understand does not alter the fact that a player has tried to tell his partner something, and this something has to be disclosed to opponents. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 03:58:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA03137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 03:58:51 +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 DAA03132 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 03:58:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07435 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:58:33 +0200 Received: from ip159.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.159), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda07432; Sun Oct 10 19:58:26 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:58:27 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <38005C04.CD9B948@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38005C04.CD9B948@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 DAA03133 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 11:27:32 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Indeed, the fact that you have not agreed upon them, does >not make it less disclosable to opponents which system >partner is playing. Leaving the table and having your >partner tell opponents what he means is a very good >solution. A "system" in the sense we usually use the word means, IMO, "a set of agreements with partner". >Perhaps the problem arises from the choice of words by the >lawmakers. As they wrote agreement, some people started to >think this had to be agreed upon. Of course. Have you considered the possibility that they wrote "agreement" because they actually meant it? I think they meant what they wrote. >If the word in the FLB had been "method" or "system", we >would not be having this discussion, I believe. Correct: if the laws had been different, it would be a different game, and the discussions would be different. But the information that you are required to give opponents in the game of bridge as defined by the laws is information about partnership understandings. And so it should be, IMO. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 06:05:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 06:05:50 +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 GAA03525 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 06:05:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.172.58.98] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11aPDj-0005Nf-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:05:27 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bf135a$ade03680$623aac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199910081739.KAA07339@mailhub.irvine.com><000701bf11c6$4e065d60$4b5fac3e@davidburn><00fa01bf12f5$bb4c71e0$97fbabc3@davidburn> Subject: Re: A Hesitation Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:04:34 +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 DWS wrote: [snip] > >However, L12C2 is (probably) not as inflexible as that. It says that > >the TD may award an AAS "in matchpoints". This could (probably) be > >interpreted as meaning that the TD is entitled to go away and work out > >"half the matchpoints for 420 plus half the matchpoints for 450" and > >award that to NS. It may be only a question of practice in different > >jurisdictions. In England, our TDs do not do this; I have always > >thought that this was because the Laws said that they could not, but > >it may simply be for reasons of practicality and simplicity. However, > >if they cannot legally do it, then there may be a problem. > > No, legally they can not do it. L12C2 says: > > 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 favourable result that was > likely had the irregularity not occurred, > or, for an offending side, the most > unfavourable result that was at all > probable. The scores awarded to the two > sides need not balance, and may be > assigned either in matchpoints or by > altering the total-point score prior to > matchpointing. > > If you just read the second sentence then a reasonable conclusion is > that TDs can basically give any score they like. This is quoted by the > ACBL [per Chip Martel, Gary Blaiss in private emails] as the legal basis > for giving A+/A- under L12C2. > > But we cannot just take the second sentence and ignore the first. It > is that first sentence that makes ArtASs and weighted scores illegal. > It requires the TD to assign a score to each side. Split scores are > legal: that sentence allows for [and specifically mentions] giving a > different score to each side. Personally, I think the second sentence > is an anachronism and should be discarded. Yes, but we are not talking about giving a different score to each side - I agree that there is no problem with that. We are talking about giving one side some fraction of two different scores, or more exactly the average of the consequences of two or more different results. There may be a semantic problem here. By "split score" I (and you, judging by the above) mean giving one side the score for defending 4H+1 and the other side the score for making 4H exactly. By "weighted score", I mean giving one side some percentage ("weight") of the score for making 4H+1 and some percentage of the score for making 4H exactly. Apologies for spelling this out, but there are many subscribers to this list whose first language is not English, let alone Burnese. If what you are telling me is that this cannot legally be done, then we have a serious problem indeed, for it is routinely done by ACs in England, and I have seen it done by ACs in other jurisdictions. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 06:44:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 06:44:36 +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 GAA03653 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 06:44:26 +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 11aPp9-000NZJ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:44:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:39:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L82C in a teams-of-four match References: <199910081237.OAA16868@hera.frw.uva.nl> <3800A9B3.59DC3A48@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <3800A9B3.59DC3A48@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >I am sorry , but I don't understand what does it mean "a call was made" >...what is the denomination of that call ?...and what happened >afterwards how did N-S loose 1400 .If they passed or made another >bid....it is their problem and the score stands. >But before I can write my personal verdict I must know what does it mean >"when a pack of bidding cards were caught a call was made.." Under certain jurisdiction [England/Wales pre Sep 1998, Australia, Netherlands] the regulations for bidding boxes say that a call "is made" when it is taken from the bidding box. So, whether we know what the call was or not, the call in Jan's story was made, since it was in the Netherlands. I would guess that N-S lost 1400 on some auction such as 1S X XX 2D X AP ---------- Steve Willner wrote: >We weren't told whether the match was knockout or VP. If the latter, >each team keeps its score, converted to VP's. If the former, there's >only a problem if there's an exact tie after computing the score >according to L(mumble...86 something? the one about non-balancing >adjusted scores). Then the tie-break procedure, whatever it is, goes >into effect. Consider: Jan Peter Pals wrote: >He reasons that he has to consider both >parties to be non-offending, so EW's team keep their 16 imps and >win by 22-8, NS's team do not have to suffer the loss of 16 imps >and lose by 11-19, so the final result of the match becomes 22-11. It was clearly not knockout. Still, this does not affect the accuracy of your remark, which makes it clear that L86B would apply if it were. You cannot have both sides winning or losing a match, as one correspondent has suggested. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 11 06:44:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 06:44:35 +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 GAA03652 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 06:44:26 +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 11aPp4-000NZH-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:44:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:30:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Multi Case References: <026301bf12f8$19c39260$ea60868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <000b01bf131b$299f1740$1c5eac3e@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000b01bf131b$299f1740$1c5eac3e@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> Yes, undiscussed is not artificial. > >Eh? LHO opens 1S, my partner overcalls 2S. We have omitted to discuss >whether we play Michaels, or Ghestem, or strong cue bids. Should I not >alert? Am I and the table to presume that 2S is being treated as >natural? An even longer, harder, winter. "Undiscussed" is not artificial per se. It may additionally be considered artificial however. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 11 06:44:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 06:44:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA03663 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 06:44:33 +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 11aPpD-000BLE-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:44:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 18:05:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lille Appeal No. 20 References: <005d01bf12e2$72f60d60$ea60868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <005d01bf12e2$72f60d60$ea60868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >In Re: A Hesitation on Oct 7 at 6;04, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>The fact that you as a better analyst [and I can assure you >>*most* of us are better analysts when we can see four hands] >>see the play is imperfect does not affect the concept of damage. >> >This reminded me of Appeal 20 at Lille, which can be found at >http://www1.bridge.gr/Dept/Appeals/198Lille/Lille20.htm among other places. I suggest http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html as normally the best place for International appeals. >The sections "TD's Decision" and "Committee's Comments" are those of >people looking at all four hands. Curiously, in this Appeal I think they >would >have come to a different conclusion had they put themselves in West's seat. > >You hold A5, K4, KQ76532, A3 and open 1D in fourth seat. LHO bids 2NT, >explained by your screenmate as spades and clubs. Partner doubles, and >doubles again when your LHO bids 3C after two passes. RHO bids 3H. >What's going on? No idea, but I would pass and find out. >It seems to me that RHO passed the double of 2NT trembling with fear, >lacking a fit for either clubs or spades. When LHO was doubled in 3C, >the RHO desperately tried to bid his heart suit. Being a passed hand with >less than 3 cards in each black suit, RHO probably has at least four >diamonds. The opponents are in a massive misfit and I shall simply let >partner double them. Partner seems to have all three suits except diamonds. > >Compare this with the situation if the correct explanation (hearts and >clubs) >were given. Now it seems that RHO would have bid 3H over the double of >2NT with markedly longer hearts than clubs. He therefore probably has three >hearts and two clubs. Partner probably has only three hearts, and as a >passed >hand will be in a difficult position if I pass 3H to him. Perhaps I should >bid 4D >(or 3NT). Why should he be in a difficult position? Pass still seems routine. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 11 07:20:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:20:40 +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 HAA03787 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:20:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.172.58.98] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11aQO4-0002Ld-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:20:14 +0100 Message-ID: <007601bf1365$1fe529c0$623aac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <00d601bf12a2$d57b6920$09ccf1c3@default> <019a01bf1336$dec24aa0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:19:19 +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 Marvin wrote: > (2) Subjunctive mood ("had been") instead of indicative ("was"). There > is a common but erroneous belief that "if" must be followed by the > subjunctive, which is not true if the stated condition is not "contrary > to fact." Perhaps the author did not intend the subjunctive, but that's > what he wrote. That "had" is not the subjunctive, Marvin. It's the pluperfect. > I repeat my contention that a professional wordsmith should go over the > Laws before they are published. He/she would: > > -- Ensure that the intent is clear > -- Simplify the language wherever possible > -- Check for acceptable grammar > -- Check for correct terminology > -- Resolve contradictions > -- Point out omissions Now with that, I could not agree more. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 07:13:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:13:16 +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 HAA03753 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:13:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.172.58.98] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11aQGr-0000Zv-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:12:46 +0100 Message-ID: <006601bf1364$150268c0$623aac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00d601bf12a2$d57b6920$09ccf1c3@default> Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:11:52 +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 DWS wrote: [JF] >> I am puzzled by the combination of tenses used in L6D2. English is >> not my first language, but I would have expected it to read : >> "No result may stand if the cards **have been** dealt without >> shuffle from a sorted pack or if the deal **has** previously been >> played in a different session.", but L6D2 combines "are dealt" with >> "had previously been played". >> Is there an Englishman at BLML who wouldn't mind to explain the >> subtleties of the use of this combination to a foreigner ? [DWS] >For the niceties of the English language I prefer to rely on Jens Brix >Christiansen. Much safer than asking an English person [or even one of >those colonists!]. Alternatively, David Burn may help. >For my money, it is a mistake. I can resist many things, but an appeal for help from DWS is sufficiently without precedent that I feel in duty bound. As to "if the cards are dealt without shuffle...", I think this is precise enough, since the use of the present tense implies that the reference is to what has happened to the cards immediately before being placed in a particular board at a particular time. If one used "have been dealt without shuffle...", one could imagine this scenario: someone takes a sorted pack and deals four hands; then the pack is reassembled and shuffled; then a player objects on the grounds that the cards certainly "have been" dealt without shuffle from a sorted pack. As to "if the deal had been played...", I have no strong views; either "had been played" or "has been played" conveys the required meaning adequately, though I am inclined to agree with Jac that "has been played" is more natural (whereas "had been played" would require an alert). Neither of these is a mistake, but I am prepared to refund DWS his money on the grounds of inexperience. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 08:25:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:25:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03974 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:24:50 +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 SAA09102; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 18:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 18:24:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199910102224.SAA14071@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, eajewm@globalnet.co.uk In-reply-to: <199910091555.LAA02193@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:55:20 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: L82C in a teams-of-four match Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> >East opens 1S, South doubles, West takes a pack of bidding >> >cards out of the box (under Dutch regulations meaning that he has >> >made a call), and says: "Hold it, I didn't see the double". > Do we know what his original call was? If not, this demonstrates a > problem with the regulation saying the call is made. >> From: "Anne Jones" >> This is a fun one. If the TD had not erred, he would have looked at >> Law 25B and after deciding that it applied, he would remember the >> Lille decision, and would disallow the change of call. > Why wouldn't L25B apply? The intended bid was a stupid mistake, not a > rectification in judgment. And in the (unofficial) revised > interpretation, nothing has happened _after_ the intended call. Either > way, L25B seems to be one of the options. However, does L25B, or any other law related to illegal calls, apply when a call has been selected but not completed? There is much less UI from the fact that partner attempted to make some wrong call than from the fact that partner attempted to make a specific call. For example, South is dealer, and North pulls out the STOP card, or pulls out a pile of cards but then says "Oops, it's not my bid." South has UI that North was going to bid (and that he was going to make a high bid if the STO Pcard was pulled), but he would not normally be barred. -- 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 Oct 11 10:02:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:02:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04185 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:02:28 +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 11aSuw-000G1G-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 00:02:19 +0000 Message-ID: <0PH8vZAuiSA4Ew+E@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:00:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language In-Reply-To: <006601bf1364$150268c0$623aac3e@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <006601bf1364$150268c0$623aac3e@davidburn>, David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >[JF] > >>> I am puzzled by the combination of tenses used in L6D2. English is >>> not my first language, but I would have expected it to read : >>> "No result may stand if the cards **have been** dealt without >>> shuffle from a sorted pack or if the deal **has** previously been >>> played in a different session.", but L6D2 combines "are dealt" with >>> "had previously been played". >>> Is there an Englishman at BLML who wouldn't mind to explain the >>> subtleties of the use of this combination to a foreigner ? > >[DWS] > >>For the niceties of the English language I prefer to rely on Jens >Brix >>Christiansen. Much safer than asking an English person [or even one >of >>those colonists!]. Alternatively, David Burn may help. > >>For my money, it is a mistake. > >I can resist many things, but an appeal for help from DWS is >sufficiently without precedent that I feel in duty bound. > >As to "if the cards are dealt without shuffle...", I think this is >precise enough, since the use of the present tense implies that the >reference is to what has happened to the cards immediately before >being placed in a particular board at a particular time. If one used >"have been dealt without shuffle...", one could imagine this scenario: >someone takes a sorted pack and deals four hands; then the pack is >reassembled and shuffled; then a player objects on the grounds that >the cards certainly "have been" dealt without shuffle from a sorted >pack. > >As to "if the deal had been played...", I have no strong views; either >"had been played" or "has been played" conveys the required meaning >adequately, though I am inclined to agree with Jac that "has been >played" is more natural (whereas "had been played" would require an >alert). > >Neither of these is a mistake, but I am prepared to refund DWS his >money on the grounds of inexperience. > >David Burn > > I just assumed it was Grattan using the British English subjunctive correctly. This is wasted on Americans as they don't have a subjunctive that I've ever noticed. Conditional clauses take subjunctive mood. 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 Oct 11 10:09:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:09:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04224 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:09:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp236-97.worldonline.nl [195.241.236.97]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA29960; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 02:09:11 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002a01bf1385$610bbac0$61ecf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "Jesper Dybdal" Subject: Re: L6D2 again Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 02:10:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote : >On Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:08:08 +0100, "Jac Fuchs" > wrote: > >>They were adamant that they did a correct shuffle and deal, and said it's impossible that the board is a left-over. > >The practical way to avoid these situations is for the TD to turn >one hand face up before play in every board that is to be >shuffled. In most types of events doing this will take just a >few minutes before play. >-- >Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . >http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > Thanks Jesper, although I was (and am) well aware of that, and I know I should have done so. Good advice, like yours in this instance, cannot be repeated too often. However, my main concern was on how to handle requests by players to have L6D2 applied, especially when proof to substantiate their claim is hard to get. Jac From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 10:55:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:55:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04329 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:54:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.104] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:53:31 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00cc01bf12a2$c6085520$09ccf1c3@default> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:48:44 -0400 To: "Jac Fuchs" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: L6D2 again Cc: "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:08 PM -0400 10/9/99, Jac Fuchs wrote: >As you may have guessed, the memory of the opponents of the previous match >is unlikely to be good enough to be trusted, and no hand records are kept. >Any comments or advice ? There was a case some years ago where a well-known expert (I think it was Al Roth) called the TD to his table after examining his hand. He claimed to have played the hand previously. The TD was not inclined to believe him, so Roth rattled off, from memory, the other 3 hands. :-) The likelyhood that any ordinary player is correct when he thinks he's played a hand previously (especially after having received a bad score) is _extremely_ small. Absent evidence of the kind Roth provided, I'd rule result stands. 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/AwUBOAE1Vr2UW3au93vOEQJILwCfaOtkeaXcZp317DASdKaENHmOfuwAnjpF 3f9MKCD2uMb6rvIp1JBA2dWw =dZ7G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 11:03:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:03:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04348 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:03:42 +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 11aTsC-000MUX-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:03:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:52:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Hesitation References: <199910081739.KAA07339@mailhub.irvine.com> <000701bf11c6$4e065d60$4b5fac3e@davidburn> <00fa01bf12f5$bb4c71e0$97fbabc3@davidburn> <000701bf135a$ade03680$623aac3e@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000701bf135a$ade03680$623aac3e@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > >[snip] > >> >However, L12C2 is (probably) not as inflexible as that. It says >that >> >the TD may award an AAS "in matchpoints". This could (probably) be >> >interpreted as meaning that the TD is entitled to go away and work >out >> >"half the matchpoints for 420 plus half the matchpoints for 450" >and >> >award that to NS. It may be only a question of practice in >different >> >jurisdictions. In England, our TDs do not do this; I have always >> >thought that this was because the Laws said that they could not, >but >> >it may simply be for reasons of practicality and simplicity. >However, >> >if they cannot legally do it, then there may be a problem. >> >> No, legally they can not do it. L12C2 says: >> >> 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 favourable result that was >> likely had the irregularity not occurred, >> or, for an offending side, the most >> unfavourable result that was at all >> probable. The scores awarded to the two >> sides need not balance, and may be >> assigned either in matchpoints or by >> altering the total-point score prior to >> matchpointing. >> >> If you just read the second sentence then a reasonable conclusion >is >> that TDs can basically give any score they like. This is quoted by >the >> ACBL [per Chip Martel, Gary Blaiss in private emails] as the legal >basis >> for giving A+/A- under L12C2. >> >> But we cannot just take the second sentence and ignore the first. >It >> is that first sentence that makes ArtASs and weighted scores >illegal. >> It requires the TD to assign a score to each side. Split scores are >> legal: that sentence allows for [and specifically mentions] giving a >> different score to each side. Personally, I think the second >sentence >> is an anachronism and should be discarded. > >Yes, but we are not talking about giving a different score to each >side - I agree that there is no problem with that. We are talking >about giving one side some fraction of two different scores, or more >exactly the average of the consequences of two or more different >results. There may be a semantic problem here. By "split score" I (and >you, judging by the above) mean giving one side the score for >defending 4H+1 and the other side the score for making 4H exactly. By >"weighted score", I mean giving one side some percentage ("weight") of >the score for making 4H+1 and some percentage of the score for making >4H exactly. Apologies for spelling this out, but there are many >subscribers to this list whose first language is not English, let >alone Burnese. > >If what you are telling me is that this cannot legally be done, then >we have a serious problem indeed, for it is routinely done by ACs in >England, and I have seen it done by ACs in other jurisdictions. If you had not snipped my last paragraph you might have noticed that it says it is legal and explains how. You might also notice that I took the trouble to explain the difference between a split score and a weighted score. Did part of my email not reach you? It came back to me via the list. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 11 13:11:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:11:46 +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 NAA04591 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:11:34 +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 11aVrx-00024F-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 03:11:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 03:59:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L82C in a teams-of-four match References: <199910091555.LAA02193@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199910102224.SAA14071@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910102224.SAA14071@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >However, does L25B, or any other law related to illegal calls, apply >when a call has been selected but not completed? There is much less UI >from the fact that partner attempted to make some wrong call than from >the fact that partner attempted to make a specific call. > >For example, South is dealer, and North pulls out the STOP card, or >pulls out a pile of cards but then says "Oops, it's not my bid." South >has UI that North was going to bid (and that he was going to make a high >bid if the STO Pcard was pulled), but he would not normally be barred. True, this is a UI situation, not L25. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 11 13:29:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:29:02 +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 NAA04625 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:28:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehiv.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.95]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA16047 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991009153249.006a39f8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 15:32:49 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:24 AM 10/9/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >Nobody (well some do) invents conventions at the table. >It often happens that one is "in the dark", because a >particular piece of system hasn't been talked through. At >that moment, one falls back on some perceived "general" >system and hopes that partner is on the same wavelength. >If it turns out that indeed partner has the same idea, then >surely that must constitute some form of "agreement". Even >if the agreement is only based on "in our club, most people >play it like that", that is an agreement. >If partner has the same idea, surely he should disclose >this, and not hide behind "no agreement". >And if partner happens to have a different perception of the >meaning, he should do so as well. The opponents should not >suffer. The pair should suffer for agreeing to play without >a full set of agreements. Pairs playing without a full set of agreements will, on average, pay the price for this omission in the currency of poor scores. As a legal matter, there is no obligation to have a "full set of agreements", whatever that could conceivably entail, and no penalty for truthfully informing the opponents when you have no agreement. If you have correctly informed the opponents about the relevant agreements you do have, then you have met your legal obligation to inform. The fact that "most players in this club" bid in a certain way is not, in any case, an agreement between two players, unless they have agreed, at least in general terms, to play that standard club system ("Merseyside standard, partner?"). Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 13:44:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:44:05 +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 NAA04648 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:43:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehiv.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.95]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA02619 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:43:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991010234130.012d0f84@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:41:30 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A Multi Case In-Reply-To: <000b01bf131b$299f1740$1c5eac3e@davidburn> References: <026301bf12f8$19c39260$ea60868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:29 PM 10/10/99 +0100, David B wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> Yes, undiscussed is not artificial. > >Eh? LHO opens 1S, my partner overcalls 2S. We have omitted to discuss >whether we play Michaels, or Ghestem, or strong cue bids. Should I not >alert? Am I and the table to presume that 2S is being treated as >natural? > You (and the opponents) may presume what you like. If you have no agreement with this partner either a) as a result of explicit discussion b) derived implicitly from other explicit agreements or c) based on a common understanding, such as a partnership in common then there is nothing to alert. What on earth could you tell the opponents if the bid could actually have any one of two or three (or possibly more) meanings? The opponents are entitled to know your agreements. They are not necessarily entitled to your best guess in the absence of any agreement, explicit or implicit. Although it is probably not relevant to your question, the current ACBL position is that Q-bids need not be alerted in general. (Unless it's changed again, in which case it is not that at all, but something else.) Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 17:10:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:10:17 +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 RAA05086 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:10:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-7-199.access.net.il [213.8.7.199] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27759 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:08:18 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38018D42.34544AE@zahav.net.il> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:09:54 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: majordomo Subject: (no subject) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk list From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 17:38:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:38:30 +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 RAA05188 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:38:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [212.140.100.153] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11aa24-0006vm-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:38:08 +0100 Message-ID: <000501bf13bb$7099c140$99648cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <026301bf12f8$19c39260$ea60868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <3.0.1.32.19991010234130.012d0f84@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: A Multi Case Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:37:14 +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 Michael wrote: > > > >Eh? LHO opens 1S, my partner overcalls 2S. We have omitted to discuss > >whether we play Michaels, or Ghestem, or strong cue bids. Should I not > >alert? Am I and the table to presume that 2S is being treated as > >natural? > > > You (and the opponents) may presume what you like. If you have no agreement > with this partner either > a) as a result of explicit discussion > b) derived implicitly from other explicit agreements or > c) based on a common understanding, such as a partnership in common > > then there is nothing to alert. What on earth could you tell the opponents > if the bid could actually have any one of two or three (or possibly more) > meanings? > > The opponents are entitled to know your agreements. They are not > necessarily entitled to your best guess in the absence of any agreement, > explicit or implicit. Yes, but if the regulation is: "alert anything artificial", then what am I to do? Whatever our agreements or lack of them, it is not likely that partner intends the bid as natural or will assume that I will so interpret it. As I see it, my obligation if such a regulation were in force would be to alert, and if asked to tell the opponents that the call is not discussed. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 17:56:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:56:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05310 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:56:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA14537 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:55:51 -0800 Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:55:51 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: L6D2 again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > At 6:08 PM -0400 10/9/99, Jac Fuchs wrote: > >As you may have guessed, the memory of the opponents of the previous match > >is unlikely to be good enough to be trusted, and no hand records are kept. > >Any comments or advice ? I think the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of the hand having been shuffled and dealt and happening to look similar to the old one. Even in the absence of hand records there seems a fair probability that one of the score-sheets from a couple of weeks ago still exists (whether private score or recap). This of course isn't conclusive proof -- but it does at least let you check to see if it is the same board number as last time around. > > There was a case some years ago where a well-known expert (I think it was > Al Roth) called the TD to his table after examining his hand. He claimed to > have played the hand previously. The TD was not inclined to believe him, so > Roth rattled off, from memory, the other 3 hands. :-) > > The likelyhood that any ordinary player is correct when he thinks he's > played a hand previously (especially after having received a bad score) is > _extremely_ small. > I agree. I would find the player's claim much more believable, incidentally, had it been made during or immediately following the hand, not after comparing with teammates. As a player I have only ever called the director once for this. It was at a sectional in Pocatello, Idaho in June 1997. I held 7 spades to the J-T, red singletons, and 4 clubs to the ace on board 28 in both the afternoon and evening sessions of a pairs game. I called the director as soon as I sorted my hand in the evening and asked if him if he was sure the board had been redealt. He said yes; wanted to be convinced further, with his permission I pulled out my copy of the afternoon hand records from my CC holder, looked at the hand in question, and said all was well... taking care not to let on to the others at the table what the problem was. I think I managed to avoid giving anyone a UI problem -- though this was of considerable concern to me: what if pard or oppos remembers what board 28 was like this afternoon and guesses what my concern is about? I saved the hand records for the event. In the afternoon, I held JT87542-K-6-AT73 as North. In the evening, I held JT76532-3-2-AQ97 as East. I don't feel too bad about being suspicious. That sort of coincidence is getting to be rare enough to be more-or-less equally likely to be a random deal or a rare card-handling mishap. In my case, of course, the other three hands were completely different, and had I played it out, there would have been no question at all as soon as dummy came down. GRB From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 18:39:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:42:46 +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 RAA05229 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:42:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [212.140.100.153] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11aa68-00015V-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:42:20 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01bf13bc$06ef7900$99648cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199910081739.KAA07339@mailhub.irvine.com><000701bf11c6$4e065d60$4b5fac3e@davidburn><00fa01bf12f5$bb4c71e0$97fbabc3@davidburn><000701bf135a$ade03680$623aac3e@davidburn> Subject: Re: A Hesitation Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:41:26 +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 DWS wrote: > David Burn wrote: > >DWS wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >> >However, L12C2 is (probably) not as inflexible as that. It says > >that > >> >the TD may award an AAS "in matchpoints". This could (probably) be > >> >interpreted as meaning that the TD is entitled to go away and work > >out > >> >"half the matchpoints for 420 plus half the matchpoints for 450" > >and > >> >award that to NS. It may be only a question of practice in > >different > >> >jurisdictions. In England, our TDs do not do this; I have always > >> >thought that this was because the Laws said that they could not, > >but > >> >it may simply be for reasons of practicality and simplicity. > >However, > >> >if they cannot legally do it, then there may be a problem. > >> > >> No, legally they can not do it. L12C2 says: > >> > >> 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 favourable result that was > >> likely had the irregularity not occurred, > >> or, for an offending side, the most > >> unfavourable result that was at all > >> probable. The scores awarded to the two > >> sides need not balance, and may be > >> assigned either in matchpoints or by > >> altering the total-point score prior to > >> matchpointing. > >> > >> If you just read the second sentence then a reasonable conclusion > >is > >> that TDs can basically give any score they like. This is quoted by > >the > >> ACBL [per Chip Martel, Gary Blaiss in private emails] as the legal > >basis > >> for giving A+/A- under L12C2. > >> > >> But we cannot just take the second sentence and ignore the first. > >It > >> is that first sentence that makes ArtASs and weighted scores > >illegal. > >> It requires the TD to assign a score to each side. Split scores are > >> legal: that sentence allows for [and specifically mentions] giving a > >> different score to each side. Personally, I think the second > >sentence > >> is an anachronism and should be discarded. > > > >Yes, but we are not talking about giving a different score to each > >side - I agree that there is no problem with that. We are talking > >about giving one side some fraction of two different scores, or more > >exactly the average of the consequences of two or more different > >results. There may be a semantic problem here. By "split score" I (and > >you, judging by the above) mean giving one side the score for > >defending 4H+1 and the other side the score for making 4H exactly. By > >"weighted score", I mean giving one side some percentage ("weight") of > >the score for making 4H+1 and some percentage of the score for making > >4H exactly. Apologies for spelling this out, but there are many > >subscribers to this list whose first language is not English, let > >alone Burnese. > > > >If what you are telling me is that this cannot legally be done, then > >we have a serious problem indeed, for it is routinely done by ACs in > >England, and I have seen it done by ACs in other jurisdictions. > > If you had not snipped my last paragraph you might have noticed that > it says it is legal and explains how. > Last paragraph hereby reinstated: > But we cannot just take the second sentence and ignore the first. It > is that first sentence that makes ArtASs and weighted scores illegal. > It requires the TD to assign a score to each side. Split scores are > legal: that sentence allows for [and specifically mentions] giving a > different score to each side. Personally, I think the second sentence > is an anachronism and should be discarded. Now, where does this tell me that "half of 420 and half of 450" is legal? David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 19:16:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA05492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:16:33 +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 TAA05487 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:16:13 +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 LAA04601; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:18:01 +0200 Message-ID: <3801AAD9.779C60DF@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:16:09 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grant Sterling CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991008125752.007ab6c0@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > A player in soccer [or, in Europe, football] tries to kick > the ball, but accidentally trips an opponent. The referee, seeing > the case from the outside, judges it to have been intentional and > cards the player. The player _in fact_ met his legal obligations > not to intentionally trip an opposing player, but the referee still > [rightly, given _his_ evidence] rules against him. You are wrong. The fact whether the kick was malicious and intentional or purely accidental _does not matter_ in soccer. The referee does not judge the player's intentions but the facts. If you committed a dangerous foul you get carded no matter how noble your intentions were. So your example is in fact in favor of Herman's line of reasoning. I don't believe advising players to go beyond their legal obligations is the right way to go. Pacta sund servanda. So let's stick to the letter of Law. Going beyond the legal obligations is in fact breaking the Law even when done in the name of what you consider to be just cause. ********************************************************************** - 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 Oct 11 20:04:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:04:38 +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 UAA05548 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:04:27 +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 MAA14957; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:06:31 +0200 Message-ID: <3801B637.5BE3E8BD@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:04:39 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael S. Dennis" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <002001bf0c1e$6f4e0700$3784d9ce@oemcomputer> <002001bf0c1e$6f4e0700$3784d9ce@oemcomputer> <3.0.1.32.19991001205946.012bc064@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > At 08:59 PM 10/1/99 +0100, David wrote: > > Let me give you three examples. Herman De Wael, Mike Dennis and > >Marvin French are prepared to lie about their agreements. They do so > >because of their perceived ideas. Herman's arguments are that he lies > >in positions that he judges that the lie benefits the opponents. Mike's > >arguments are that to use "hedges" is illegal even when it correctly > >expresses your agreements. Marvin's arguments are that you only need to > >disclose "Special" agreements so he is prepared to lie over agreements > >that he does not see as "Special" in his own definition. IMHO there are two different issues here. Suppose the bidding has gone W N E S 1H P 1P 2C 3D ... and an opponent asks me about the meaning of the 3D rebid: 1) suppose that I me and my partner agreed to play support doubles. We also agreed that the other bids "tend to deny 3 spades" and have no further discussion hoping we are on the same wavelength and we both won't make the support double with , say xxx AKJ10x AKJ10x ---. But I'm absolutely sure that we do utilize support doubles. Thus, I explain 3D: "We do play support and 3D tends to deny 3 spades" (A) 2) Suppose I'm not sure whether we play support doubles or not and I only suspect that. So I explain "I hope we play support doubles because - I play them - he and his regular partner also do but - I'm not 100% sure as all we managed to agree was to play the Polish Club". (B) In both cases I could simply say that "3D denies 3 spades". (C) So should we treat the "hedged" explanations differently that the (C) explanation? Now, I think that in the case 2) the explanations (B) and (C) should be treated as equivalent when making a ruling - I agree with Herman here. In the case 1), however, I think that it should matter whether the explanation was (A) or (C) - see my first post in this thread. BTW, responding to your argument: >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? Yes - my judgment of West's bidding judgment. Why should we be afraid of this? The Law does say that when making a ruling (I don't mean of course revokes, insufficient bids and other stuff like that) the TD should consider the player's class (determining what is a LA and what is not depends on that). And this is judging player's judgment isn't it? (Nota bene this one of the biggest difficulties in directing IMHO but that's a different story). ********************************************************************** - 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 Oct 11 20:15:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:15:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from stat.ee (gatekeeper.stat.ee [193.40.95.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA05573 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:15:08 +1000 (EST) Received: by stat.ee id KAA10531; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:12:55 GMT Received: from ESA-Message_Server by stat.ee with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:11:47 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:14:28 +0200 From: Aavo Heinlo To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Multi Case Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Stevenson wrote: >Competent players - and I do not mean >good players, I mean >players >with any commonsense here - agree on one of two approaches: >[1] 2D X Pass shows some number of diamonds and suggests >to partner the >possibility of playing in 2DX. this is the natural approach, and >different players have different agreements as to how many >diamonds are >shown. I play a good five-plus card holding myself. >[2] 2D X Pass tells opener to describe his hand and he will bid >his >major [or whatever else he has]. Granted he might pass if he >has an >Acol Two in diamonds. What about: [3] Suggest 4+ diamonds but doesn't guarantee them, any strength. Specially designed for those: > With my partners we have an agreement to pass routinely >here. >KJ9xxx > QTx > xx > xx >2D X P ? What do you bid? RDBL, pass with reversed red suit and 2S with QTx in clubs. Aavo Heinlo Tel (+372) 6259217 Fax (+372-2) 453923 E-mail aavo.heinlo@stat.ee From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 21:06:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:06:36 +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 VAA05772 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:06:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-199.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.199]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25757 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:06:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3801B410.6E577B06@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:55:28 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <3.0.1.32.19991009153249.006a39f8@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > Pairs playing without a full set of agreements will, on average, pay the > price for this omission in the currency of poor scores. As a legal matter, > there is no obligation to have a "full set of agreements", whatever that > could conceivably entail, Well, how are you going to possibly play without the (at least the intention of) a full set of agreements ? If one partner makes a call, he intends his partner to understand. That is a sort of agreement. > and no penalty for truthfully informing the > opponents when you have no agreement. If you have correctly informed the > opponents about the relevant agreements you do have, then you have met your > legal obligation to inform. Agreed. And those relevant agreements should conclude to one particular derived meaning. They should not lead to "either A or B". You can't play bridge that way. Bidder wanted to show one of A or B, not either. > The fact that "most players in this club" bid > in a certain way is not, in any case, an agreement between two players, > unless they have agreed, at least in general terms, to play that standard > club system ("Merseyside standard, partner?"). > When two players from Merseyside sit together and say nothing, "Merseyside standard" is agreed. They don't have to say it. No-one can sit at a table with NO agreements at all. If they then reply "no agreement" to an opponent, they should either: -be able to assume that opponent also assumes "Merseyside standard", or -tell the opponent "Merseyside standard". If the opponent does not know MS, they should tell him what that entails. "No agreement" is only a valid response when all four players around the table know the full set of "agreements" that form the basis for that statement. Otherwise, it has to be elaborated, and is subject to MI if wronly done so. > Mike Dennis -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 11 23:55:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:55:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06136 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:54:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP325.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.103]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA09293 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 06:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991011084858.0099a5b0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:53:49 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: L6D2 again In-Reply-To: References: <00cc01bf12a2$c6085520$09ccf1c3@default> <00cc01bf12a2$c6085520$09ccf1c3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Not something to worry about. It is the same sort of thing as >deciding whether there was a hesitation. However, one thing you may >consider: if you ask a table whether they dealt all the boards, they >will always be certain that they did! We had a similar case in a Swiss teams match at a sectional this year. When the boards from our table reached the other table, North there at some point noticed that the deal was repeated from the previous round, when he had sat at the same table. He correctly described one or more of the unseen hands to convince the director. When the director asked us whether we had in fact shuffled and dealt all the boards, I remembered that I hadn't seen one board redealt; I had asked the table whether it had, and it appeared at the time that my partner had just finished with it, but he recalled that he hadn't touched it. So sometimes a table will indeed remember failing to deal one board! 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 Tue Oct 12 00:20:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:20:18 +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 AAA06196 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:20:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-12-101.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.12.101]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09942 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:20:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3801F228.D1C9FFE1@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:20:24 +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: <002001bf0c1e$6f4e0700$3784d9ce@oemcomputer> <002001bf0c1e$6f4e0700$3784d9ce@oemcomputer> <3.0.1.32.19991001205946.012bc064@pop.mindspring.com> <3801B637.5BE3E8BD@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems as if not all readers have given up on this thread, when we saw that: Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > > IMHO there are two different issues here. > Indeed, and not all posters seem to have grasped that. > Suppose the bidding has gone > > W N E S > 1H P 1P 2C > 3D > Please use S for Spades, Conrad, not everybody in Europe uses french symbols (although quite a lot do). > ... and an opponent asks me about the meaning > of the 3D rebid: > > 1) suppose that I me and my partner agreed to play support > doubles. We also agreed that the other bids "tend to deny 3 spades" > and have no further discussion hoping we are on the same > wavelength and we both won't make the support double with > , say xxx AKJ10x AKJ10x ---. But I'm absolutely sure that > we do utilize support doubles. > Thus, I explain 3D: "We do play support and 3D > tends to deny 3 spades" (A) This is the one issue : the word "tends". > 2) Suppose I'm not sure whether we play support doubles > or not and I only suspect that. So I explain > "I hope we play support doubles because > - I play them > - he and his regular partner also do > but > - I'm not 100% sure as all > we managed to agree was to play the Polish Club". (B) > This is the issue "uncertainty". > In both cases I could simply say that "3D denies > 3 spades". (C) > > So should we treat the "hedged" explanations differently > that the (C) explanation? > > Now, I think that in the case 2) the explanations > (B) and (C) should be treated as equivalent when making > a ruling - I agree with Herman here. Thanks. > In the case 1), however, I think that it should > matter whether the explanation was (A) or (C) - see my > first post in this thread. > I had started to write a long reply to this example, and after 5 paragraphs decided I could not say it any better than Konrad. In case 1), (C) is misinformation. In case 2) (C) is the correct statement, (B) contains unnecessary ornaments. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 01:25:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:25:40 +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 BAA06357 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:25:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA32020; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:24:37 -0700 Message-Id: <199910111524.IAA32020@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:19:19 PDT." <007601bf1365$1fe529c0$623aac3e@davidburn> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:24:37 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Marvin wrote: > > > (2) Subjunctive mood ("had been") instead of indicative ("was"). > There > > is a common but erroneous belief that "if" must be followed by the > > subjunctive, which is not true if the stated condition is not > "contrary > > to fact." Perhaps the author did not intend the subjunctive, but > that's > > what he wrote. > > That "had" is not the subjunctive, Marvin. It's the pluperfect. Well, I'm one of those colonists, so I may not be fully qualified to participate in this thread. To make things worse, I'm a native of California, which was a colony not of Britain but of Spain, so perhaps that makes me even less qualified to speak with authority on the English language, although I assure you I have no understanding of Spanish grammar either, except when it parallels Italian grammar, of which I have some understanding due to a college course. Having said that: I believe Marvin is right here. "Pluperfect" is a tense, while "subjunctive" is not a tense, but a mood; the pluperfect tense is often used to denote a subjunctive mood. Or something like that. In the sentence, "If East had given South the correct information about their agreements, South would not have played the hand that way", the first clause is both a pluperfect and a subjunctive, or a pluperfect being used to denote a subjunctive. (Of course, this isn't the only use of the pluperfect tense.) Bonus points to anyone who can tell us what verb tense "having said that" is. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 01:57:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:57:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp03.iafrica.com (smtp03.mweb.co.za [196.2.134.189]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA06458 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:56:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [196.31.19.41] (helo=ruscourt) by smtp03.iafrica.com with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 11ahoZ-000GqY-00; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:56:44 +0200 Message-ID: <000601bf1401$cd93c6c0$29131fc4@ruscourt> From: "rusty court" To: Subject: Bid after two non-bids Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:50:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01BF1411.13951480" 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_000C_01BF1411.13951480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The following incident (I'm tempted to use a stronger term) took place = at a Zonal championship. I was not there but the hand was brought back to me and I offered to solicit some expert opinion. Board 17. Dealer N. Neither vul. Played with screens. N and E as = screenmates and S and W on the other side. S J 6 H Q 6 4 D A K Q 3 C Q T 6 4 S Q 7 3 2 S K 9 8 5 H A J 9 8 3 2 H K 5 D 7 D T 6 5 4 C 8 2 C A J 3 S A T 4 H T 7 D J 9 8 2 C K 9 7 5 =20 W N E S 1NT P P 1H* ! !! 2NT** 1H =3D Underbid, ! =3D no call, !! =3D = also no call, P 3NT X P 2NT =3D next call. 4H P P X P P P =20 The accuracy is limited to the information I have received. After the 1H underbid, the tray was passed to the North&East side of the screen and North pushed it back because of the underbid. No indication was given for this return of the tray. Despite the fact that no further = calls had been added, South assumed that it was his turn to bid and bid 2NT. The bidding then continued as shown and the hand was then played and the result was 4HX by West, three down.=20 At no time during the hand was a TD called. I do not know exactly when a TD was called, but I presume that E\W did so after the hand was = finished The TD, after consultation, decided that the hand was cancelled and both sides given a 3imp penalty. This ruling was, apparently, not given = reasonably soon after the TD was called, but was made known "later on". An appeal = was lodged by a NPC, I presume it was by the team of the N\S pair, and = apparently the ruling was allowed to stand. I apologise for the fact that I cannot give more detailed information. = This is as much as I have received. Opinions please Rusty Court ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BF1411.13951480 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The following incident (I'm tempted = to use a=20 stronger term) took place at
a Zonal championship. I was not = there but the=20 hand was brought back to
me and I offered to solicit some = expert=20 opinion.
 
Board 17. Dealer N. Neither vul. = Played with=20 screens. N and E as screenmates and S and W on the other = side.
 
          &nbs= p;          =20 S J 6
          &nbs= p;          =20 H Q 6 4
          &nbs= p;          =20 D A K Q 3
          &nbs= p;          =20 C Q T 6 4
S Q 7 3=20 2            =              = S K 9 8 5
H A J 9 8 3=20 2            =        =20 H K 5
D=20 7            =             &= nbsp;        =20 D T 6 5 4
C 8=20 2            =             &= nbsp;     =20 C A J 3
          &nbs= p;          =20 S A T 4
          &nbs= p;          =20 H T 7
          &nbs= p;          =20 D J 9 8 2
          &nbs= p;          =20 C K 9 7 = 5           =20
 
W    =20 N      E     S
       = 1NT    P     P
1H*    =20 !      !!    =20 2NT**      1H =3D Underbid, ! =3D no call, !! = =3D also no=20 call,
 P     = 3NT  =20 X    =20 P            2NT = =3D next=20 call.
4H    =20 P      P    X
 P     =20 P      P  
 
The accuracy is limited to the = information I=20 have received.
 
After the 1H underbid, the tray was = passed to=20 the North&East side of the
screen and North pushed it back = because of the=20 underbid. No indication
was given for this return of the = tray. Despite=20 the fact that no further calls
had been = added, South assumed that it was=20 his turn to bid and bid = 2NT.
The bidding then continued as shown = and the hand=20 was then played and
the result was=20 4HX by West, three down.
 
At no time during the hand was a TD = called. I do=20 not know exactly when a
TD  was called, but I presume = that E\W did=20 so after the hand was finished
The TD, after consultation, decided = that the=20 hand was cancelled and both
sides given a 3imp penalty. This = ruling was,=20 apparently, not given reasonably
soon after the TD was called, but = was made known=20 "later on". An appeal was
lodged by a NPC, I presume it was by = the team of=20 the N\S pair, and apparently the ruling was allowed to = stand.
 
I apologise for the fact that I = cannot give more=20 detailed information. This is as
much as I have = received.
 
Opinions please
 
Rusty Court
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BF1411.13951480-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 02:44:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 02:44:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06687 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 02:44:26 +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 JAA00538; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:43:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199910111643.JAA00538@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Bid after two non-bids In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:50:16 PDT." <000601bf1401$cd93c6c0$29131fc4@ruscourt> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:43:42 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Rusty Court wrote: > The following incident (I'm tempted to use a stronger term) took place = > at > a Zonal championship. I was not there but the hand was brought back to > me and I offered to solicit some expert opinion. > > Board 17. Dealer N. Neither vul. Played with screens. N and E as = > screenmates and S and W on the other side. > > S J 6 > H Q 6 4 > D A K Q 3 > C Q T 6 4 > S Q 7 3 2 S K 9 8 5 > H A J 9 8 3 2 H K 5 > D 7 D T 6 5 4 > C 8 2 C A J 3 > S A T 4 > H T 7 > D J 9 8 2 > C K 9 7 5 =20 > > W N E S > 1NT P P > 1H* ! !! 2NT** 1H=Underbid, !=no call, !!=also no call, > P 3NT X P 2NT=next call. > 4H P P X > P P P > > The accuracy is limited to the information I have received. > > After the 1H underbid, the tray was passed to the North&East side of the > screen and North pushed it back because of the underbid. No indication > was given for this return of the tray. Despite the fact that no further = > calls > had been added, South assumed that it was his turn to bid and bid 2NT. > The bidding then continued as shown and the hand was then played and > the result was 4HX by West, three down.=20 > > At no time during the hand was a TD called. I do not know exactly when a > TD was called, but I presume that E\W did so after the hand was = > finished > The TD, after consultation, decided that the hand was cancelled and both > sides given a 3imp penalty. This ruling was, apparently, not given = > reasonably > soon after the TD was called, but was made known "later on". An appeal = > was > lodged by a NPC, I presume it was by the team of the N\S pair, and = > apparently the ruling was allowed to stand. > > I apologise for the fact that I cannot give more detailed information. = > This is as > much as I have received. > > Opinions please The only problem here is how to apply L27A. This Law says "Any insufficient bid may be accepted at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls." The Law does not say what happens if the offender's RHO "accepts" the insufficient bid by calling out of turn. Had the director been called right away after the South's 2NT bid (*), or after West's pass after the 2NT bid, I would probably rule that LHO still hasn't forfeited his right to refuse to accept the insufficient bid, but what happens after that is murky---I don't believe this situation is covered explicitly by the Laws. I could be wrong here---since RHO is LHO's partner, I could be persuaded that the COOT in effect accepted the insufficient bid even though the wrong member of the non-offending side made the call. In the actual auction, once North went ahead and bid 3NT, I'd rule that all the illegal bids were accepted and therefore result stands. I can't understand the logic behind cancelling the board. As for the procedural penalties: I can sympathize with the penalties for both sides, since both sides should have called the TD (North after the insufficient bid, West after the out-of-rotation call), but to my mind N-S committed the much greater error. Not only did North fail to call the TD, he passed the tray back confusing the issue greatly, and then South bid despite the fact that two other players didn't make calls. All West did was condone an out-of-rotation call, something the Laws expect and deal with (L29A) even though it's not correct procedure. I can also understand why West would have been confused about what had happened up to that point. On the other hand, *somebody* should have figured out that what was happening wasn't Bridge, and that the TD needed to be called. So nobody is blameless here. But I probably would have made sure N-S received a greater PP. I have some sympathy for the TD here, even though I think he got it wrong. He was probably laughing too hard to read his Law book straight. (*) Yes, John, we Americans do sometimes know how to use a subjunctive. :) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 02:49:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 02:49:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06714 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 02:49:13 +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 JAA00632; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:48:33 -0700 Message-Id: <199910111648.JAA00632@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Bid after two non-bids In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:43:42 PDT." <199910111643.JAA00538@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:48:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > The only problem here is how to apply L27A. This Law says "Any > insufficient bid may be accepted at the option of offender's LHO. It > is accepted if that player calls." The Law does not say what happens > if the offender's RHO "accepts" the insufficient bid by calling out of > turn. Had the director been called right away after the South's 2NT > bid (*), or after West's pass after the 2NT bid, I would probably rule > that LHO still hasn't forfeited his right to refuse to accept the > insufficient bid, but what happens after that is murky---I don't > believe this situation is covered explicitly by the Laws. I could be > wrong here---since RHO is LHO's partner, I could be persuaded that the > COOT in effect accepted the insufficient bid even though the wrong > member of the non-offending side made the call. . . . Actually, I missed Law 11A, which applies here. However, this Law says "The right to penalize *may* be forfeited...", and I don't really understand what the rest of the Law, which explains just when this right is forfeited, means. I need some help here. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 02:49:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 02:49:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06720 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 02:49:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt096nfb.san.rr.com [24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA26515 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:49:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01bd01bf1408$84a0fc60$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199910081739.KAA07339@mailhub.irvine.com><000701bf11c6$4e065d60$4b5fac3e@davidburn><00fa01bf12f5$bb4c71e0$97fbabc3@davidburn> Subject: Re: A Hesitation Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:40:42 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > David Burn wrote: > >DWS wrote: > > >[DWS] > >> L12C3 allows this, surely? To be honest, I don't understand the > >> problem. Why should not ACs have this power? > > >Because "in adjudicating appeals, the committee may exercise all > >powers assigned by these Laws to the Director" [L93B3]. Presumably - > >though I hesitate to say this for fear of the semantic debate it may > >engender - this implies that they may not exercise any power not > >assigned by the Laws to the Director. Simply put, this means that if > >the TD can't award weighted scores of the kind I have mentioned above, > >neither can the AC. > > > >However, L12C2 is (probably) not as inflexible as that. It says that > >the TD may award an AAS "in matchpoints". This could (probably) be > >interpreted as meaning that the TD is entitled to go away and work out > >"half the matchpoints for 420 plus half the matchpoints for 450" and > >award that to NS. It may be only a question of practice in different > >jurisdictions. In England, our TDs do not do this; I have always > >thought that this was because the Laws said that they could not, but > >it may simply be for reasons of practicality and simplicity. However, > >if they cannot legally do it, then there may be a problem. > > No, legally they can not do it. L12C2 says: > > 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 favourable result that was > likely had the irregularity not occurred, > or, for an offending side, the most > unfavourable result that was at all > probable. The scores awarded to the two > sides need not balance, and may be > assigned either in matchpoints or by > altering the total-point score prior to > matchpointing. > > If you just read the second sentence then a reasonable conclusion is > that TDs can basically give any score they like. This is quoted by the > ACBL [per Chip Martel, Gary Blaiss in private emails] as the legal basis > for giving A+/A- under L12C2. > > But we cannot just take the second sentence and ignore the first. It > is that first sentence that makes ArtASs and weighted scores illegal. > It requires the TD to assign a score to each side. Split scores are > legal: that sentence allows for [and specifically mentions] giving a > different score to each side. David has always been exactly right on this subject. > Personally, I think the second sentence > is an anachronism and should be discarded. > This was the subject of an old thread. I think all it means is that a TD does not have to assign a total-point score and rematchpoint the entire field, but can simply change the matchpoint score of the OS and NOS to accord with what would result from doing that. The latter doesn't seem right, as other pairs' scores would remain affected by an illegal score. In these days of near-universal computer use for scoring, this option (if I read it right) should be eliminated. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 03:09:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:09:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe25.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA06769 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:09:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 15143 invoked by uid 65534); 11 Oct 1999 17:08:59 -0000 Message-ID: <19991011170859.15142.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.113.73] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <000601bf1401$cd93c6c0$29131fc4@ruscourt> Subject: Re: Bid after two non-bids Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:08:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01BF13E1.564CB420" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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_002D_01BF13E1.564CB420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable L27A - an insufficient bid is treated as legal if his LHO calls. LHO = called [later in the auction] so it is treated as legal. L29A- a BOOT is accepted without penalty if his LHO calls. LHO called = so it was accepted. Result stands. Reverse the TD ruling. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message -----=20 From: rusty court=20 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Monday, October 11, 1999 10:50 AM Subject: Bid after two non-bids The following incident (I'm tempted to use a stronger term) took place = at a Zonal championship. I was not there but the hand was brought back to me and I offered to solicit some expert opinion. =20 Board 17. Dealer N. Neither vul. Played with screens. N and E as = screenmates and S and W on the other side. S J 6 H Q 6 4 D A K Q 3 C Q T 6 4 S Q 7 3 2 S K 9 8 5 H A J 9 8 3 2 H K 5 D 7 D T 6 5 4 C 8 2 C A J 3 S A T 4 H T 7 D J 9 8 2 C K 9 7 5 =20 =20 W N E S 1NT P P 1H* ! !! 2NT** 1H =3D Underbid, ! =3D no call, !! = =3D also no call, P 3NT X P 2NT =3D next call. 4H P P X P P P =20 =20 The accuracy is limited to the information I have received. =20 After the 1H underbid, the tray was passed to the North&East side of = the screen and North pushed it back because of the underbid. No indication was given for this return of the tray. Despite the fact that no = further calls had been added, South assumed that it was his turn to bid and bid 2NT. The bidding then continued as shown and the hand was then played and the result was 4HX by West, three down.=20 =20 At no time during the hand was a TD called. I do not know exactly when = a TD was called, but I presume that E\W did so after the hand was = finished The TD, after consultation, decided that the hand was cancelled and = both sides given a 3imp penalty. This ruling was, apparently, not given = reasonably soon after the TD was called, but was made known "later on". An appeal = was lodged by a NPC, I presume it was by the team of the N\S pair, and = apparently the ruling was allowed to stand. =20 I apologise for the fact that I cannot give more detailed information. = This is as much as I have received. =20 Opinions please =20 Rusty Court ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BF13E1.564CB420 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

L27A – an insufficient bid is treated as legal if his LHO = calls. LHO called=20 [later in the auction] so it is treated as legal.

L29A- a BOOT is accepted without penalty if his LHO calls. LHO = called =20 so it was accepted.

Result stands. Reverse the TD ruling.

Roger Pewick
Houston, Texas
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 rusty=20 court
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au=
Sent: Monday, October 11, 1999 = 10:50=20 AM
Subject: Bid after two = non-bids

The following incident (I'm = tempted to use a=20 stronger term) took place at
a Zonal championship. I was not = there but the=20 hand was brought back to
me and I offered to solicit some = expert=20 opinion.
 
Board 17. Dealer N. Neither vul. = Played with=20 screens. N and E as screenmates and S and W on the other = side.
 
          &nbs= p;          =20 S J 6
          &nbs= p;          =20 H Q 6 4
          &nbs= p;          =20 D A K Q 3
          &nbs= p;          =20 C Q T 6 4
S Q 7 3=20 = 2            =              = S K 9 8 5
H A J 9 8 3=20 = 2            =        =20 H K 5
D=20 = 7            =             &= nbsp;        =20 D T 6 5 4
C 8=20 = 2            =             &= nbsp;     =20 C A J 3
          &nbs= p;          =20 S A T 4
          &nbs= p;          =20 H T 7
          &nbs= p;          =20 D J 9 8 2
          &nbs= p;          =20 C K 9 7 = 5           =20
 
W    =20 N      E     = S
      =20 1NT    P     P
1H*    =20 !      !!    =20 2NT**      1H =3D Underbid, ! =3D no call, !! = =3D also no=20 call,
 P    =20 3NT   X    =20 P            = 2NT =3D next=20 call.
4H    =20 P      P    X
 P     =20 P      P  
 
The accuracy is limited to the = information I=20 have received.
 
After the 1H underbid, the tray = was passed to=20 the North&East side of the
screen and North pushed it back = because of the=20 underbid. No indication
was given for this return of the = tray. Despite=20 the fact that no further calls
had been = added,=20 South assumed that it was his turn to bid=20 and bid 2NT.
The bidding then continued as = shown and the=20 hand was then played and
the result=20 was 4HX by West, three down.
 
At no time during the hand was a = TD called. I=20 do not know exactly when a
TD  was called, but I presume = that E\W=20 did so after the hand was finished
The TD, after consultation, = decided that the=20 hand was cancelled and both
sides given a 3imp penalty. This = ruling was,=20 apparently, not given reasonably
soon after the TD was called, but = was made=20 known "later on". An appeal was
lodged by a NPC, I presume it was = by the team=20 of the N\S pair, and apparently the ruling was allowed to = stand.
 
I apologise for the fact that I = cannot give=20 more detailed information. This is as
much as I have = received.
 
Opinions please
 
Rusty = Court
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BF13E1.564CB420-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 03:32:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:32:11 +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 DAA06830 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:32:03 +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 MAA28442 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:34:16 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991011123226.007b96b0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:32:26 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: A Multi Case In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991010234130.012d0f84@pop.mindspring.com> References: <000b01bf131b$299f1740$1c5eac3e@davidburn> <026301bf12f8$19c39260$ea60868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:41 PM 10/10/99 -0400, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Although it is probably not relevant to your question, the current ACBL >position is that Q-bids need not be alerted in general. (Unless it's >changed again, in which case it is not that at all, but something else.) Sorry, Mike. The ACBL rule [Unless it's changed again :)] is that a cue-bid is to be alerted if it's _natural_, and not otherwise {except highly unusual meanings}! {See Marvin's alert guidelines, also available on DWS' site.} Good thing the David's don't play regularly in ACBL-land, where natural is alertable and artificial isn't! [Fortunately, this is one thing I discuss explicitly with _all_ partners, since I'm one of the handful that treats a (minor-suit) "cue-bid" as natural.] {BTW, I _like_ this rule, FWIW, since I know several opponents who have told me they would have assumed the bid was Michaels if not for the alert.} > >Mike Dennis -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 03:50:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:50:47 +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 DAA06872 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:50:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.252.9] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11ajaf-0004hX-00; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:50:29 +0100 Message-ID: <000501bf1410$fa432580$09fcabc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <199910111524.IAA32020@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:49:32 +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 Adam wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > > Marvin wrote: > > > > > (2) Subjunctive mood ("had been") instead of indicative ("was"). > > There > > > is a common but erroneous belief that "if" must be followed by the > > > subjunctive, which is not true if the stated condition is not > > "contrary > > > to fact." Perhaps the author did not intend the subjunctive, but > > that's > > > what he wrote. > > > > That "had" is not the subjunctive, Marvin. It's the pluperfect. > > Well, I'm one of those colonists, so I may not be fully qualified to > participate in this thread. To make things worse, I'm a native of > California, which was a colony not of Britain but of Spain, so perhaps > that makes me even less qualified to speak with authority on the > English language, although I assure you I have no understanding of > Spanish grammar either, except when it parallels Italian grammar, of > which I have some understanding due to a college course. Having said > that: > > I believe Marvin is right here. "Pluperfect" is a tense, while > "subjunctive" is not a tense, but a mood; the pluperfect tense is > often used to denote a subjunctive mood. Or something like that. In > the sentence, "If East had given South the correct information about > their agreements, South would not have played the hand that way", the > first clause is both a pluperfect and a subjunctive, or a pluperfect > being used to denote a subjunctive. No - it's the perfect subjunctive. "East gave [or "has given"] South the correct information" is the perfect indicative; "if East had given South the correct information" is the perfect subjunctive. The trouble is that the form of the subjunctive - "I wish I had more money" - is very close to the form of the pluperfect - "The boards had been dealt in another session". Marvin is quite right in that "if" is not followed by the subjunctive when introducing a clause that is not contrary to fact. Neither Grattan Endicott nor Edgar Kaplan would ever commit such a solecism, and they did not do so in writing Law 6. But the pluperfect tense is never "used to denote a subjunctive mood" - it cannot be so used. Often, one needs to resort to some kind of emphasis to denote the fact that a condition, expressed in the past tense, is indeed contrary to fact - "If the board really had been dealt in another session, the result would not stand (but it wasn't, so the result is OK)". Similar difficulties occur with the use of the word "were", which may be indicative in the plural and subjunctive in both plural and singular. "If the boards were dealt in another session" would not be a satisfactory clause because of this ambiguity. > Bonus points to anyone who can tell us what verb tense "having said > that" is. "Having said" is a past participle. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 03:58:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:58:10 +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 DAA06894 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:58:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt096nfb.san.rr.com [24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA25146 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01d701bf1412$1e256fc0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <00d601bf12a2$d57b6920$09ccf1c3@default> <019a01bf1336$dec24aa0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <007601bf1365$1fe529c0$623aac3e@davidburn> Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:57:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote; > Marvin wrote: > > > (2) Subjunctive mood ("had been") instead of indicative ("was"). > > There is a common but erroneous belief that "if" must be followed by the > > subjunctive, which is not true if the stated condition is not > > "contrary to fact." Perhaps the author did not intend the subjunctive, but > > that's what he wrote. > > That "had" is not the subjunctive, Marvin. It's the pluperfect. Subjunctive is mood, pluperfect is tense. Apples and oranges. "The deal had been played..." is the pluperfect, also known as the past perfect, indicative mood. "If the deal had been played..." is the past perfect, subjunctive mood, which has the same form as the indicative past perfect and hence is easily confused with it. This use of the subjunctive expresses a condition contrary to fact (i.e., it did not happen), so the indicative mood (but in this case simple past tense, aka imperfect) must be used for a condition that expresses a possible fact: "If the deal was played..." I believe a possible alternative: "If the deal has been played" is not appropriate, as the present perfect tense (strictly speaking) indicates an action that began in the past but extends up to or into the present moment of speaking. For an action that is definitely separated in time from the present moment of speaking, the past tense should be used. Besides, it takes fewer words. Marv (Marvin L. French) With thanks to Mother Mary Clement, Sisters of the Holy Child From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 04:38:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 04:38:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA07021 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 04:37:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt096nfb.san.rr.com [24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA12265 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <021d01bf1417$b040bfe0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <0PH8vZAuiSA4Ew+E@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:31:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: John (MadDog) Probst > I just assumed it was Grattan using the British English subjunctive > correctly. This is wasted on Americans as they don't have a subjunctive > that I've ever noticed. The subjunctive is dying out, especially in the U.S., where uses formerly natural but falling into disuse give "a pretentious flavour to their context" (H. W. Fowler). > Conditional clauses take subjunctive mood. Only if the condition is contrary to fact, John. "If I were king...," contrary to fact, subjunctive (present tense, by the way) "If I am king...," possible fact, indicative. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 04:44:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 04:44:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA07039 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 04:44:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02315; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:44:01 -0700 Message-Id: <199910111844.LAA02315@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:49:32 PDT." <000501bf1410$fa432580$09fcabc3@davidburn> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:44:01 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > No - it's the perfect subjunctive. "East gave [or "has given"] South > the correct information" is the perfect indicative; "if East had given > South the correct information" is the perfect subjunctive. The trouble > is that the form of the subjunctive - "I wish I had more money" - is > very close to the form of the pluperfect - "The boards had been dealt > in another session". . . . Wow, now I'll have to go home and look this up. Frankly, I wasn't even aware that there was such a thing as a perfect subjunctive. It saddens me to think that all the subjunctives I've been using up until now have been less than perfect. But in my defense, my knowledge of English grammar has been put together piecemeal from foreign-language courses and from reading my parents' old textbooks. This kind of in-depth grammar wasn't taught in English classes when I went to school in the 1960's and 70's. Heaven only knows what they're teaching in America's English classes in the 1990's. Probably that correct grammar is oppressive of minorities and destroys the rain forests, and that it's more important to study the relative merits of Ebonics and the definition of "is" in Clintononics than it is to learn the definition of "subjunctive" or "verb" or whatever. I'm beginning to believe that we got started on this slippery slope when we took perfectly fine words like "colour" and forcibly removed all the U's and threw them into Boston Harbor, where they now sit on the bottom next to several boxes of tea. I'm beginning to think the whole thing was a mistake (not the whole American Revolution, just the thing with the U's), and that we Americans, to send a message that some of us do care about correctness of language usage, should start putting the U's back into the words, just as soon as---to bring this discussion back to something vaguely related to bridge---we figure out why there's no U in "major" or "minor". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 06:47:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:47:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA07366 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:47:31 +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 QAA11811 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:47:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:47:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199910112047.QAA20365@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: The merry-go-round rule at Malta Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This hand is from the Malta appeals at http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/99etcap3.html In Malta Appeal #33, North claimed damage based on the fact that he opened 3D not knowing that E-W were playing Fishbein, and would have passed if he had known. (East then doubled and collected 800). Does North have any claim for damage here? There is a problem in basing your agreements on calls not yet made. (On r.g.b., this has become called the merry-go-round rule; if E/W play Fishbein against light preempts takeout doubles against sound preempts, and N/S play sound preempts against Fishbein and light preempts against takeout doubles, what happens? The consensus that the side to bid frirst must set its agreements first, but does that apply to non-system decisions such as this one?) -- 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 Tue Oct 12 07:24:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:24:47 +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 HAA07409 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:24:40 +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 OAA04978; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:24:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199910112124.OAA04978@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: The merry-go-round rule at Malta In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:47:19 PDT." <199910112047.QAA20365@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:24:01 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > This hand is from the Malta appeals at > > http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/99etcap3.html > > In Malta Appeal #33, North claimed damage based on the fact that he > opened 3D not knowing that E-W were playing Fishbein, and would have > passed if he had known. (East then doubled and collected 800). > > Does North have any claim for damage here? There is a problem in basing > your agreements on calls not yet made. (On r.g.b., this has become > called the merry-go-round rule; if E/W play Fishbein against light > preempts takeout doubles against sound preempts, and N/S play sound > preempts against Fishbein and light preempts against takeout doubles, > what happens? The consensus that the side to bid frirst must set its > agreements first, but does that apply to non-system decisions such as > this one?) I believe that if (1) E-W were required to disclose, before the hand, that they were playing Fishbein (e.g. on their convention card); (2) E-W did not disclose this properly; (3) North would not have opened 3D if he had had the proper information; then yes, North was damaged. I understand the merry-go-round problem, but that's irrelevant here because there was no merry-go-round situation. As far as I know, players are entitled to use judgment in selecting a call, and they're entitled to base this judgment based on the meanings of opponents' future calls. I know that there are some on r.g.b and possibly BLML who believe that players are *not* entitled to base their judgment on the meanings of the opponent's subsequent possible calls, but there's no basis in the Laws for this. I believe Jeff Rubens agrees with this, by the way. In a recent _Bridge World_ editorial (sorry, I'm not at home so I don't know which issue), he discussed a case where he felt that South was damaged because he didn't know enough about E-W's system, and South might have taken a different action over East's 1NT opener if he had had the correct information. This all gets tricky because somebody needs to decide just how much information about system needs to be disclosed beforehand. We have enough arguments about whether players properly disclose information about the calls they've already made, let alone about all the possible calls they may make at some point in the future. That's why I believe condition (1) is necessary. Here, it appears that there was a place on the convention card for this information. The case appears to be a question of whether E-W disclosed the information properly. The case turns on procedural matters which are beside the point of David's question. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 07:49:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:49:24 +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 HAA07454 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:49:15 +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 RAA01856 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:50:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991011175028.006e7564@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:50:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner In-Reply-To: References: <199910072228.SAA00638@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:57 PM 10/8/99 +0200, Jesper wrote: >I understand that the WBFLC has issued an interpretation in this >specific case, saying that defenders must not call attention to >partner's wrongly turned card. However, that is not what the >laws say, and the WBFLC did not choose to put it into the law >book in 1997, which might be taken as an indication that they had >regretted that interpretation. (I do not know when this >interpretation was given by the WBFLC; I assume it is before the >1997 laws, since I would probably have heard of it before if it >was new.) > >I agree with David that a law to forbid calling attention to >partner's wrongly turned card in all cases would be simple and >its application would only extremely rarely be a problem in >practice. > >I do not agree that it is a good idea: I would prefer the just as >simple rule that everybody can call attention to it - or even >that everybody has a duty to do so. But I certainly see that >David's point of view also makes sense, and my primary desire in >this matter is to get consistency between the law book and >practice - which IMO requires changing one of them. I agree with Jesper on this. Let's keep it simple and easy: violation of L65B is an irregularity, and as such it is subject to L9. If one is worried about the possibility that a sharp (and not entirely ethical) opponent may be able to affect the play to his advantage by a carefully timed remark to his partner that he has a trick turned wrong, the solution is to point it out oneself as soon as it happens. Indeed, I wouldn't at all mind seeing L9 strengthened to the effect that a player who becomes aware of an irregularity not "may" but "should" call attention to it immediately. That would make such a "sharp practice" illegal, which is the best we can hope for -- as we keep saying, the laws do not and cannot prevent outright cheating. To be practical, such an approach would necessitate making an exception to L9B1(a) for purely "mechanical" irregularities which can be rectified with no further effect or penalty (such as a misturned trick), but that's probably not a bad idea in any case. 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 Oct 12 08:27:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:27:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07491 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:27:48 +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 SAA04028 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:28:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991011182902.006eb2ec@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:29:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Protection racket. In-Reply-To: <7NoVntB5hh$3Ewq7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:14 PM 10/8/99 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>Because "discount" is not the same as "ignore". Self-serving statements >>are still evidence, but carry significantly less weight than other >>evidence. In practice, they tend to be ignored unless there is at least >>some hint of corroboration. > > I really think that if self-serving statements tend to be ignored >without corroboration then it is extremely unfortunate. What that means >in English is that if you say something that might be to your benefit >then I shall assume you are lying *even if there is no other evidence >you are lying* unless there is some other evidence in your favour. > > I do not like it one little bit: it is not an acceptable approach. Let me make it clear that I do sympathize with David's position -- I was merely citing my understanding of current ACBL policy, not trying to defend it. But I understand where they're coming from. The alternative is to do as David suggests: take such statements at face value unless there is other evidence to suggest that you are not being truthful. Then people complain that the bad guys can get away with just about anything; it is one person's word against another's, and the presumptive (in their opinion) "offenders" are the ones who get the ruling to go in their favor. In the current issue of "Bridge Today", Danny Roth writes: "Personally, I would have had no hesitation in claimng a foul but I must admit that my experience of these all-too-common situations is that the offender blows up and the older and/or more experienced he is, the worse his behavior, vehemently denying the [infraction] and being furious that his ethics are being questioned. The director is faced with a two-against-two argument over the facts and what is he to do? "In practice, I find directors tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the offenders and let the victims suffer. I would always side with the prosecution in these cases, protecting the victims and letting the offenders suffer! If [there had been no infraction], the declarer would have no reason to call the director..." [FTR, Mr. Roth is a respected member of the ACBL community, not some kind of crackpot.] It is sad that bridge has come to this, but this is what the ACBL has been hearing, and what it is trying to "cure". But the result, as David so clearly grasps, is an effective presumption of guilt in such situations, and I don't like it much more than he does. After all, "he did it" is just as self-serving a statement as "no I didn't", and with no additional evidence either way, what is a poor adjudicator to do? Back in the old days, TDs and ACs assumed, when there was no evidence either way other than such "self-serving statements", that players were honestly describing their own state of mind and motivations. Yes, the bad guys got away with doing bad things, but only at the cost of their reputations. These days, though, this doesn't happen; ACBL policy is that accusing someone of cheating, even privately in the company of one's friends, is an offense at least as grievous as cheating itself. If you were unjustly accused, the best defense was to have earned a reputation as an ethical player who would never cheat, so that your accuser would be laughed at (we all knew then that the fastest to accuse others of being unethical are those whose own ethics were the most questionable), rather than, as now, to file a Zero Tolerance claim. In other words, TDs and ACs worried about applying the rules, and left it to the players to police the ethics of the game. I guess in today's litigious world that just doesn't wash. 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 Oct 12 08:50:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:50:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07514 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:49:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt096nfb.san.rr.com [24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA29120 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <027001bf143a$e3870a80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <199910111524.IAA32020@mailhub.irvine.com> <000501bf1410$fa432580$09fcabc3@davidburn> Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:46:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > No - it's the perfect subjunctive. "East gave [or "has given"] South > the correct information" is the perfect indicative; "if East had given > South the correct information" is the perfect subjunctive. The trouble > is that the form of the subjunctive - "I wish I had more money" - is > very close to the form of the pluperfect - "The boards had been dealt > in another session". Marvin is quite right in that "if" is not > followed by the subjunctive when introducing a clause that is not > contrary to fact. Neither Grattan Endicott nor Edgar Kaplan would ever > commit such a solecism, and they did not do so in writing Law 6. > > But the pluperfect tense is never "used to denote a subjunctive > mood" - it cannot be so used. Often, one needs to resort to some kind > of emphasis to denote the fact that a condition, expressed in the past > tense, is indeed contrary to fact - "If the board really had been > dealt in another session, the result would not stand (but it wasn't, > so the result is OK)". The tenses of the subjunctive mood are (or were, when I was in the Eighth Grade at St. Ignatius): Present: If I take... Past: If I took... Present Perfect: If I have taken... Past Perfect (aka Pluperfect): If I had taken... >Similar difficulties occur with the use of the > word "were", which may be indicative in the plural and subjunctive in > both plural and singular. But always past tense in the indicative and always present tense in the subjunctive, so the context should make the meaning clear. >"If the boards were dealt in another > session" would not be a satisfactory clause because of this ambiguity. The ambiguity of this example is due to the lack of an apodosis (conclusion). In the present subjunctive sense a "would be" (or equivalent) apodosis must accompany the protasis (if...). In the past indicative sense, a straightforward statement accompanies it. That resolves any ambiguity. Let's look at the Law in question: L6D2. No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck or if the deal had previously been played in a different session. The use of present tense ("are dealt") for a preceding action is just plain wrong. Since there is no accompanying "would...," the second clause is indeed (gulp!) indicative, not subjunctive. It just doesn't read well. Looking more closely, I think that is perhaps because of the redundant "previously," which could be crossed out. Still don't like it. My version: L6D2. No result may stand if the cards were dealt without shuffle from a sorted pack or if the deal was previously played in a different session. Where is the ambiguity? "Were" has to be past tense, indicative, in the absence of a "would be" apodosis. "Was" is not used in the subjunctive mood, so the second clause is also clear. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 08:57:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:57:40 +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 IAA07548 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:57:33 +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 PAA06418; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:56:51 -0700 Message-Id: <199910112256.PAA06418@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Protection racket. In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:29:02 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19991011182902.006eb2ec@pop.cais.com> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:56:52 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > Back in the old days, TDs and ACs assumed, when there was no evidence > either way other than such "self-serving statements", that players were > honestly describing their own state of mind and motivations. Yes, the bad > guys got away with doing bad things, but only at the cost of their > reputations. These days, though, this doesn't happen; ACBL policy is that > accusing someone of cheating, even privately in the company of one's > friends, is an offense at least as grievous as cheating itself. If you > were unjustly accused, the best defense was to have earned a reputation as > an ethical player who would never cheat, so that your accuser would be > laughed at (we all knew then that the fastest to accuse others of being > unethical are those whose own ethics were the most questionable), rather > than, as now, to file a Zero Tolerance claim. In other words, TDs and ACs > worried about applying the rules, and left it to the players to police the > ethics of the game. I guess in today's litigious world that just doesn't > wash. Would recorder forms help with the situation? It would allow someone to file a form saying "they think something is fishy" without making a public accusation of cheating. But I don't know if this would improve things any. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 10:00:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:00:41 +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 KAA07649 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:00:29 +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 11apMW-000EaP-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:00:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:17:52 +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> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991008125752.007ab6c0@eiu.edu> <3801AAD9.779C60DF@omicron.comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <3801AAD9.779C60DF@omicron.comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >> A player in soccer [or, in Europe, football] tries to kick >> the ball, but accidentally trips an opponent. The referee, seeing >> the case from the outside, judges it to have been intentional and >> cards the player. The player _in fact_ met his legal obligations >> not to intentionally trip an opposing player, but the referee still >> [rightly, given _his_ evidence] rules against him. > > You are wrong. The fact whether the kick was malicious >and intentional or purely accidental _does not matter_ in soccer. >The referee does not judge the player's intentions but the facts. Sorry, this is definitely wrong. Intentional kicking of an opponent is a specific offence in soccer, and is a more serious one than dangerous play, which may be unintentional. Not only do I remember this from many years ago, but it was confirmed about eighteen months ago on RGB by a practising soccer referee when someone else tried to make this point. >If you committed a dangerous foul you get carded no matter how >noble your intentions were. Dangerous play merits an indirect free-kick and no caution. It takes more than that to get carded. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 12 10:00:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:00:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07652 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:00:32 +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 11apMb-000A2S-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:00:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:15:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Multi Case References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Aavo Heinlo wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>KJ9xxx >> QTx >> xx >> xx > >>2D X P ? What do you bid? > >RDBL, pass with reversed red suit and 2S with QTx in clubs. Exactly: because of your agreements. Now, are you prepared to pass if your agreement with partner is "Pass means that I have any hand and am asking you to describe yours"? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 12 10:00:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:00:40 +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 KAA07648 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:00:28 +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 11apMW-000EaQ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:00:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:19:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Hesitation References: <199910081739.KAA07339@mailhub.irvine.com> <000701bf11c6$4e065d60$4b5fac3e@davidburn> <00fa01bf12f5$bb4c71e0$97fbabc3@davidburn> <000701bf135a$ade03680$623aac3e@davidburn> <001b01bf13bc$06ef7900$99648cd4@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001b01bf13bc$06ef7900$99648cd4@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: >> David Burn wrote: >> >If what you are telling me is that this cannot legally be done, >then >> >we have a serious problem indeed, for it is routinely done by ACs >in >> >England, and I have seen it done by ACs in other jurisdictions. >> If you had not snipped my last paragraph you might have noticed >that >> it says it is legal and explains how. >Last paragraph hereby reinstated: >> But we cannot just take the second sentence and ignore the first. >It >> is that first sentence that makes ArtASs and weighted scores >illegal. >> It requires the TD to assign a score to each side. Split scores are >> legal: that sentence allows for [and specifically mentions] giving a >> different score to each side. Personally, I think the second >sentence >> is an anachronism and should be discarded. > >Now, where does this tell me that "half of 420 and half of 450" is >legal? Nowhere - but that was the penultimate paragraph. The last paragraph said: Moving on to your comments about L93B3 it does say that an AC can do whatever a TD can. However, it does not say this is the only thing an AC can do, and L12C3 give ACs an additional right. The decisions taken in Lausanne suggest that this right may be extended to Chief TDs [DICs]. Before 1987 [?] TDs apparently had that right anyway, though this was only followed in a few parts of the world, England being one of them. Perhaps I could have written it clearer, but it definitely was in the posting! It would be clearer if I had said "... give ACs an additional right, namely to amend an assigned score. The decisions ..." -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 12 10:22:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:22:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07718 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:22:26 +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 11aphn-0004Jm-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:22:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:10:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language In-Reply-To: <021d01bf1417$b040bfe0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <021d01bf1417$b040bfe0$fb095e18@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes > >From: John (MadDog) Probst > >> I just assumed it was Grattan using the British English subjunctive >> correctly. This is wasted on Americans as they don't have a >subjunctive >> that I've ever noticed. > >The subjunctive is dying out, especially in the U.S., where uses >formerly natural but falling into disuse give "a pretentious flavour to >their context" (H. W. Fowler). > >> Conditional clauses take subjunctive mood. > >Only if the condition is contrary to fact, John. > >"If I were king...," contrary to fact, subjunctive (present tense, by >the way) > >"If I am king...," possible fact, indicative. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) agree with both the above but ... so: player says to TD "If I were TD, I would adjust" for example but player called to table to make an ad hoc ruling in loco TD says to player "If I am TD, I adjust" thereby assuming the role so to speak. But IMO he can also say "I adjust" having made that assumption. Your second usage is not really conditional, rather it is rhetorical and would therefore not take subjunctive mood. If I am writing this reply, I am correct ?? 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 Oct 12 10:22:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:22:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07719 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:22:26 +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 11aphn-0006MK-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:22:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:01:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Protection racket. In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991011182902.006eb2ec@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19991011182902.006eb2ec@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes snip > [FTR, Mr. Roth is a respected >member of the ACBL community, not some kind of crackpot.] > you mean ACBL has a Danny Roth too? The EBU's one definitely does not fit this description. :)) 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 Oct 12 11:15:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:15:58 +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 LAA07855 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:15:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.172.58.132] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11aqXS-000398-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 02:15:39 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01bf144f$295261e0$843aac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <199910111524.IAA32020@mailhub.irvine.com> <000501bf1410$fa432580$09fcabc3@davidburn> <027001bf143a$e3870a80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 02:14:40 +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 The problem in question has, in truth, nothing to do with tenses, moods or other grammatical constructs. Adam and Marvin have made fascinating contributions to a discussion of syntax that has no connection at all with the Laws of bridge, and I am happy to continue that discussion off-line. I should point out, though, that I expect to lose. Against the eight grade at St Ignatius, no mere MA (Cantab) should hope to strive. For the moment, let it suffice to say that the word "if" has [at least] two distinct meanings in English. Roughly speaking, those meanings are: "supposing that" and "when[ever]". The former meaning requires a subjunctive verb, the latter does not (I am over-simplifying vastly, but adequately for present purposes). In the context of Law 6, the latter meaning is obviously intended, and would be clearer if the Law were to read: "No result may stand whenever the cards are dealt without shuffle..., or whenever the deal has [or "had"] previously been played...". Since "whenever" invariably takes the indicative, the difficulty involved in the use of an inflection that may be a pluperfect indicative or a subjuctive of varying tense will disappear. And if that makes you happy, kid, You'll be the first it ever did. (Dorothy Parker) David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 11:30:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:30:50 +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 LAA07872 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:30:38 +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 11aqll-0007Eh-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:30:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:49:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner References: <199910072228.SAA00638@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991011175028.006e7564@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991011175028.006e7564@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:57 PM 10/8/99 +0200, Jesper wrote: > >>I understand that the WBFLC has issued an interpretation in this >>specific case, saying that defenders must not call attention to >>partner's wrongly turned card. However, that is not what the >>laws say, and the WBFLC did not choose to put it into the law >>book in 1997, which might be taken as an indication that they had >>regretted that interpretation. (I do not know when this >>interpretation was given by the WBFLC; I assume it is before the >>1997 laws, since I would probably have heard of it before if it >>was new.) >> >>I agree with David that a law to forbid calling attention to >>partner's wrongly turned card in all cases would be simple and >>its application would only extremely rarely be a problem in >>practice. >> >>I do not agree that it is a good idea: I would prefer the just as >>simple rule that everybody can call attention to it - or even >>that everybody has a duty to do so. But I certainly see that >>David's point of view also makes sense, and my primary desire in >>this matter is to get consistency between the law book and >>practice - which IMO requires changing one of them. > >I agree with Jesper on this. Let's keep it simple and easy: violation of >L65B is an irregularity, and as such it is subject to L9. If one is >worried about the possibility that a sharp (and not entirely ethical) >opponent may be able to affect the play to his advantage by a carefully >timed remark to his partner that he has a trick turned wrong, the solution >is to point it out oneself as soon as it happens. > >Indeed, I wouldn't at all mind seeing L9 strengthened to the effect that a >player who becomes aware of an irregularity not "may" but "should" call >attention to it immediately. Perhaps you might consider "or not all", ie give a limit? An example from this evening. Partner plays 2S on what I know is a combined 17 HCP at most. In the middle of the play LHO leads a heart. RHO ruffs and returns a heart [this is known as a cross-ruff] which LHO ruffs. Partner over-ruffs and makes 2S. Partner and I were quite happy with our eight tricks - why should we upset our opponents? > That would make such a "sharp practice" >illegal, which is the best we can hope for -- as we keep saying, the laws >do not and cannot prevent outright cheating. To be practical, such an >approach would necessitate making an exception to L9B1(a) for purely >"mechanical" irregularities which can be rectified with no further effect >or penalty (such as a misturned trick), but that's probably not a bad idea >in any 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 Oct 12 11:30:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:30:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07871 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:30:38 +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 11aqll-0007Eg-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:30:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:43:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Protection racket. References: <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> <01bf0f97$85a49f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19991006090823.007180c8@pop.cais.com> <7NoVntB5hh$3Ewq7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991011182902.006eb2ec@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991011182902.006eb2ec@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 05:14 PM 10/8/99 +0100, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>Because "discount" is not the same as "ignore". Self-serving statements >>>are still evidence, but carry significantly less weight than other >>>evidence. In practice, they tend to be ignored unless there is at least >>>some hint of corroboration. >> >> I really think that if self-serving statements tend to be ignored >>without corroboration then it is extremely unfortunate. What that means >>in English is that if you say something that might be to your benefit >>then I shall assume you are lying *even if there is no other evidence >>you are lying* unless there is some other evidence in your favour. >> >> I do not like it one little bit: it is not an acceptable approach. > >Let me make it clear that I do sympathize with David's position -- I was >merely citing my understanding of current ACBL policy, not trying to defend >it. > >But I understand where they're coming from. The alternative is to do as >David suggests: take such statements at face value unless there is other >evidence to suggest that you are not being truthful. I am not suggesting this either. What I suggest is that the TD or AC assesses all the evidence with no pre-conceived notion of excluding any part of it, and assigns such weight to the evidence as they see fit. > Then people complain >that the bad guys can get away with just about anything; it is one person's >word against another's, and the presumptive (in their opinion) "offenders" >are the ones who get the ruling to go in their favor. In the current issue >of "Bridge Today", Danny Roth writes: > >"Personally, I would have had no hesitation in claimng a foul but I must >admit that my experience of these all-too-common situations is that the >offender blows up and the older and/or more experienced he is, the worse >his behavior, vehemently denying the [infraction] and being furious that >his ethics are being questioned. The director is faced with a >two-against-two argument over the facts and what is he to do? If you assume that you can find out what is going on then you can usually do so. It is the basic presumption that you cannot find out what is going on because everyone lies that I question. When I run into a two-v-two situation I am rarely in doubt as to what happened - and I don't decide by discounting self-serving statements completely. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 12 12:05:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:05:32 +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 MAA07936 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:05:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.172.58.132] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11arJT-0002CE-00; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:05:15 +0100 Message-ID: <005a01bf1456$17668180$843aac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <199910081739.KAA07339@mailhub.irvine.com><000701bf11c6$4e065d60$4b5fac3e@davidburn><00fa01bf12f5$bb4c71e0$97fbabc3@davidburn><000701bf135a$ade03680$623aac3e@davidburn><001b01bf13bc$06ef7900$99648cd4@davidburn> Subject: Re: A Hesitation Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:04:16 +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 DWS wrote: > The last paragraph said: > Moving on to your comments about L93B3 it does say that an AC can do > whatever a TD can. However, it does not say this is the only thing an > AC can do, and L12C3 give ACs an additional right. The decisions taken > in Lausanne suggest that this right may be extended to Chief TDs [DICs]. > Before 1987 [?] TDs apparently had that right anyway, though this was > only followed in a few parts of the world, England being one of them. I wrote in jest when I wrote recently that a vast semantic debate might ensue about whether a Law that explicitly said "X may do Y" carried the implicit meaning that X may do Y, but X may not do not-Y. I ought to have known that my words would come back to haunt me. You state blithely (well, not "blithely", for "blithe" is a word that no one who knew you would associate with you, but you state it anyway) that "L12C3 give [the "s" is understood by me, but Marvin might think it's a subjunctive] ACs an additional right". The right it gives them is to "vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity". Well, if I were to "vary an assigned adjusted score", I would change it into something that was still an assigned adjusted score, albeit a different one. It would not occur to me for a moment that I had the power to change it into something that was not, and could never be, an assigned adjusted score. Except, of course, that I dimly perceive that I have this power, and I use it whenever I can. Have any of you read the latest "Bridge World"? David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 22:00:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:00:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08887 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:59:56 +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 IAA07178 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:00:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991012080106.006e6014@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:01:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991008225416.012cebc8@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.6.32.19991008125752.007ab6c0@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:54 PM 10/8/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >The alternative approach of refusing to consider a hedged explanation as MI >has a real down-side: it encourages players to hedge their explanations >even when completely confident of their agreements. DWS seems to have a >greater faith in the integrity of his fellow-bridge players than I do, and >is fairly dismissive of this risk. But the truth is that we have Laws in >some part because many players cannot be trusted to play honorably in their >absence. The practice of hedging your explanations even when you are sure >is certainly unethical and probably illegal, but 1) it may also be >"technically" legal, since nobody can ever really be sure of anything and >2) at any rate, you are virtually certain not to be penalized for it. When >the application of the Laws effectively encourages bad behavior, it is time >to question that particular interpretation. The other side of the coin, however, is that if we take Herman's position, we encourage players *not* to hedge, which means that the BLs will refuse to say more than "no agreement" when in fact they have a pretty good idea of what partner's call means but aren't sure. Either way, we give the BLs a reason not to be completely forthcoming. >BTW, I consider Steve's prototype explanation in the face of uncertainty to >be an excellent model, and one which would, IMO, protect you against a >charge of MI. The canonical form, I believe is "These are the agreements we >do have which might be potentially relevant to this sequence, although we >have no specific agreement about how or whether those agreements extend to >this particular situation." So long as you have correctly described those >facts, it seems to me that you cannot be guilty of MI. I agree. As I've said before, you don't just say "but I'm not sure"; you simply give the opponents the same facts you will use in coming to your own conclusion as to the meaning of partner's call. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 22:51:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:51:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09076 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:42:27 +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 OAA03520 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:44:00 +0200 Message-ID: <38032CA1.8759A90E@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:42:09 +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: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991008125752.007ab6c0@eiu.edu> <3801AAD9.779C60DF@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> > >> A player in soccer [or, in Europe, football] tries to kick > >> the ball, but accidentally trips an opponent. The referee, seeing > >> the case from the outside, judges it to have been intentional and > >> cards the player. The player _in fact_ met his legal obligations > >> not to intentionally trip an opposing player, but the referee still > >> [rightly, given _his_ evidence] rules against him. > > > > You are wrong. The fact whether the kick was malicious > >and intentional or purely accidental _does not matter_ in soccer. > >The referee does not judge the player's intentions but the facts. > > Sorry, this is definitely wrong. Intentional kicking of an opponent > is a specific offence in soccer, and is a more serious one than > dangerous play, which may be unintentional. > OK. I didn't make myself clear enough - my fault. Intentional kick is treated more seriously than unintentional - no doubt about it. What I meant was that a player who commits a foul unintentionally _does not_ meet his legal obligations - contrary to what Grant Sterling claims. Same thing in bridge - if you revoke you violate the Law even when this is purely accidental. And, of course, intentional revoking is punished more severely - it is one of the most serious infractions that can be committed in bridge. ********************************************************************** - 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 Oct 12 23:02:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:02:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA09131 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:01:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-17-104.inter.net.il [213.8.17.104]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01591; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:01:25 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3803312C.476808D2@zahav.net.il> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:01:32 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" CC: dhh@internet-zahav.net Subject: Troubles with my provider Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There was a big trouble with my provider and his subsidiary.... They couldn't recognize the address including a "-" ..so I didn't receive any e-mail from 9.10 until 12.10 .... I believe that all the authors had received an automatic answer about "no sent" or likely. I"ll be very thankfully if you"ll be so kind to send me again the messages you sent this period. Thankfully Dany From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 23:04:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:04:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA09145 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:04:12 +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 JAA13315 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:04:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991012090520.006d3920@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:05:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Protection racket. In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991011182902.006eb2ec@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:01 AM 10/12/99 +0100, John wrote: >In article <3.0.1.32.19991011182902.006eb2ec@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau > writes > >> [FTR, Mr. Roth is a respected >>member of the ACBL community, not some kind of crackpot.] > >you mean ACBL has a Danny Roth too? The EBU's one definitely does not >fit this description. :)) chs john I was under the impression that the Danny Roth who writes for Bridge Today was from California, but I do not know him personally, and may well have been simply mistaken. Is it only the first part of the description which was mistaken, or the second as well? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 12 23:52:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:52:26 +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 XAA09232 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:52:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-200.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.200]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA29128 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:52:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38031BD9.64666EC2@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:30:33 +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: You place that card wrong partner References: <199910072228.SAA00638@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991011175028.006e7564@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk side point to what : Eric Landau wrote: > > > Indeed, I wouldn't at all mind seeing L9 strengthened to the effect that a > player who becomes aware of an irregularity not "may" but "should" call > attention to it immediately. unworkable and unnecessary. Last saturday, my partner made an insufficient call. I was aparently the only one who noticed, but I kept quiet. When my RHO called, I told the table, but by now the irregularity had been condoned. I don't see anything wrong with that, and if you do, I shall not be honest ever again, and simply say I didn't notice either. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 02:31:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 02:31:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f307.hotmail.com [207.82.251.220]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA09696 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 02:31:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 27098 invoked by uid 0); 12 Oct 1999 16:31:13 -0000 Message-ID: <19991012163113.27097.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:31:13 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: A concrete example on disclosure Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:31:13 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For those of you tired of the disclosure thread, please kill this thread; but I am actually hoping for a reasonable response, as this is a real situation I am faced with all too often, and I think we confused our opponents out of a possible good score last time it came up. Although this doesn't have anything to do with "implicit agreements" (all of this is quite clearly spelled out in our system notes), it is a "how much is 'full disclosure'" question, so (I hope) appropriate. After 1NT(10-12 or 11+-14, depending on the rest of the system)-x, Pd and I play 2C scramble rescues. Essentially: !2C, including p and XX: natural and to play. 2x guarantees 5, but we might bid on KJT9 (though we might pass, too). XX is forcing to 2NT or their doubled contract. 2C: to play unless doubled. Denies all other calls. Could be as short as 1 club (by inference, with a 4=4=4=1). If doubled, opener scrambles with <3 clubs to cheapest 4-card suit, responder pulls with <4. All scrambles are also to play unless doubled, and to play even if doubled with a known 7+card fit. Explaining the 2C bid is difficult because: 1) It takes a minute or so to explain, two or three minutes to re-explain until they understand, and 2) a full explanation requires me to also explain what my future actions will be. What should we do here? Michael (but all the headache is worth it for the look of pained surprise when the auction goes 1NT!-X-XX(no alert)- "aren't you going to alert that?" "No." "Doesn't it show a one-suited rescue (common system in these parts)?" "No." "What does it show then?" "Partner expects to collect no less than +560 on this board."). ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 03:01:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:01:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f316.hotmail.com [207.82.250.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA09779 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:01:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 9814 invoked by uid 0); 12 Oct 1999 16:00:46 -0000 Message-ID: <19991012160046.9812.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:00:46 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bid after two non-bids Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:00:46 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "rusty court" >The following incident (I'm tempted to use a stronger term) took fabulous-up? (g, d, + r) >place at a Zonal championship. I was not there but the hand was >brought >back to me and I offered to solicit some expert opinion. > I ain't no expert (neither in e'glish or directing), but I'll try. >Board 17. Dealer N. Neither vul. Played with screens. N and E as >screenmates and S and W on the other side. > > S J 6 > H Q 6 4 > D A K Q 3 > C Q T 6 4 >S Q 7 3 2 S K 9 8 5 >H A J 9 8 3 2 H K 5 >D 7 D T 6 5 4 >C 8 2 C A J 3 > S A T 4 > H T 7 > D J 9 8 2 > C K 9 7 5 > >W N E S > 1NT P P >1H* ! !! 2NT** 1H = Underbid, !, !! = no call, >P 3NT X P 2NT = next call. >4H P P X >P P P > >The accuracy is limited to the information I have received. > >After the 1H underbid, the tray was passed to the North&East side of >the >screen and North pushed it back because of the underbid. No >indication was >given for this return of the tray. Despite the fact >that no further calls >had been added, South assumed that it was his >turn to bid and bid 2NT. >the result was 4HX by West, three down. > >At no time during the hand was a TD called. [snip] [Result: TD - cancel hand, -3imps to both, "later on". AC - ruling stands ] >I apologise for the fact that I cannot give more detailed >information. >This is as much as I have received. First off, I am of the opinion that N pushing the tray back is "not accepting" the insufficient bid (N could have called the TD, or just called over it if e wished to condone it. Unlike a non-screen environment, N has to do something positive no matter what e does). But ICBW, especially not having the screen regulations for the event available. Having said that, L27B kicks in. 1H is cancelled, and it's West's turn to bid. S calls OOT. L31B, footnote leads us to TWL...West looks like e has accepted the 2NT correction, so the 2NT call "stands and the auction proceeds without penalty" (L25B1). Check for use of UI (the cancelled 1H call, and the withdrawn pass) - it doesn't look like L16B has been breached (though again, IWNatTable, SICBW). Score - 4Hx-3. Minor slap on the wrist to N for pushing the tray back w/o calling TD. Minor buffeting of S and W (esp. W) for not noticing the situation. Cudgels brought out for N and E for not calling TD after 1NT-p-p-1H; ()-()-2NT-p. I think a fine of 1IMP/minute the TD spends working out the ruling (in the case of this TD, -5IMPs) to both sides would be appropriate. Add a stern-faced reading of L9B1a), B1b), B2, and C for good measure. Good fun for BLML, though. Michael (please don't use fancy fonting. Please?). ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 03:39:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:18:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA09848 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:18:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19993; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:17:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199910121717.KAA19993@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A concrete example on disclosure In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:31:13 PST." <19991012163113.27097.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:17:36 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > For those of you tired of the disclosure thread, please kill this thread; > but I am actually hoping for a reasonable response, as this is a real > situation I am faced with all too often, and I think we confused our > opponents out of a possible good score last time it came up. > > Although this doesn't have anything to do with "implicit agreements" (all of > this is quite clearly spelled out in our system notes), it is a "how much is > 'full disclosure'" question, so (I hope) appropriate. > > After 1NT(10-12 or 11+-14, depending on the rest of the system)-x, Pd and I > play 2C scramble rescues. Essentially: > > !2C, including p and XX: natural and to play. 2x guarantees 5, but we might > bid on KJT9 (though we might pass, too). XX is forcing to 2NT or > their doubled contract. Note to everyone else who isn't a C hac^H^H^Hprogrammer: I think he means "calls that are not 2 clubs". > 2C: to play unless doubled. Denies all other calls. Could be as > short as 1 club (by inference, with a 4=4=4=1). > If doubled, opener scrambles with <3 clubs to cheapest 4-card suit, > responder pulls with <4. All scrambles are also to play unless doubled, and > to play even if doubled with a known 7+card fit. > > Explaining the 2C bid is difficult because: > > 1) It takes a minute or so to explain, two or three minutes to re-explain > until they understand, and > 2) a full explanation requires me to also explain what my future actions > will be. > > What should we do here? I'd explain it like this: "To play, but could be as few as 1 club. He'd bid 2C on any hand that doesn't want to pass or make a business redouble, and doesn't have another 5-card suit to show." I don't think it's necessary to explain all the scramble/runout stuff at this point. You could add something to the effect that responder will run out of 2C if he's doubled and has short clubs, but I think that's so obvious it doesn't need to be said at this point (of course, you have to disclose it if they ask). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 03:40:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:40:25 +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 DAA09922 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:40:18 +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 EAA20560 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:40:11 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:39:40 +1100 Message-ID: <01BF1534.F67C30C0.mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au> From: Mark Abraham To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: A concrete example on disclosure Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:39:37 +1100 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 > !2C, including p and XX: natural and to play. 2x guarantees 5, but we might > bid on KJT9 (though we might pass, too). XX is forcing to 2NT or > their doubled contract. For those unfamiliar with the notation, "!2C" is short for "not 2C" or, in context, "anything other than 2C"... :-) Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 03:40:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:40:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA09926 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:40:19 +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 MAA03036 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:42:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:40:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <38005ACC.B8DFB4B2@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:22 AM 10/10/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Hirsch Davis wrote: >> >> > If it turns out that indeed partner has the same idea, then >> > surely that must constitute some form of "agreement". >> >> Absolutely not! Assuming no prior experience with this partner in this or a >> similar situation, the fact that partner got it right may be good deductive >> reasoning, it may be luck, but it's not an agreement of any kind, explicit >> or implicit. >> > >No, you simply cannot allow this. I have already voiced my suspicion that this idea was at the bottom of our disagreement, and now I think I see things more clearly. You, Herman, hold the following two positions: a) If partner makes a bid he expects [or hopes] you will understand, it is ipso facto part of our 'system' and is therefore discloseable. If my explanation of his bid doesn't match what he has, I have committed MI. b) In making an explanation, any alternatives offered beyond the first are irrelevant for all legal purposes. So you disagree with those of us who defend some form of hedged explanations [even those of us who reject the hedges like "but I'm not sure" or "tends to"], because of 'b'. The hard-line group doesn't need hedges, because they reject 'a'. If you reject 'a', then you can simply answer "no agreement" a great deal of the time. I reject both 'a' and 'b'. If I have information [from partnership experience, et al] regarding what partner _probably_ means, then I cannot simply say 'no agreement'. OTOH, this does not mean that I have an explicit [or implicit] agreement, and so revealing that information fully does not constitute MI. So: 1) Agreements, explicit and implicit, must be revealed fully, and the explanation is MI if they are explained incorrectly or incompletely. 2) Partnership experience must be revealed fully, and the explanation is MI if the experience is not so disclosed. However, if I explain partner's bid as "we've never played together before and haven't discussed that, but she plays Brozel with her regular partner", and I proceed to bid as if she's using Brozel, and she isn't, there's no MI. [Assuming I am being truthful, as like DWS I usually do make this assumption as TD.] >It is far too difficult to draw the line between - "well, we >both assumed we would be playing the same methods as those >we use with a particular partner we share" - and - "well, we >had said beforehand that we would play the system we both >play with that partner". It seems like a very firm and obvious line to me. But, in any case, I would assume the player in situation 1 said "We have no agreement but he plays x with our shared partner". >You would call the second an agreement, and the first not ? Yes, I would. I would call the former experience. >Well sorry, but I don't direct that way. It doesn't matter much, if you think it's discloseable either way, as I do. >Call it implicit agreements if you will, call it "unagreed >agreements", but they should be disclosed just as if they >were fully written down. I agree completely. >The moment one partner starts to describe his hand hoping >his partner understands, there is "method", "system" or >however you might wish to call it. Here I disagree. Why on earth should the mere fact that I _hope_ you understand mean that we have a system? >If they understand one another, there is agreement, right ? No. >I believe the fact that partner does not understand does not >alter the fact that a player has tried to tell his partner >something, and this something has to be disclosed to >opponents. And this is the part that I find frankly unfathomable. Even if I agreed that 'if they understand one another, there is agreement', I would most certainly not accept that when they _do not_ understand one another, there is still agreement! Even reading the laws on partnership experience as broadly as I do, I can't see how one can have a legal obligation to reveal more information to opponents than the total information I possess! >-- >Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 04:40:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:40:05 +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 EAA10126 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:39:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14086 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:39:44 +0200 Received: from ip81.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.81), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda14084; Tue Oct 12 20:39:42 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:39:42 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199910072228.SAA00638@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991011175028.006e7564@pop.cais.com> <38031BD9.64666EC2@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38031BD9.64666EC2@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 EAA10127 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:30:33 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Indeed, I wouldn't at all mind seeing L9 strengthened to the effect that a >> player who becomes aware of an irregularity not "may" but "should" call >> attention to it immediately. > >unworkable and unnecessary. > >Last saturday, my partner made an insufficient call. I was >aparently the only one who noticed, but I kept quiet. When >my RHO called, I told the table, but by now the irregularity >had been condoned. >I don't see anything wrong with that, and if you do, I shall >not be honest ever again, and simply say I didn't notice >either. There is nothing wrong with that under the current laws. In principle I agree with Eric that the game might be better if you were obliged to call attention to irregularities, but there are a few problems: (a) Some minor irregularities are very often accepted quietly. I would not want to have an obligation to call attention to it every time my opponent violates L46A, for instance. (b) It is a major change; it would be difficult to teach everybody, and some people would ignore it. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 04:59:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:59:40 +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 EAA10194 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:59:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp231-157.worldonline.nl [195.241.231.157]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA24941 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:59:11 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <018201bf14ec$6a667480$9de7f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L6D2 again Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:00:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_017D_01BF14F4.CA6ED4A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dit is een meerdelig bericht in MIME-indeling. ------=_NextPart_000_017D_01BF14F4.CA6ED4A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I mistakenly initially mailed this reply to Gordon only:=20 =20 Gordon Bower wrote: > >> >> At 6:08 PM -0400 10/9/99, Jac Fuchs wrote: >> >As you may have guessed, the memory of the opponents of the previous match >> >is unlikely to be good enough to be trusted, and no hand records are kept. >> >Any comments or advice ? > >I think the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of the hand having been >shuffled and dealt and happening to look similar to the old one. > >Even in the absence of hand records there seems a fair probability that >one of the score-sheets from a couple of weeks ago still exists = (whether >private score or recap). This of course isn't conclusive proof -- but = it >does at least let you check to see if it is the same board number as = last >time around. >> >> There was a case some years ago where a well-known expert (I think it = was >> Al Roth) called the TD to his table after examining his hand. He = claimed to >> have played the hand previously. The TD was not inclined to believe = him, so >> Roth rattled off, from memory, the other 3 hands. :-) >> >> The likelyhood that any ordinary player is correct when he thinks = he's >> played a hand previously (especially after having received a bad = score) is >> _extremely_ small. >> > >I agree. I would find the player's claim much more believable, >incidentally, had it been made during or immediately following the = hand, >not after comparing with teammates. > It was made immediately following the hand. I was summoned to the table = as soon as play of the hand was over. So the player didn't know the result = of his teammates, although it obviously was apparent to him that his result (-300) was a poor one. I am convinced, however, that he made his = statement in good faith, and not in order to make me cancel a poor result. The = player (declarer) made some attempt to describe the hand of one defender, but = only mentioned the obvious features (Spade AJ9xx behind his KQxxxx), and even = if he had reeled off the hand that wouldn't have been proof anymore, as he = had just played the hand, and is smart enough to remember the cards that = were played, right down to the pips. Jac >As a player I have only ever called the director once for this. It was = at >a sectional in Pocatello, Idaho in June 1997. I held 7 spades to the = J-T, >red singletons, and 4 clubs to the ace on board 28 in both the = afternoon >and evening sessions of a pairs game. I called the director as soon as = I >sorted my hand in the evening and asked if him if he was sure the board >had been redealt. He said yes; wanted to be convinced further, with his >permission I pulled out my copy of the afternoon hand records from my = CC >holder, looked at the hand in question, and said all was well... taking >care not to let on to the others at the table what the problem was. I >think I managed to avoid giving anyone a UI problem -- though this was = of >considerable concern to me: what if pard or oppos remembers what board = 28 >was like this afternoon and guesses what my concern is about? > >I saved the hand records for the event. >In the afternoon, I held JT87542-K-6-AT73 as North. >In the evening, I held JT76532-3-2-AQ97 as East. >I don't feel too bad about being suspicious. That sort of coincidence = is >getting to be rare enough to be more-or-less equally likely to be a = random >deal or a rare card-handling mishap. In my case, of course, the other >three hands were completely different, and had I played it out, there >would have been no question at all as soon as dummy came down. > >GRB > ------=_NextPart_000_017D_01BF14F4.CA6ED4A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I mistakenly initially = mailed this=20 reply to Gordon only:
 
Gordon Bower wrote:
>
>>
>> At 6:08 PM = -0400=20 10/9/99, Jac Fuchs wrote:
>> >As you may have guessed, the = memory of=20 the opponents of the previous
match
>> >is unlikely to be = good=20 enough to be trusted, and no hand records are
kept.
>> = >Any=20 comments or advice ?
>
>I think the odds are overwhelmingly = in=20 favour of the hand having been
>shuffled and dealt and happening = to look=20 similar to the old one.
>
>Even in the absence of hand = records there=20 seems a fair probability that
>one of the score-sheets from a = couple of=20 weeks ago still exists (whether
>private score or recap). This of = course=20 isn't conclusive proof -- but it
>does at least let you check to = see if it=20 is the same board number as last
>time = around.
>>
>>=20 There was a case some years ago where a well-known expert (I think it=20 was
>> Al Roth) called the TD to his table after examining his = hand. He=20 claimed
to
>> have played the hand previously. The TD was = not=20 inclined to believe him,
so
>> Roth rattled off, from = memory, the=20 other 3 hands. :-)
>>
>> The likelyhood that any = ordinary=20 player is correct when he thinks he's
>> played a hand = previously=20 (especially after having received a bad score)
is
>> = _extremely_=20 small.
>>
>
>I agree. I would find the player's = claim much=20 more believable,
>incidentally, had it been made during or = immediately=20 following the hand,
>not after comparing with = teammates.
>

It=20 was made immediately following the hand. I was summoned to the table = as
soon=20 as play of the hand was over. So the player didn't know the result = of
his=20 teammates, although it obviously was apparent to him that his = result
(-300)=20 was a poor one. I am convinced, however, that he made his = statement
in good=20 faith, and not in order to make me cancel a poor result. The=20 player
(declarer) made some attempt to describe the hand of one = defender, but=20 only
mentioned the obvious features (Spade AJ9xx behind his KQxxxx), = and even=20 if
he had reeled off the hand that wouldn't have been proof anymore, = as he=20 had
just played the hand, and is smart enough to remember the cards = that=20 were
played, right down to the pips.

Jac

>As a = player I have=20 only ever called the director once for this. It was at
>a = sectional in=20 Pocatello, Idaho in June 1997. I held 7 spades to the J-T,
>red=20 singletons, and 4 clubs to the ace on board 28 in both the = afternoon
>and=20 evening sessions of a pairs game. I called the director as soon as=20 I
>sorted my hand in the evening and asked if him if he was sure = the=20 board
>had been redealt. He said yes; wanted to be convinced = further, with=20 his
>permission I pulled out my copy of the afternoon hand records = from my=20 CC
>holder, looked at the hand in question, and said all was = well...=20 taking
>care not to let on to the others at the table what the = problem=20 was. I
>think I managed to avoid giving anyone a UI problem -- = though this=20 was of
>considerable concern to me: what if pard or oppos = remembers what=20 board 28
>was like this afternoon and guesses what my concern is=20 about?
>
>I saved the hand records for the event.
>In = the=20 afternoon, I held JT87542-K-6-AT73 as North.
>In the evening, I = held=20 JT76532-3-2-AQ97 as East.
>I don't feel too bad about being = suspicious.=20 That sort of coincidence is
>getting to be rare enough to be = more-or-less=20 equally likely to be a random
>deal or a rare card-handling = mishap. In my=20 case, of course, the other
>three hands were completely different, = and had=20 I played it out, there
>would have been no question at all as soon = as=20 dummy came down.
>
>GRB
>
------=_NextPart_000_017D_01BF14F4.CA6ED4A0-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 05:36:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 05:36:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f293.hotmail.com [207.82.251.184]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA10276 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 05:36:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 56854 invoked by uid 0); 12 Oct 1999 19:35:34 -0000 Message-ID: <19991012193534.56853.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:35:33 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A concrete example on disclosure Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 19:35:33 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan >Michael Farebrother wrote: My apology! Also apologies if this goes through twice - someday hotmail should learn that "2 hours of inactivity" is not "2 hours" (grumble). >>!2C, including p and XX: natural and to play. 2x guarantees 5, but >>we >>might bid on KJT9 (though we might pass, too). XX is forcing to >>2NT or >>their doubled contract. > >Note to everyone else who isn't a C hac^H^H^Hprogrammer: I think he >means "calls that are not 2 clubs". > And from Mark Abraham: >For those unfamiliar with the notation, "!2C" is short for "not 2C" >or, in >context, "anything other than 2C"... :-) Thanks Adam, and Mark. Obviously I live, work, and socialize with too many programmers, and people who also live around them. Sorry to all to whom that wasn't obvious. [Explaining 2C] > >I'd explain it like this: "To play, but could be as few as 1 club. >He'd bid 2C on any hand that doesn't want to pass or make a business >redouble, and doesn't have another 5-card suit to show." Basically what I do currently ("To play, but may be as short as 1 club. Denies any other call, including pass and redouble, which would be natural and to play."). I like your wording better. But in both cases I feel uncomfortable hiding the fact that we will play the 2-1 fit undoubled if it ever comes up (the worst we have played is a 3-2 fit). Thanks for the suggestions. Michael (grumble - I meant to be doing real work, instead of making semi-obvious .sig files. I really have to get off my bridge thinking device and work on my IOCCC entry. Thanks again, Adam). -- #include #define z char* z A=" acehJk\nnorstu+";z B="FNLMABIJMEDKACOOAEBCGDKH"; main(){char *i=B; do{putchar(A[*i-'A']);}while(*++i);} ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 06:18:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 06:18:03 +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 GAA10427 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 06:17:56 +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 NAA23121; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:17:13 -0700 Message-Id: <199910122017.NAA23121@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A concrete example on disclosure In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Oct 1999 19:35:33 PST." <19991012193534.56853.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:17:14 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > >I'd explain it like this: "To play, but could be as few as 1 club. > >He'd bid 2C on any hand that doesn't want to pass or make a business > >redouble, and doesn't have another 5-card suit to show." > > Basically what I do currently ("To play, but may be as short as 1 club. > Denies any other call, including pass and redouble, which would be natural > and to play."). I like your wording better. > > But in both cases I feel uncomfortable hiding the fact that we will play the > 2-1 fit undoubled if it ever comes up (the worst we have played is a 3-2 > fit). You could add "Opener will normally pass 2C if not doubled" if that would make you feel more comfortable. (I included "normally" only because if I left the word out, my partner would undoubtedly have opened 1NT with a six diamonds and will pull to 2D.) Some people think it's wrong to explain one's own future bids, afraid of giving UI to partner; but I think it's appropriate at least sometimes, when the information about the entire bidding structure is important enough that it should be disclosed right away. (The alternative, to let responder alert opener's pass and explain that the pass is automatic and doesn't say anything about how well he likes clubs, deprives opener's RHO of information he might find useful when deciding whether to take action over 2C.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 09:59:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:59:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11270 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:58:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from p2cs10a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.106.45] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11bBof-0006pr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:58:49 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A concrete example on disclosure Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:49:13 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf150c$62cf3200$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 6:04 PM Subject: A concrete example on disclosure >For those of you tired of the disclosure thread, please kill this thread; >but I am actually hoping for a reasonable response, as this is a real >situation I am faced with all too often, and I think we confused our >opponents out of a possible good score last time it came up. > >Although this doesn't have anything to do with "implicit agreements" (all of >this is quite clearly spelled out in our system notes), it is a "how much is >'full disclosure'" question, so (I hope) appropriate. > >After 1NT(10-12 or 11+-14, depending on the rest of the system)-x, Pd and I >play 2C scramble rescues. Essentially: > >!2C, including p and XX: natural and to play. 2x guarantees 5, but we might >bid on KJT9 (though we might pass, too). XX is forcing to 2NT or >their doubled contract. > >2C: to play unless doubled. Denies all other calls. Could be as >short as 1 club (by inference, with a 4=4=4=1). >If doubled, opener scrambles with <3 clubs to cheapest 4-card suit, >responder pulls with <4. All scrambles are also to play unless doubled, and >to play even if doubled with a known 7+card fit. > >Explaining the 2C bid is difficult because: > >1) It takes a minute or so to explain, two or three minutes to re-explain >until they understand, and >2) a full explanation requires me to also explain what my future actions >will be. >What should we do here? Why not... He's got a weak hand and may or may not have clubs. If he hasn't got clubs, and you double, he will redouble for rescue. When asked, what if he hasn't got clubs and we don't double? Answer "he won't make the contract" It's general Bridge knowledge here, but they should get the message now. If they don't they'll ask their teacher about it next lesson:-) > > >Michael (but all the headache is worth it for the look of pained surprise >when the auction goes 1NT!-X-XX(no alert)- "aren't you going to alert that?" >"No." "Doesn't it show a one-suited rescue (common system in these parts)?" >"No." "What does it show then?" "Partner expects to collect no less than >+560 on this board."). Why not..."It's natural" "He's wants to stand the double."Pass would be forcing to a redouble for removal if he's weak" (If it would, I cannot quite work out the style) We do not play in 1NTdoubled. This is much like a Multi 2D. N E S W 2D-26Questionsthen P-P -P East with 26pts screams"You can't do that!!!" Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 10:20:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:20:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11324 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:20:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11bC9n-000BFZ-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:20:40 +0000 Message-ID: <8xMeQLBD+8A4Ewce@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:17:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Protection racket. In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991012090520.006d3920@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19991012090520.006d3920@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 01:01 AM 10/12/99 +0100, John wrote: > >>In article <3.0.1.32.19991011182902.006eb2ec@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau >> writes >> >>> [FTR, Mr. Roth is a respected >>>member of the ACBL community, not some kind of crackpot.] >> >>you mean ACBL has a Danny Roth too? The EBU's one definitely does not >>fit this description. :)) chs john > >I was under the impression that the Danny Roth who writes for Bridge Today >was from California, but I do not know him personally, and may well have >been simply mistaken. > >Is it only the first part of the description which was mistaken, or the >second as well? > Both :-) -- 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 Oct 13 12:25:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:25:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11543 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:25:17 +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 11bE69-000O6A-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 02:25:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:18:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Lady Connell: MI? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk So a couple of my friends lost by 12 imps against a better team in the local County knockout competition. 1S P P X 2C X! P P P The second double was alerted because it was takeout, as it said unambiguously on both CCs. It was also asked about, and described as takeout. Partner then passed it out with C Kx, finding partner with a penalty double hand. "Why did you pass it with your hand?" "Partner often forgets this is takeout so I guessed she had forgotten this time." -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 15:06:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:06:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe17.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA11755 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:05:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 6679 invoked by uid 65534); 13 Oct 1999 05:05:11 -0000 Message-ID: <19991013050511.6678.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.115.159] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <199910111524.IAA32020@mailhub.irvine.com> <000501bf1410$fa432580$09fcabc3@davidburn> <027001bf143a$e3870a80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:59:25 -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 Would the desired effect be had if the wording were thus? No result for a board may stand if the board was not dealt in accordance with the conditions of contest. The laws prescribe, as a condition of contest, that before play the boards be dealt from mixed cards. That takes care of the first example. And for the second, at worst, the conditions of contest can include a requirement that hands from a previous session may not be reused. Further it would be particularly handy to leave out such a condition for contests such as instant matchpoints. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: BLML Sent: Monday, October 11, 1999 5:46 PM Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language > David Burn wrote: > > > No - it's the perfect subjunctive. "East gave [or "has given"] South > > the correct information" is the perfect indicative; "if East had given > > South the correct information" is the perfect subjunctive. The trouble > > is that the form of the subjunctive - "I wish I had more money" - is > > very close to the form of the pluperfect - "The boards had been dealt > > in another session". Marvin is quite right in that "if" is not > > followed by the subjunctive when introducing a clause that is not > > contrary to fact. Neither Grattan Endicott nor Edgar Kaplan would ever > > commit such a solecism, and they did not do so in writing Law 6. > > > > But the pluperfect tense is never "used to denote a subjunctive > > mood" - it cannot be so used. Often, one needs to resort to some kind > > of emphasis to denote the fact that a condition, expressed in the past > > tense, is indeed contrary to fact - "If the board really had been > > dealt in another session, the result would not stand (but it wasn't, > > so the result is OK)". > > The tenses of the subjunctive mood are (or were, when I was in the > Eighth Grade at St. Ignatius): > > Present: If I take... > Past: If I took... > Present Perfect: If I have taken... > Past Perfect (aka Pluperfect): If I had taken... > > >Similar difficulties occur with the use of the > > word "were", which may be indicative in the plural and subjunctive in > > both plural and singular. > > But always past tense in the indicative and always present tense in the > subjunctive, so the context should make the meaning clear. > > >"If the boards were dealt in another > > session" would not be a satisfactory clause because of this ambiguity. > > The ambiguity of this example is due to the lack of an apodosis > (conclusion). In the present subjunctive sense a "would be" (or > equivalent) apodosis must accompany the protasis (if...). In the past > indicative sense, a straightforward statement accompanies it. That > resolves any ambiguity. > > Let's look at the Law in question: > > L6D2. No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a > sorted deck or if the deal had previously been played in a different > session. > > The use of present tense ("are dealt") for a preceding action is just > plain wrong. Since there is no accompanying "would...," the second > clause is indeed (gulp!) indicative, not subjunctive. It just doesn't > read well. Looking more closely, I think that is perhaps because of the > redundant "previously," which could be crossed out. Still don't like it. > > My version: > > L6D2. No result may stand if the cards were dealt without shuffle from a > sorted pack or if the deal was previously played in a different session. > > Where is the ambiguity? "Were" has to be past tense, indicative, in the > absence of a "would be" apodosis. "Was" is not used in the subjunctive > mood, so the second clause is also clear. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 18:59:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:59:10 +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 SAA12095 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:58:41 +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 LAA31270 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:00:36 +0200 Message-ID: <380449C7.40E947F0@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:58:47 +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: Forbidding psyching Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The L40A allows psyching. The L80F allows the tournament organizer to enforce some regulations of his own provided that they are not in contradiction with the Law. Hence, forbidding psyching is illegal. However, I have seen tournaments where psyching as opener in 1st & 2nd position was indeed prohibited (there aren't many tournaments with system restrictions in Poland but there are some). I wonder if this happens in your countries also? Or there are other regulations about psyching? Pls comment ********************************************************************** - 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 Oct 13 21:56:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:56:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12391 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:55:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from p14s10a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.90.21] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11bN0P-0006ff-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:55:41 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Lady Connell: MI? Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:33:06 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf155d$f4abb9e0$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 Sorry David, too early in the day. Bin yours and read this. First effort trash! Sometimes I wish we could get e-mails back!! -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 3:57 AM Subject: Lady Connell: MI? > > So a couple of my friends lost by 12 imps against a better team in the >local County knockout competition. > > 1S P P X > 2C X! P P > P > > The second double was alerted because it was takeout, as it said >unambiguously on both CCs. Information about the system accurately given. >It was also asked about, and described as >takeout. In view of the next sentence I think the answer should have been "Its systemically for takeout, but partner often gets it wrong" (Full disclosure of partnership understanding) > > Partner then passed it out with C Kx, finding partner with a penalty >double hand. A LOL in my club did this, only better, to me last week. With a very similar hand, with 5 hearts, said "It is for takeout" and then just to be very helpful to me said "I'm going to take it for takeout anyway" And then passed. > > "Why did you pass it with your hand?" My opp said "I don't know what takeout means" (75yrs young. Plays in club 4 times a week regularly for 20yrs.) > > "Partner often forgets this is takeout so I guessed she had forgotten >this time." Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 13 23:48:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA12694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:48:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com [139.134.5.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA12689 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:48:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba579281 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:45:04 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-94-99.tmns.net.au ([139.134.94.99]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Detailed-MailRouter V2.5 1/906849); 13 Oct 1999 23:45:03 Message-ID: <00fe01bf1610$0cb77260$c15f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: A defensive problem Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:44:40 -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, on 27 September: >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 sent this problem to an online "Bidding Forum" comprising 19 panellists. All four "experts" led H2. One mentioned a spade alternative to prevent 2 ruffs. Of the eleven "good players", six led H2, one led CA then H2, two led D10, one led D4 and one led Cx. The four "club level players" led D10, D4, CJ! and S4. This seems to suggest that the lower the standard of play, the more LAs there are to H2. No panellist objected to being given a play problem in a Bidding Forum. Peter Gill Sydney, Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 00:16:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA12781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:16:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA12774 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:15:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from pfas02a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.114.251] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11bPBr-0001l8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 07:15:40 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Forbidding psyching Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:22:42 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf157e$075d97a0$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: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 10:21 AM Subject: Forbidding psyching > > > The L40A allows psyching. The L80F allows the >tournament organizer to enforce some regulations of >his own provided that they are not in contradiction >with the Law. Hence, forbidding psyching is illegal. > However, I have seen tournaments where psyching >as opener in 1st & 2nd position was indeed prohibited >(there aren't many tournaments with system restrictions >in Poland but there are some). > I wonder if this happens in your countries also? >Or there are other regulations about psyching? > Pls comment > >********************************************************************** Law40D allows SOs to regulate the use of conventions. In England and Wales it is forbidden to psyche a multi 2D opening (in a level 3 event)and also it is forbidden to psyche a game forcing or near game forcing opening.(OB13.4.2) I think this is a legal interpretation of Law. I do not think that the banning of psyching in 1st or 2nd seat regardless of system or style is legal.Such a regulation is not allowed by L80D because it is in contravention of L40A Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 00:16:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA12776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:16:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA12769 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:15:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from pfas02a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.114.251] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11bPBt-0001l8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 07:15:41 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Nearest left thumb Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:21:13 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1586$344066a0$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 In England and Wales OB 12.15 12.15.1 You may use any system of leads, signals and discards as long as reasonable details are entered on your convention card: it is not acceptable to use terms such as 'natural' or 'standard'. (This only applies for level2 and above. Level 1[simple system] is restricted) A pair tells you that they do not have a system of leads. Their style is totally random. They find this confused their opps more than it hinders themselves. Their CC has a red sticker, and all holdings are deleted. The word _RANDOM_ is written across the box. I feel that this is legal. I also feel that it should not be so. There are patterns to the way in which clerks misfile things, and similarly I think there are likely to be patterns which are being undisclosed in the randomness of this approach. What do others think? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 01:08:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 01:08:32 +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 BAA12965 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 01:08:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-22-109.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.22.109]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA09809 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:08:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38045D5E.DDEDCB39@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:22:22 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We are getting somewhere ! really we are ! Grant Sterling wrote: > > > I have already voiced my suspicion that this idea was at the > bottom of our disagreement, and now I think I see things more clearly. > You, Herman, hold the following two positions: > a) If partner makes a bid he expects [or hopes] you will understand, > it is ipso facto part of our 'system' and is therefore discloseable. If > my explanation of his bid doesn't match what he has, I have committed MI. Quite well put. That is indeed my position. > b) In making an explanation, any alternatives offered beyond the > first are irrelevant for all legal purposes. > Indeed. You have understood me, even if you do not agree. > So you disagree with those of us who defend some form of hedged > explanations [even those of us who reject the hedges like "but I'm not > sure" or "tends to"], because of 'b'. I am not saying they must not, I am saying they should not. It is not against the Law not to offer "hedges" (IMO) > The hard-line group doesn't need hedges, because they reject 'a'. > If you reject 'a', then you can simply answer "no agreement" a great > deal of the time. And I believe we agree this is not good. > I reject both 'a' and 'b'. > > If I have information [from partnership experience, et al] > regarding what partner _probably_ means, then I cannot simply say 'no > agreement'. OTOH, this does not mean that I have an explicit [or > implicit] agreement, and so revealing that information fully does > not constitute MI. So you reveal what it probably means. We agree on that. You say "it probably means ...". I say "it means ...". What's the (legal) difference. I am not saying you commit MI, far from it. But are you saying I commit MI ? > So: > 1) Agreements, explicit and implicit, must be revealed fully, > and the explanation is MI if they are explained incorrectly or > incompletely. A very evident truth. > 2) Partnership experience must be revealed fully, and the > explanation is MI if the experience is not so disclosed. Also quite evident. > However, if I explain partner's bid as "we've never played > together before and haven't discussed that, but she plays Brozel > with her regular partner", and I proceed to bid as if she's using > Brozel, and she isn't, there's no MI. [Assuming I am being truthful, > as like DWS I usually do make this assumption as TD.] > Well, I believe there is MI. Sorry. She was obviously playing "something", not Brozel. Even if you are correct in your statement, you have not informed the opponents of the correct set of "experience - rules - understandings - whatever" that led your partner to believe you would understand what she was doing. The fact that you misunderstood does not alter the fact that opponents have a right to know what was going on in her mind. Unless you can prove conclusively that she was totally wrong in bidding what she did, the TD will rule that her call was systemic and your explanation therefor wrong, even if truthful. > >It is far too difficult to draw the line between - "well, we > >both assumed we would be playing the same methods as those > >we use with a particular partner we share" - and - "well, we > >had said beforehand that we would play the system we both > >play with that partner". > > It seems like a very firm and obvious line to me. But, in > any case, I would assume the player in situation 1 said "We have no > agreement but he plays x with our shared partner". > > >You would call the second an agreement, and the first not ? > > Yes, I would. I would call the former experience. > > >Well sorry, but I don't direct that way. > > It doesn't matter much, if you think it's discloseable either > way, as I do. > > >Call it implicit agreements if you will, call it "unagreed > >agreements", but they should be disclosed just as if they > >were fully written down. > > I agree completely. > > >The moment one partner starts to describe his hand hoping > >his partner understands, there is "method", "system" or > >however you might wish to call it. > > Here I disagree. Why on earth should the mere fact that I > _hope_ you understand mean that we have a system? > I have a system, and I still hope my partner understands my calls. :-) > >If they understand one another, there is agreement, right ? > > No. > Well, there should be something ! > >I believe the fact that partner does not understand does not > >alter the fact that a player has tried to tell his partner > >something, and this something has to be disclosed to > >opponents. > > And this is the part that I find frankly unfathomable. Even > if I agreed that 'if they understand one another, there is agreement', > I would most certainly not accept that when they _do not_ understand > one another, there is still agreement! Even reading the laws on > partnership experience as broadly as I do, I can't see how one can > have a legal obligation to reveal more information to opponents than > the total information I possess! > This is where you are wrong. You do not have an obligation to tell what you know, you have an obligation to tell the system. That is not the same thing, or "I forgot" would not be MI. A call has a meaning. The opponents are entitled to know what that meaning is. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the TD will rule that the meaning of a call corresponds to the intention of the player who made it, and to the hand he holds. If that meaning is not disclosed to opponents, there is MI. The fact that it is partner who is obliged to tell the opponents about the meaning is just a "means to an end". The end result should be that the opponents have the information they are entitled to. Even if speaking the absolute truth, one can still fall short of the obligation of full disclosure. > >-- > >Herman DE WAEL > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 02:35:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 02:35:52 +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 CAA13328 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 02:35:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA16672 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:35:30 +0200 Received: from ip14.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.14), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda16669; Wed Oct 13 18:35:26 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bid after two non-bids Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:35:26 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199910111643.JAA00538@mailhub.irvine.com> <199910111648.JAA00632@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199910111648.JAA00632@mailhub.irvine.com> 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 CAA13330 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:48:34 PDT, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Actually, I missed Law 11A, which applies here. However, this Law >says "The right to penalize *may* be forfeited...", and I don't really >understand what the rest of the Law, which explains just when this >right is forfeited, means. I need some help here. I think it is obvious what it means, but I find it strangely difficult to come up with a good and clear example. So here is a less good example: A player revokes on a heart trick that he does not win, and the revoke is established. He notices that he has revoked and calls attention to it. Instead of calling the TD, his opponents, who are much more experienced players, play on. The offender later wins some tricks, including a heart trick which could just as well have been overtaken by his partner, making this a 2-trick revoke. The opponents now call the TD and wants 2 tricks. I think that L11A says that by not calling the TD to have the details explained, the opponents have forfeited the right to (at least) the second transferred trick, because the non-offending side gained from the offending side's ignorance of the penalty. Without that ignorance, the heart would have been overtaken to keep it a 1-trick revoke. But the example is not so clear: (a) Does it make a difference that all 4 players have a duty to call the TD when attention has been called to the irregularity? (b) Does "takes any action" refer to any action after the irregularity or only to action after attention is called it? (It seems to me that both variants are problematic, but for different irregularities.) (c) In my example, does the offending side lose only the second transferred trick, or have they completely forfeited the right to penalize the irregularity? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 02:36:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 02:36:28 +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 CAA13338 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 02:36:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:36:13 -0700 Message-ID: <001701bf1598$f541b680$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <01bf157e$075d97a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Forbidding psyching Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:35:22 -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 Anne Jones wrote: > From: Konrad Ciborowski > > > > The L40A allows psyching. The L80F allows the > >tournament organizer to enforce some regulations of > >his own provided that they are not in contradiction > >with the Law. Hence, forbidding psyching is illegal. > > However, I have seen tournaments where psyching > >as opener in 1st & 2nd position was indeed prohibited > >(there aren't many tournaments with system restrictions > >in Poland but there are some). > > I wonder if this happens in your countries also? > >Or there are other regulations about psyching? > > Pls comment > > > >********************************************************************** > Law40D allows SOs to regulate the use of conventions. > In England and Wales it is forbidden to psyche a multi 2D > opening (in a level 3 event)and also it is forbidden to psyche > a game forcing or near game forcing opening.(OB13.4.2) > I think this is a legal interpretation of Law. > > I do not think that the banning of psyching in 1st or 2nd seat > regardless of system or style is legal.Such a regulation is not > allowed by L80D because it is in contravention of L40A > Saying that L40A is subordinate to L40D is no more logical than the other way round, since neither references the other as an exception to its words. It leads to the *reductio ad absurdum* that an SO may legally ban the psyching of *any* convention, rendering L40A's statement to the contrary meaningless. The lawmakers could easily settle this matter by inserting "except as limited by L40D" into L40A or "except as limited by L40A" into L40D. I vote for the latter. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 03:50:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 03:50:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13561 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 03:50:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.16] (math-16.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.16]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA22919 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:50:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:50:01 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Lady Connell: MI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > So a couple of my friends lost by 12 imps against a better team in the >local County knockout competition. > > 1S P P X > 2C X! P P > P > > The second double was alerted because it was takeout, as it said >unambiguously on both CCs. It was also asked about, and described as >takeout. Apparently correct explanation. > Partner then passed it out with C Kx, finding partner with a penalty >double hand. > > "Why did you pass it with your hand?" > > "Partner often forgets this is takeout so I guessed she had forgotten >this time." Habitual violations of an agreement may create implicit agreements, and that is what happened here. There was a failure to dicslose partnership agreements, and opener's side may have been damaged. If responder had known about the penalty double, would he have run? If so, adjust to the most favorable likely In the ACBL, this would be a case for the Rule of Coincidence, which is wrong here; the adjustment should not be automatic based on the CPU, but based on the fact that the opponents were damaged by the CPU. (A procedural penalty might be in order against experienced opponents.) However, it could get more interesting if the passer inferred from her hand. For example, consider the auction: 1H P 1NT(nf) P P X P ? It is possible to agree that this is a penalty double. However, if doubler's partner holds five hearts, she can infer from her own hand that the double is takeout; there aren't enough hearts left for partner to have a stack. But if it isn't that clear, as if doubler's partner has three small hearts (leaving it possible for doubler to have AQJT over the bidder), how would you rule? (I don't think this can apply from the actual hand; the passer had Kx, but nothing in the auction prevents the opponents from having found a 5-4 club fit if the double of 2C is takeout.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 03:52:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 03:52:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe18.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA13570 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 03:52:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 1269 invoked by uid 65534); 13 Oct 1999 17:51:41 -0000 Message-ID: <19991013175141.1268.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.112.197] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <01bf1586$344066a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:51:14 -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 would think that what is the actual description is not 'random leads' but 'My objective is to find the best card to lead irrespective of holding. There is no method to ascertain the nature of the play except from the auction and the visible cards.' Very few are capable of such mental exercise. I believe that for years Hamman and Wolff were in this category. More likely is . I would also think that the true picture for a large majority of 'random leads' is in fact 'we lead such and such except when we don't which is most of the time, and we don't have methods to differentiate between the two except from the auction and the cards we see.' I believe that few actually practice the above. What I believe the concern is that a pair actually has a loose method established by habit, conceivably not openly discussed, and conceal the fact under the guise of 'random leads' . However, I do not think it is right to deny the first two groups their method to get at the latter. I think that both disclosures are adequate provided that they accurately describe the method. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 9:21 AM Subject: Nearest left thumb > In England and Wales OB 12.15 > 12.15.1 You may use any system of leads, signals and discards > as long as reasonable details are entered on your convention card: > it is not acceptable to use terms such as 'natural' or 'standard'. > (This only applies for level2 and above. Level 1[simple system] is > restricted) > > A pair tells you that they do not have a system of leads. Their style is > totally random. They find this confused their opps more than it hinders > themselves. Their CC has a red sticker, and all holdings are deleted. > The word _RANDOM_ is written across the box. > > I feel that this is legal. I also feel that it should not be so. There are > patterns to the way in which clerks misfile things, and similarly I think > there are likely to be patterns which are being undisclosed in the > randomness of this approach. > > What do others think? > Anne > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 04:09:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA13632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:09:04 +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 EAA13627 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:08:54 +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 ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:01:33 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38045D5E.DDEDCB39@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:00:13 -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 Herman De Wael writes: >A call has a meaning. The opponents are entitled to know >what that meaning is. A call has a meaning, yes. Opponents are entitled to know meanings *which are based on a special partnership agreement*. That does not mean that when partner is stuck for a call, and chooses one based on his bridge knowledge and experience, one must be able to explain to opponents precisely what partner is doing. >Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the TD will rule that the >meaning of a call >corresponds to the intention of the player who made it, and to the hand he >holds. >If that meaning is not disclosed to opponents, there is MI. So the use of "bridge judgement" is illegal in Belgium? Remind me not to play there. :-( 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/AwUBOATKrL2UW3au93vOEQIq1wCg23WCXyFA2Gf1bUyZUtoO3i32vFUAoMUO MCbg2yVK7tznaIO2tabz7vE+ =+LpR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 04:24:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA13708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:24:48 +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 EAA13701 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:24:29 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA16995 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:24:20 +0200 Received: from ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.42), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda16993; Wed Oct 13 20:24:15 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:24:16 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <9bYEODtrQswmtx4wkNzGpoVs2WyL@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <003301bf0eff$00e32a00$1b5208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <003301bf0eff$00e32a00$1b5208c3@swhki5i6> 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 EAA13704 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 5 Oct 1999 07:42:44 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >There >is to be a review of its effects after a period of experience >and an invitation is extended to bridge players and officials >to let me have their reactions when they have the experience >(or not, as the case may be) - I am acting as Secretary to the >formulating group. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Even though I have no experience with it yet, I do have a reaction. First of all I would like to say that I think this is an excellent document, and a fine initiative by the WBF. It is useful not only for ACs, but also for TDs and probably many players. I give detailed comments on parts of it below; if these sound negative, please remember that they are just details and that I am extremely pleased with the document as a whole. The WBF wrote: In "Function of an Appeal Committee": >The committee may recommend likewise to the Director >a review of any disciplinary penalty he may have applied >under Law 91A but may not rescind or vary it. I think it would be a good idea to also give some guidance concerning L90 penalties. May an AC change a L90 penalty? (I would say yes, except when the specific penalty is prescribed by regulation.) In "Score adjustment": >The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12C2) is >appropriate when a violation of law causes damage to an >innocent side that has not damaged itself by irrational, >wild or gambling action subsequent to the infraction. This seems inconsistent with the text that follows, which makes it clear that L12C2 is to be used (for the offending side) even when the NOS has "damaged itself by ...". I suggest that the text might be better it this sentence were simply terminated after "damage". The "irrational, wild or gambling action" aspect seems to me to be described very adequately in the text that follows. In "Law 12C3": >This section of the laws operates unless the Zonal Authority >elects otherwise. It applies in WBF tournaments. The purpose >of this law is to enable an appeal committee to form a view >as to what is an equitable outcome in the score, and to >implement that outcome, if it considers that the mechanical >application of Law12C2 does not produce a fair answer for >one or both of the sides involved. It makes the appeal >committee the final arbiter of equity. Would it not be a good idea to say clearly here that L12C3 is applicable only in situations where a L12C2 adjustment is otherwise in order? I.e., L12C3 cannot be used as an excuse to not follow L12C1 or L64A, for instance. >It is desired that Law 12C3 be amended to extend the powers >it currently gives to appeals committees also to Chief >Directors. (This could be a zonal option.) The basic problem with L12C3 is that it means that TDs and ACs rule the game by different rules. This problem will still be there if CTDs, but not other TDs, are allowed to use L12C3. I suggest that L12C3 should either be available to _all_ TDs or be removed completely. (My personal preference would be for removing it: I like L12C2.) I do not understand why anyone would want to limit it to CTDs: in most events, there is only one TD, who is then the CTD. Those events that have more than one TD are often major events where TDs of some quality are used, and it should be possible to trust them to not abuse L12C3. In any case, assuming L12C3 is not discarded completely, I would like it to say explicitly that it is to be used to assign a weighted average of different possible scores (and mention that this should be done in IMPs or MPs). This is what it is used for in practice, and I see no reason for the law to allow ACs to assign scores in any other way. It would also solve David Burn's problem with the current wording. In "Unauthorized information", in a paragraph about types of AI that need not be disclosed to opponents: >A player is permitted to make and use judgements about the >abilities and tendencies of opponents and about the >inclinations ('style') of his partner in matters where the >partner's decisions are spontaneous rather than habitual or >systemic Is there such a thing as a style in decisions that are spontaneous to such a degree that the style should not be disclosable? It seems to me that as soon as the word "style" becomes appropriate, there must be a sufficient degree of habit to make the style disclosable. In "Use of unauthorized information": >attention to an opponent's convention card at a significant >moment when it is not partner's turn to call or play; This could be misunderstood to mean that partner's "attention to an opponent's convention card at a significant moment" is not UI when it _is_ his turn to call. Why not end the sentence after "moment"? Or perhaps add ", particularly" after "moment"? >When use of unauthorized information made available by >partner is alleged there are four key questions for the >appeal committee: I don't like the wording: I do not normally allege that my opponent has _used_ UI, but I often allege that he has chosen a logical alternative forbidden by L16A, which is not the same. >2. Could the unauthorized information be thought to suggest >demonstrably the action that was taken by the player who >possessed it? Should it not say something about suggesting "over a logical alternative"? >[A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst >the class of players in question and using the methods of >the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a >significant proportion of such players, of whom it is >reasonable to think some might adopt it.] I don't think I understand exactly how (or if) this combination of "serious consideration" and "might adopt it" differs in effect from some of the other definitions in use. "Significant" and "some" are not very precise terms. But it is not bad as a general indication of what kind of criteria are relevant when judging what an LA is. In "Discrepancies between explanations given and the related hands": >If the members of a partnership offer differing >explanations, or if a conflicting statement on the >convention card has caused an opponent to be confused, a >procedural penalty for violation of Law 75 may be applied We are usually not so strict in Denmark: I have never given a PP for that kind of problem. Of course, there is nothing new in the fact that we give fewer PPs than TDs in international events do, but this is a point where the text may not be suitable at other than the very highest levels. In "Psychic calls": >3. psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the >partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, >that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such >psychic calls to occur In Denmark, we consider partner's _general_ psyche frequency to be AI. (This is not written in any regulation, but it is my impression that it is the way we generally play and rule.) The frequency is on the CC and is considered a partnership agreement. For as long as I can recall, our attitude to psychers have been much more tolerant than that of many other countries; strangely, we seem to have extremely few problems with psyches. >A psychic call which is found on the above basis to be a >matter of partnership understanding is disallowed and an >artificial score adjustment may be awarded, together with a >procedural penalty to the offending side if deemed >appropriate. It seems to me that a call is not really psychic if it is based on a partnership understanding. I find it very difficult to see any significant difference between a player who forgets to alert a transfer bid and a player who forgets to alert and explain "he psyched in that situation last week". In the former case, we would routinely give an assigned adjusted score (L40C, L12C2) if there was damage; in the latter case, this text seems to say that we should give an artificial adjusted score regardless of damage because it is a violation of L40B. But could the player "psyching" repeatedly not expect his partner to alert, just as the player using a transfer bid does, so that the bid is not in violation of L40B because his opponents could "reasonable be expected to understand its meaning"? In "Special": >In the laws, regulations, and this Code of Practice, 'special' >means 'additional to what is normal and general'. In the COP, the word is used only once, in the phrase "special emphasis or tone of voice, or a gesture" about UI. No problem with that. In the laws, it is used in L40B. I don't think this definition helps me very much: it might be taken to mean that the use of Stayman need not be disclosed because it is normal and general. On the other hand, I am unable to provide a suitable definition of "special" for L40B: I would prefer the word to be removed from L40B. In "Procedural penalties": >In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a player who >forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is not >subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a >procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated >circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated. This seems to imply that for instance a misbid may sometimes be subject to penalty (though not "automatic"), and that a convention can be "misused". I don't understand that. Which law says that a misbid is an irregularity? Repeated misbids can produce implicit agreements, but are not in themselves irregularities in any way. I would remove the word "automatic" and the last sentence above. Of course, repeated instances of incorrect _explanations_ of conventions can, in aggravated circumstances, be reason for a PP - but that is a different matter. >Score adjustment is the way to redress damage. Yes! - but only when there is an irregularity. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 04:32:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA13758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:32:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA13753 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:32:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09747; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:30:54 -0700 Message-Id: <199910131830.LAA09747@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:21:13 PDT." <01bf1586$344066a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:30:54 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > In England and Wales OB 12.15 > 12.15.1 You may use any system of leads, signals and discards > as long as reasonable details are entered on your convention card: > it is not acceptable to use terms such as 'natural' or 'standard'. > (This only applies for level2 and above. Level 1[simple system] is > restricted) > > A pair tells you that they do not have a system of leads. Their style is > totally random. They find this confused their opps more than it hinders > themselves. Their CC has a red sticker, and all holdings are deleted. > The word _RANDOM_ is written across the box. > > I feel that this is legal. I also feel that it should not be so. There are > patterns to the way in which clerks misfile things, and similarly I think > there are likely to be patterns which are being undisclosed in the > randomness of this approach. > > What do others think? I think the word "random" needs more clarification. There are a lot of differences between these practices, for instance: (1) We select a card at random from the 13 cards in our hand. ("The card nearest the thumb" philosophy. Please note that this is not necessarily the left thumb, as left-handers will more likely be holding the cards in their right hand.) (2) We look at our hand and listen to the auction, then decide which sort of lead will be best; but within that, we lead randomly from honor holdings. Thus, from KQJx we might lead the K, Q, or J each about 1/3 of the time (but not the "x" unless an unusual situation calls for it). From KJTx, we normally lead either the jack or the ten, but which one is chosen at random. Also, when we decide to lead a spot card, we choose one randomly from the spot card in their hand. I don't have a problem with either method being legal, as long as it's an accurate description of what the partnership actually plays. I *do* have a problem with declaring a certain method to be illegal on the theory that "anyone who says they use it probably isn't using it the way they say it"---although I might reconsider if the method were (*) announced by a lot of players and there were (*) reasonably concrete evidence that most of them were not playing as announced. (Sort of like when the ACBL banned odd-even signals, because they felt there were too many UI problems happening when players had only odd spots or only even spots.) There are in-between cases, where, say, a player would almost always lead an honor from AKx(x).. but would pick a completely random lead without that holding. Those in-between cases probably cause more disclosure problems than the two clear-cut cases described above. BTW, I have seen players with "random" written on their convention card, but only in relation to spot card leads (i.e. instead of 4th best or 3rd-and-5th or something). I always assumed this meant something like "My partner can't apply the Rule of 11 since he's incapable of counting that high, and he never pays attention to my spot cards anyway, so I just lead at random to avoid giving information to declarer." -- Adam (*) Now, after reading the other thread, I'm confused about whether a subjunctive is appropriate here or not. Is it? My Prentice-Hall seems to indicate that it is, if I understand it correctly. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 05:59:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 05:59:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA14080 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 05:58:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA09771 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:58:50 -0800 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:58:49 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Forbidding psyching In-Reply-To: <01bf157e$075d97a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Anne Jones wrote: [snip] > >********************************************************************** > Law40D allows SOs to regulate the use of conventions. > In England and Wales it is forbidden to psyche a multi 2D > opening (in a level 3 event)and also it is forbidden to psyche > a game forcing or near game forcing opening.(OB13.4.2) > I think this is a legal interpretation of Law. Um, not quite, I think... even if we accept an SO's right to forbid psyching a convention, on what basis do they ban psyching a natural forcing opening? I would think in Acol-Land you must have a fair few people who play natural forcing twos still? We did have a thread a while ago about how easy it is for an occasional psych of a strong two to implicitly become a full-fledged two-way opening. Are they perhaps trying to head this off at the pass instead of using the UI and implicit agreement rules? I agree with the assessment that banning all psyching in first or second seat is not permissible, given the explicit exception for psyches given in the laws when granting SOs the right to regulate weak low-level openings. GRB From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 06:45:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA14181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 06:45:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA14174 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 06:45:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegil.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.85]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA21973 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:43:18 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <38045D5E.DDEDCB39@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:22 PM 10/13/99 +0200, you wrote: >We are getting somewhere ! really we are ! > >Grant Sterling wrote: >> >> >> I have already voiced my suspicion that this idea was at the >> bottom of our disagreement, and now I think I see things more clearly. >> You, Herman, hold the following two positions: >> a) If partner makes a bid he expects [or hopes] you will understand, >> it is ipso facto part of our 'system' and is therefore discloseable. If >> my explanation of his bid doesn't match what he has, I have committed MI. > >Quite well put. That is indeed my position. > And do you understand that you are absolutely the only one on any side of this discussion who accepts this proposition? You appear to be laboring under a misconception that the Laws entitle players to information about the _cards_ held by their opponents. This is completely false, except as those cards are physically exposed, either through accident or the normal course of play. When partner forgets our agreement, it is still our agreement, even though he expects me to understand the bid as meaning something else at the time he makes it. Conversely, when partner invents a meaning from whole cloth in an auction which we have never discussed, and which cannot be rationally inferred from other aspects of either agreed system or common experience, then his expectation that I will understand it correctly does not in any ordinary sense of the word constitute an "agreement." The Laws _do not_ require me to accurately describe the cards in partner's hand. Nor am I required to speculate about his intentions for the benefit of the opponents. If I accurately describe the agreements we really do have, both explicit and implicit, then I cannot be guilty of MI, regardless of the cards actually held by partner or what he may have intended by his bidding. I understand that in practice, a discrepancy between my explanation and partner's actual holding will be treated as MI presumptively, but that does not make it MI in fact. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 07:37:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA14311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:37:29 +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 HAA14303 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:37:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:37:13 -0700 Message-ID: <00a501bf15c2$ff1a0fc0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <199910111524.IAA32020@mailhub.irvine.com> <000501bf1410$fa432580$09fcabc3@davidburn> <027001bf143a$e3870a80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <002a01bf144f$295261e0$843aac3e@davidburn> Subject: Re: L6D2 - but mainly on language Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:36:13 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Non-interested BLMLers, please hit the delete key! From: David Burn > For the moment, let it suffice to say that the word "if" has [at > least] two distinct meanings in English. Roughly speaking, those > meanings are: "supposing that" and "when[ever]". There are a number of such ambiguous words in the Laws, some of which have led to difficulties. These include "either" and "or," both of which can be inclusive xor exclusive. Usually the context clarifies the intent (for most of us, anyway). "At least" is right because "If" has quite a few distinct meanings. It's a very interesting word. The following comes from *The Random House Dictionary of the American Language*: (1) On condition that: *Sing if you want to* (2) Even though: *An enthusiastic if small audience* (3) Whether: *He asked if I know Spanish* (an oft-criticized use, but established in English for a long time) (4) As introduction to an exclamation: *If only....!* Those ifs are conjunctions. "If" can also be a noun: (5) A supposition; uncertain possibility: *The future is full of ifs.* (6) A condition, requirement, or stipulation: "There are too many ifs in this contract." Meaning (1) can have several shades of meaning, including "supposing that" and "whenever": "I'll be a monkey's uncle if you are right" [supposing that] "All during this event, kick me if I do something stupid" [whenever] >The former meaning requires a subjunctive verb, the latter does not > (I am over-simplifying vastly, but adequately for present purposes). The latter ("whenever") indeed does not, but the former ("supposing that") depends on what follows. The subjunctive is used if the supposition states an impossibility. (1) "If we were elected, we would have..." This is subjunctive mood, condition contrary to fact, as shown by the conclusion ("we would have"). (2) "If we were elected, why didn't they say so?" This is indicative mood, a possible fact, as shown by the lack of a "would" conclusion. It is unfortunate that subjunctive mood and indicative mood usually have the same verb forms. The first person singlular does not have this defect in some tenses: "If I were TD," present subjunctive, contrary to fact, no other possibility. "If I am TD," present indicative, a possible or actual fact, no other possibility. "If I was TD," past indicative, a possible or actual fact, no other possibility. "If I had been TD," ambiguous, to be clarified by the conclusion Colloquial speech often dispenses with the proper subjunctive form in favor of the indicative form, e.g., : "If *I* was TD that would not have happened!" Such instances are perhaps more common in the U. S. than in the U. K. Whether this means we are language ignoramuses or language pioneers is a matter for debate. Someone raised the subject of the word "be" in the subjunctive. This is (or was) used in the present subjunctive, passive voice: "If I be taken," "If you be taken," "If they be taken," etc. It was also used in subjunctive progressive forms: "If I be taking," etc. Such uses of "be" are no longer in general use, and the indicative form is used for the subjunctive ("If I am taken," etc.). I believe that "If I be king," following "be" with a noun instead of a verb, is a mistake for "If I am king," but perhaps it had acceptability at one time. A natural mistake, if it is one, for "If I be made king" is good (but archaic) grammar. > In the > context of Law 6, the latter meaning is obviously intended, and would > be clearer if the Law were to read: "No result may stand whenever the > cards are dealt without shuffle..., or whenever the deal has [or > "had"] previously been played...". > Since "whenever" invariably takes the indicative, Yes, that seems right. However, the use of present tense ("are dealt") for a past action doesn't seem right. One doesn't deal during or after the result. Why not "were dealt"? Pedantically speaking, the present perfect tense ("has been played") is appropriate only when a past action touches upon, or enters into, the time of speaking. Otherwise a past tense should be used, either the simple past ("was played") or the past perfect ("had been played"). "She has been good" [up until now] or [and still is] "She was good" [in the past] "She had been good" [until then] I have little argument with "had been played," but those words include the sense of "previously," which becomes redundant. If redundancy is desirable to reinforce the meaning, the usual "had been played before," using a good Anglo-Saxon word, reads better. Neither is appropriate with the simple past tense: L6D2 No result may stand if the cards were dealt without shuffle from a sorted pack or if the deal was played in a different session. This erroneously assumes that two identical deals would be impossible, so it isn't quite right. It also allows for dealing from a stacked deck, and fails to address the issue of prearranged deals, brought up by Roger Pewick, or of randomization with a computer program. My final (?) recommendation: L6D2: The result of a deal is void if the cards were not shuffled or otherwise randomized, unless the conditions of contest require specific deals. > the difficulty involved in the use of an inflection > that may be a pluperfect indicative or a subjunctive of varying tense > will disappear. Nitpick: An "inflection" is a change in form of a base word, either internally or externally (come, comes, came). Tenses are indicated not only by inflection, but often with the help of adverbs and verb phrases. There ought to be one word for all of these, but I don't know of one. I have learned a lot from this exchange, and hope it has not strayed too far from BLML's purposes. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 08:11:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:11:12 +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 IAA14377 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:11:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-205-99.s99.tnt4.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.205.99]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA04876 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003801bf15c7$b911f420$63cd7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <38045D5E.DDEDCB39@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:10:12 -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, October 13, 1999 6:22 AM Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? [snip] > > So you reveal what it probably means. We agree on that. > You say "it probably means ...". > I say "it means ...". > What's the (legal) difference. > I am not saying you commit MI, far from it. > But are you saying I commit MI ? > The mistake is limiting yourself to either one. Whether you use "It means" or "It probably means" depends on the nature of your agreements and experience. If you have a solid partnership agreement that a bid has a particular meaning from which partner does not deviate, then the hedge is MI. If your agreement is nebulous, or you are aware that partner will often deviate from your agreement, then the failure to hedge is MI, as is failure to disclose any noticeable pattern to partner's deviations from system. The idea is to communicate a complete disclosure of the actual partnership agreements, both explicit and implicit. [snip] > Grant Sterling: > > However, if I explain partner's bid as "we've never played > > together before and haven't discussed that, but she plays Brozel > > with her regular partner", and I proceed to bid as if she's using > > Brozel, and she isn't, there's no MI. [Assuming I am being truthful, > > as like DWS I usually do make this assumption as TD.] > > > > Well, I believe there is MI. Agreed. There is no agreement, and that should be disclosed. The statement above communicates the UI that you are playing partner's bid as Brozel. Even highly ethical players are going to have trouble negotiating the auction with that kind of UI about. >Sorry. > She was obviously playing "something", not Brozel. > Even if you are correct in your statement, you have not > informed the opponents of the correct set of "experience - > rules - understandings - whatever" that led your partner to > believe you would understand what she was doing. > The fact that you misunderstood does not alter the fact that > opponents have a right to know what was going on in her > mind. This is where you keep going wrong. The opponents have absolutely no right whatsoever to know what is going on in your partner's mind, or what you think is going on in partner's mind. The laws require that they be told partnership agreements, bearing in mind that agreements is a broad concept that includes explicit discussion as well as implicit agreements that arise through partnership experience or systemic calls that may not have been explicitly discussed. If partner makes a call that does not fall with the scope of those agreements, then "no agreement" is the only correct response to inquiry. Consider the following uncontested auction, that unfortunately did not come from the novice game: 1S=2S(8-9 HCP)=4S=4NT What is the spade opener supposed to say about this 4NT call? This bid cannot occur in any system that I know. If it turns out after the fact that partner had intended it as Blackwood, is failure to indicate that MI? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 09:20:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:20:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.midsouth.rr.com (mail.midsouth.rr.com [24.92.68.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14525 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:20:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from compaq ([24.95.102.226]) by mail.midsouth.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:16:16 -0500 Message-ID: <003e01bf15d1$73710c80$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> Reply-To: "Chyah Burghard" From: "Chyah Burghard" To: "Bridge-Laws" References: <199910131830.LAA09747@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:19:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: BLML > BTW, I have seen players with "random" written on their convention > card, but only in relation to spot card leads (i.e. instead of 4th > best or 3rd-and-5th or something). I always assumed this meant > something like "My partner can't apply the Rule of 11 since he's > incapable of counting that high, and he never pays attention to my > spot cards anyway, so I just lead at random to avoid giving > information to declarer." > > -- Adam I got a laugh out of the above, because that sounds like me. I often get flack for the way my card is marked, which is 3rd/5th and attitude. Actually I have an explanation for mine. From K543 I would lead the 4, but from K983, I would lead the 3; the rule being: if there is any chance partner might get confused, low I like it, high I don't. Being a parent, extra brain cells are often at a premium! So where do you write on your card, "If partner is at the table, then we are probably playing 3rd/5th, but if partner is tired, attitude leads will come up more often!" or :-8 -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 14 11:31:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:31:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14880 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:30:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11bZjB-000BY1-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 01:30:48 +0000 Message-ID: <0L85nJBwySB4Ew3g@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 02:06:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Forbidding psyching References: <01bf157e$075d97a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > > >On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Anne Jones wrote: >[snip] >> >********************************************************************** >> Law40D allows SOs to regulate the use of conventions. >> In England and Wales it is forbidden to psyche a multi 2D >> opening (in a level 3 event)and also it is forbidden to psyche >> a game forcing or near game forcing opening.(OB13.4.2) >> I think this is a legal interpretation of Law. > >Um, not quite, I think... even if we accept an SO's right to forbid >psyching a convention, on what basis do they ban psyching a natural >forcing opening? I would think in Acol-Land you must have a fair few >people who play natural forcing twos still? Anne has merely misquoted the regulation. it only bans the psyches of GF or near GF *artificial* openings. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 15 08:40:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 02:17:29 +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 CAA19340 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 02:17:15 +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 MAA21735 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:16:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA05304 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:17:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:17:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910141617.MAA05304@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Forbidding psyching X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > I do not think that the banning of psyching in 1st or 2nd seat > regardless of system or style is legal.Such a regulation is not > allowed by L80D because it is in contravention of L40A I believe this is correct as to L80F (which is what I think Anne means; 80D is conditions of entry), but see L80E ("Special Conditions"). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 15 09:40:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 06:47:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA10384 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 06:47:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA07823 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA05557 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:47:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:47:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910142047.QAA05557@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A concrete example on disclosure X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael Farebrother" > After 1NT(10-12 or 11+-14, depending on the rest of the system)-x... > 2C: to play unless doubled. Denies all other calls. Could be as > short as 1 club (by inference, with a 4=4=4=1). Can you describe the set of hands shown? For example, if 2C is always weak, "Artificial but not forcing. Denies enough strength to play 1NTx or xx. Shows at most four-card suits in spades, hearts, and diamonds. Might have long clubs, but clubs can be as short as a singleton if 4441." You might consider adding "We are hoping to find a fit, but we will play any undoubled contract whether we have a fit or not." From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 15 10:12:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 05:37:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail4.svr.pol.co.uk (mail4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.211]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04795 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 05:37:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem4294967193.death.dialup.pol.co.uk ([195.92.1.103] helo=biggy) by mail4.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11bqgO-0004Bp-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:37:00 +0100 Message-Id: <4.1.19991014203655.00a6a820@pop.swinternet.net> X-Sender: brighton-bridge.swinternet.co.uk@pop.swinternet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:44:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Dave Armstrong Subject: Re: Forbidding psyching Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote - > Anne has merely misquoted the regulation. it only bans the psyches of >GF or near GF *artificial* openings. It is quite true what David says but I was quite surprised recently when this hand was opening a Benjamin two as eight+ playing tricks in diamonds (I can't quite remember which way around the majors were but the minors are correct - S - x H - x x D - K x x x C - A J 10 9 x x Not only was it ruled by the TD as okay, at least two senior directord here said okay and the AC said, " When the bid was made the player believed it was an Acol Two so there is no penalty." Perhaps this fits in with the misbid thread. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 15 10:40:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 06:53:17 +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 GAA10829 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 06:53:05 +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 QAA08014 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:52:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA05563 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:52:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:52:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910142052.QAA05563@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lady Connell: MI? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > 1S P P X > 2C X! P P > P > > The second double was alerted because it was takeout, as it said > unambiguously on both CCs. It was also asked about, and described as > takeout. > > Partner then passed it out with C Kx, finding partner with a penalty > double hand. > > "Why did you pass it with your hand?" > > "Partner often forgets this is takeout so I guessed she had forgotten > this time." Unless this was played with screens, one suspects there was UI, but that is awfully hard to investigate, let alone prove. David: do you expect the TD's you train to ask about tone of voice (oral bidding) or mannerisms (bid boxes) in cases like this? As others have said, failure to disclose the partnership history seems to be MI (L75C). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 15 10:56:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA29579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:11:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA29562 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:11:12 +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 IAA17302 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:11:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991014081230.006ec428@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:12:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <38045D5E.DDEDCB39@village.uunet.be> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:22 PM 10/13/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >Well, I believe there is MI. Sorry. >She was obviously playing "something", not Brozel. >Even if you are correct in your statement, you have not >informed the opponents of the correct set of "experience - >rules - understandings - whatever" that led your partner to >believe you would understand what she was doing. >The fact that you misunderstood does not alter the fact that >opponents have a right to know what was going on in her >mind. We have reached the crux of the debate. Those of us who disagree with Herman's position believe that the opponents have only the right to know about your partnership agreements. They absolutely do *not* have the right to know "what was going on in [your] mind". If the lawmakers believed that they did have this right, then the rules would be written to require that, when the opponents ask about the meaning of your call, your partner would leave the table, and you would simply tell them what was going on in your mind. 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 Oct 15 11:40:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:35:46 +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 WAA01694 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:35:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-12-128.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.12.128]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02444 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:34:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3805AEA2.A7A402A0@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:21:22 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <38045D5E.DDEDCB39@village.uunet.be> <003801bf15c7$b911f420$63cd7ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > So you reveal what it probably means. We agree on that. > > You say "it probably means ...". > > I say "it means ...". > > What's the (legal) difference. > > I am not saying you commit MI, far from it. > > But are you saying I commit MI ? > > > > The mistake is limiting yourself to either one. Whether you use "It means" > or "It probably means" depends on the nature of your agreements and > experience. If you have a solid partnership agreement that a bid has a > particular meaning from which partner does not deviate, then the hedge is > MI. If your agreement is nebulous, or you are aware that partner will often > deviate from your agreement, then the failure to hedge is MI, as is failure > to disclose any noticeable pattern to partner's deviations from system. The > idea is to communicate a complete disclosure of the actual partnership > agreements, both explicit and implicit. > No, no, no, no, no, Hirsh. You are again confusing deviation with uncertainty. Hedging by saying "he tends to have ..." is correct. Hedging by saying "I may be wrong, but I believe he has ..." is what I am talking of. Since we are not talking about the same thing, we are not disagreeing, are we ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 15 11:40:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 04:41:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA00551 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 04:41:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-7-47.access.net.il [213.8.7.47] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA17725; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:40:51 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <380623BB.EF3141C1@zahav.net.il> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:40:59 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Konrad Ciborowski CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Forbidding psyching References: <380449C7.40E947F0@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As much as I know , there are no such "formal" or "public" regulations in Israel...(Ha...) But what we used to manage here were some regulations used in Europe , which I believe our former NCTD - Erdenbaum , learnt from Mr. Bavin , Mr. Endicott and from Hans von Staverren : 1.Strong Artificial GF opening bids are forbidden to psyche . 2.Multi 2D and 3 Suits strong opening bid are forbidden to psyche. What I use to enforce in Regular Club Sessions - good players are forbidden to psyche against begginers/novices(, and even penalized ). It's easy to manage when you know every player and his history for the last 234 years....but I don't suggest to implement this at the national/regional events. Dany Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > The L40A allows psyching. The L80F allows the > tournament organizer to enforce some regulations of > his own provided that they are not in contradiction > with the Law. Hence, forbidding psyching is illegal. > However, I have seen tournaments where psyching > as opener in 1st & 2nd position was indeed prohibited > (there aren't many tournaments with system restrictions > in Poland but there are some). > I wonder if this happens in your countries also? > Or there are other regulations about psyching? > Pls comment > > ********************************************************************** > > - 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 Fri Oct 15 12:00:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:35:49 +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 WAA01708 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:35:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-12-128.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.12.128]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02463 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:35:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3805C3AA.F9428529@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:51:06 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > >A call has a meaning. The opponents are entitled to know > >what that meaning is. > > A call has a meaning, yes. Opponents are entitled to know meanings *which > are based on a special partnership agreement*. A common misconception. The active word in the Law that you recite is "special". Other meanings are fi those based on general bidding principles, such as "an opening promises 12+ points". Opponents are also entitled to those meanings, since they know them already. A call has no other meanings. As long as you allow my definition of the word meaning (or at least what I intended to say with it) as "information the call carries towards partner". All that information has to be disclosed to opponents, not just part of it. > That does not mean that when > partner is stuck for a call, and chooses one based on his bridge knowledge > and experience, one must be able to explain to opponents precisely what > partner is doing. > Well, the call he eventually chooses shall be deemed to include the particular hand he has as one possible "meaning" - barring evidence to the opposite. > >Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the TD will rule that the > >meaning of a call > >corresponds to the intention of the player who made it, and to the hand he > >holds. > >If that meaning is not disclosed to opponents, there is MI. > > So the use of "bridge judgement" is illegal in Belgium? Remind me not to > play there. :-( > No it isn't. I don't see how you deduce that from what I wrote. > Regards, > > Ed > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 15 12:11:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:35:49 +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 WAA01700 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:35:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-12-128.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.12.128]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02454 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:35:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3805C25B.C2475077@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:45:31 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <38045D5E.DDEDCB39@village.uunet.be> <003801bf15c7$b911f420$63cd7ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > >Sorry. > > She was obviously playing "something", not Brozel. > > Even if you are correct in your statement, you have not > > informed the opponents of the correct set of "experience - > > rules - understandings - whatever" that led your partner to > > believe you would understand what she was doing. > > The fact that you misunderstood does not alter the fact that > > opponents have a right to know what was going on in her > > mind. > > This is where you keep going wrong. The opponents have absolutely no right > whatsoever to know what is going on in your partner's mind, or what you > think is going on in partner's mind. That is not what I mean at all. The opponents have a right to know the system. Barring proof to the contrary, "what is going on in bidder's mind" (or at least parts of it) IS the system. > The laws require that they be told > partnership agreements, bearing in mind that agreements is a broad concept > that includes explicit discussion as well as implicit agreements that arise > through partnership experience or systemic calls that may not have been > explicitly discussed. Exactly ! > If partner makes a call that does not fall with the > scope of those agreements, then "no agreement" is the only correct response > to inquiry. > I agree sith you, but I believe that what you call this "scope" is so very broad, that it encompasses almost everything, and "no agreement" would be the correct response in only a very limited number of cases. Let's see your example : > Consider the following uncontested auction, that unfortunately did not come > from the novice game: > > 1S=2S(8-9 HCP)=4S=4NT > > What is the spade opener supposed to say about this 4NT call? This bid > cannot occur in any system that I know. Yet partner has done it. You should explain to opponents that under the system as you understand it, this call is "impossible". You should then also tell them that 4S in this auction indicates a total lack of intrest in slam, and explain which calls (and their meanings) it excludes. You should also tell them the meaning of 2Sp. You should also say to what extent your 4NT calls are (always-never-sometimes) Blackwood. That is far more than "no agreement". > If it turns out after the fact that > partner had intended it as Blackwood, is failure to indicate that MI? > In an environment where everybody uses 4NT as Blackwood, the indication is generally understood, so it would not be a failure to indicate. In an environment where many people use 4NT as quantitative, the failure to indicate that in your system 4NT would be Blackwood may well be MI. Since this is again not a case of uncertainty, but rather of impossible auction, it is not a very enlightening example. Besides, if it is not Blackwood, what would you have thought it was? "Sorry partner, I had put three clubs among my spades and I have singleton so now I prefer 4NT to 4Sp" ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 15 12:40:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:35:51 +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 WAA01712 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:35:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-12-128.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.12.128]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02494 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:35:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:01:49 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > >> You, Herman, hold the following two positions: > >> a) If partner makes a bid he expects [or hopes] you will > understand, > >> it is ipso facto part of our 'system' and is therefore discloseable. If > >> my explanation of his bid doesn't match what he has, I have committed MI. > > > >Quite well put. That is indeed my position. > > > > And do you understand that you are absolutely the only one on any side of > this discussion who accepts this proposition? I am very certain that I am not. > You appear to be laboring > under a misconception that the Laws entitle players to information about > the _cards_ held by their opponents. No I don't. > This is completely false, except as > those cards are physically exposed, either through accident or the normal > course of play. > As I said, I don't. > When partner forgets our agreement, it is still our agreement, even though > he expects me to understand the bid as meaning something else at the time > he makes it. If partner forgets an agreement, you may have evidence that suggests this. The TD will weigh the evidence, and decide on it. The Laws tell him to rule MI if he finds the evidence lacking. This is absolutely not the case I am talking about. > Conversely, when partner invents a meaning from whole cloth in > an auction which we have never discussed, and which cannot be rationally > inferred from other aspects of either agreed system or common experience, > then his expectation that I will understand it correctly does not in any > ordinary sense of the word constitute an "agreement." > Again, not what I am talking about. If the logical inferred meaning is told to the opponents, and the bases for the inferences are correct, and the inferences are valid, then again you have presented evidence to the TD that partner has made a call that fell outside the system, and there is no MI. But we are not in either of these situations. If my partner makes some inferences from our system, and I make others, and mine is not "the only possible one", then the TD will rule the meaning he attributed to it as "the system", and mine as MI. Whether or not I hedge my bets by saying, "but I'm not certain". > The Laws _do not_ require me to accurately describe the cards in partner's > hand. Nor am I required to speculate about his intentions for the benefit > of the opponents. You would not have to speculate, if you had full understanding. But if you do not have full understanding, and you need to disclose anyway, you will simply have to resort to speculation. > If I accurately describe the agreements we really do > have, both explicit and implicit, then I cannot be guilty of MI, regardless > of the cards actually held by partner or what he may have intended by his > bidding. What is "accurately" ? How will you ever prove this, when there is a clear meaning to partner's call (given his hand and intentions), and the Law-given obligation to the TD to presume MI ? > I understand that in practice, a discrepancy between my > explanation and partner's actual holding will be treated as MI > presumptively, but that does not make it MI in fact. > Indeed, but what is the difference ? If the Laws instruct me as TD to rule as if there was misinformation, why not call it misinformation then ? OK, I will not call it MI anymore. I will call it ITBLHTBCAM (David : Information That By Law Has To Be Considered As Misinformation) > Mike Dennis -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 15 14:43:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:43:02 +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 OAA19645 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:42:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.99.44.245] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11bzCP-0000gE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 05:42:38 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bf16c7$9495a000$f52c63c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 05:41:42 +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 I have been staying out of this, because the main protagonists and others appear to be covering all salient points very thoroughly, and because I have not fully understood all the arguments, having skipped some of the points in the thread. However, I offer a real-life example that caused much confusion among my circle of players, in order to make sure that I have some notion of what is going on. The bidding proceeds: West North East South 1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H Now, suppose that NS play this auction: West North East South Pass 1NT Dble 2H as a transfer to spades, and that neither of them has ever forgotten that they do this. Suppose North in the first auction alerts 2H. "What does that mean?" says West. "Well", says North, "if you hadn't opened 1S, I would know that he had spades, but now I am not sure." West passes, and so does everybody else; South has hearts; EW claim that had they known this, one of them would have bid 2S for a better score than they received defending 2H. North's hand was: AQx Kxx Axxxx Kx My understanding of people's positions is that Herman would claim that there has been misinformation by which EW have been damaged; Michael would claim that North has done his duty and that there has been no infraction of MI. Before I express my own opinion, I would like to check that this is indeed what Herman and Michael actually believe. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 15 19:51:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA20046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 19:51:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA20041 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 19:51:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-106.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.106]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA12604 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:50:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3806F419.65E75ECE@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:30:01 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <000b01bf16c7$9495a000$f52c63c3@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > I have been staying out of this, because the main protagonists and > others appear to be covering all salient points very thoroughly, and > because I have not fully understood all the arguments, having skipped > some of the points in the thread. However, I offer a real-life example > that caused much confusion among my circle of players, in order to > make sure that I have some notion of what is going on. > I am sure I speak for many on this list when I say, "glad to have you back, David". > The bidding proceeds: > > West North East South > 1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H > > Now, suppose that NS play this auction: > > West North East South > Pass 1NT Dble 2H > > as a transfer to spades, and that neither of them has ever forgotten > that they do this. Suppose North in the first auction alerts 2H. "What > does that mean?" says West. "Well", says North, "if you hadn't opened > 1S, I would know that he had spades, but now I am not sure." West > passes, and so does everybody else; South has hearts; EW claim that > had they known this, one of them would have bid 2S for a better score > than they received defending 2H. North's hand was: AQx Kxx Axxxx Kx > > My understanding of people's positions is that Herman would claim that > there has been misinformation by which EW have been damaged; Exactly. South intended his call to mean hearts, and, barring evidence to the contrary, that has to be considered his system. Since North has told the opponents that the call means spades, that has to be considered misinformation. If opponents have been damaged by this (not expressing any opinion on that - not important anyway), there shall be a ruling. > Michael > would claim that North has done his duty and that there has been no > infraction of MI. He may well have been telling the truth, but he cannot prove this and we should not let him get away with it. The opponents have been misinformed about the "probable" system. > Before I express my own opinion, I would like to > check that this is indeed what Herman and Michael actually believe. > > David Burn -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 15 20:18:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:18:06 +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 UAA20089 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:17:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from k515.zeelandnet.nl (kpn-di213.zeelandnet.nl [212.115.197.87]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA27138 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 12:17:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: by k515.zeelandnet.nl with Microsoft Mail id <01BF1706.A91C25A0@k515.zeelandnet.nl>; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 12:13:16 +-200 Message-ID: <01BF1706.A91C25A0@k515.zeelandnet.nl> From: "M.M. Schoof" To: BLML Subject: AW: Nearest left thumb Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 12:10:38 +-200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id UAA20090 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote ...(Sort of like when the ACBL banned odd-even signals, because they felt there were too many UI problems happening when players had only odd spots or only even spots.) MS: Is the above mentioned odd-even signals the same as roman signaling (odd is positive, even is color prefferance)? Because I don't see the UI. I know that some opps have a problem with understanding the deeper consequentions of the system (e.g. in a 4 S contract the lead is C 4 meaning diamonds en the conclude that the missing queen of clubs is in the other hand, where in fact the lead was from Q94). When questioned about our signaling we will always explain that the lead asks for a diamond return but doesn't give information of the club holding. Whether I play diamonds as asked by my partner is totaly depending on my view of the cards (including my deduction based on the cards in the dummy, my own cards and the bidding). I might decide that I think that my partner doesn't have odd cards and wants my to play clubs. But this is normal for every signaling system, you must always think and so must the leader. Marcel Schoof From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 15 21:55:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 21:55:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de (mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA20323 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 21:55:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from ralf.brain.uni-freiburg.de (sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de) [132.230.63.114] by mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #3) id 11c5wq-0005P9-00; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 13:55:00 +0200 Message-ID: <380716D7.A55575F9@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 13:58:25 +0200 From: Ralf Teichmann Reply-To: teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [de] (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: de,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Re: You place that card wrong partner References: <199910062003.QAA00634@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, Steve Willner wrote: > And anyway, is David's reason for concern so substantial? Does it > really do violence to the game if occasionally someone wakes partner up > with an statement about turning a trick wrong? I think it is, because it informs partner about the number of tricks allready won. L74C4 says that "commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence, or to _the_number_of_tricks_still_required_ for success" is considered a violation of procedure. -- Ralf Teichmann Institute of Biophysics and Radiation Biology, Brain Research Unit Hansastrasse 9a, D-79104 Freiburg i. Brsg. , Germany e-mail: teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de Tel.: -49 (0)761 / 203-9583 Fax: -49 (0)761 / 203-9500 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 15 22:40:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 22:32:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.midsouth.rr.com (mail.midsouth.rr.com [24.92.68.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20472 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 22:32:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from compaq ([24.95.102.226]) by mail.midsouth.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:28:23 -0500 Message-ID: <003001bf1709$3e50f220$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> Reply-To: "Chyah Burghard" From: "Chyah Burghard" To: "Bridge-Laws" References: <01BF1706.A91C25A0@k515.zeelandnet.nl> Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:31:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There are two kinds of odd/even signaling. One is when you are discarding and the ACBL still permits that. The other is in response to the opening lead or while following suit. This second version is not permitted. The reason for the ban is that when people do not have the correct card needed, they pause for thought indicating that they have a problem and creating UI. -Chyah ----- Original Message ----- > Adam Beneschan wrote: > ...(Sort of like when the ACBL banned odd-even signals, because they felt > there were too many UI problems happening when players had only odd > spots or only even spots.) Marcel Schoof wrote: MS: Is the above mentioned odd-even signals the same as roman signaling (odd is positive, even is color prefferance)? Because I don't see the UI. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 00:02:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 00:02:01 +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 AAA20715 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 00:01:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <2561-6031>; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:01:05 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA15950 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:34:26 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: Nearest left thumb Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:30:00 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3C9@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) In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837643308@XION> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk M.M. Schoof wrote >MS: Is the above mentioned odd-even signals the same as roman signaling >(odd is positive, even is color prefferance)? Because I don't see the UI. The UI occurs when for example the following happens: a defender wants to signal attitude for a suit; however, he only has even spots in that suit with which he can only give preference for another suit. Defender then hesitates before playing his highest even spot (UI). Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 02:37:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 02:37:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA21479 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 02:36:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-167.access.net.il [213.8.1.167] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29501; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 18:16:24 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3807535F.D67F19FE@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 18:16:31 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chyah Burghard CC: Bridge-Laws Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: <01BF1706.A91C25A0@k515.zeelandnet.nl> <003001bf1709$3e50f220$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think I don't understand the English language anymore.. Is it forbidden to encourage/discourage O-E signals on the first lead of any suit in ACBL events ??? If the reason is hesitation , when the partner has no even or odd (relevant) card , then what happens when a player holds 1098 and his partner leads A of suit...show me more than 2 of 97 players who will not think 50 sec more than usual. Please try to explain it to me again , and where these regulations are published .... Tx Dany Chyah Burghard wrote: > > There are two kinds of odd/even signaling. One is when you > are discarding and the ACBL still permits that. The other is > in response to the opening lead or while following suit. This > second version is not permitted. > > The reason for the ban is that when people do not have the > correct card needed, they pause for thought indicating that > they have a problem and creating UI. > > -Chyah > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > ...(Sort of like when the ACBL banned odd-even signals, because > they felt > > there were too many UI problems happening when players had only odd > > spots or only even spots.) > > Marcel Schoof wrote: > MS: Is the above mentioned odd-even signals the same as roman > signaling (odd is positive, even is color prefferance)? Because I > don't see the UI. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 02:37:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 02:37:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA21478 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 02:36:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-167.access.net.il [213.8.1.167] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02480; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 18:26:52 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <380755D5.F1F43F96@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 18:27:01 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Armstrong CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Forbidding psyching References: <4.1.19991014203655.00a6a820@pop.swinternet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Huh If the player believed it's a hand of 8 playing tricks , and we trust him( knowing his/her knowledge), then I think I'll not apply any PP but adjust the score for the NO , if the AFtG (Artificial Forcing to Game ) bid was forbidden to be psyched.... DWS , please add this peculiar shortcut to the H-BLML's dictionary It is not so easy and simple to do it , because if a player bids a 2nd/3rd bid showing forcing , but making a real mistake or a <..> judgment , then we will not help the damaged side ....it can be really a mistake ; but IIMHO we would protect all players against the forbidden bids to psyche. Dany Dave Armstrong wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote - > > > Anne has merely misquoted the regulation. it only bans the psyches of > >GF or near GF *artificial* openings. > > It is quite true what David says but I was quite surprised recently when > this hand was opening a Benjamin two as eight+ playing tricks in diamonds > (I can't quite remember which way around the majors were but the minors are > correct - > S - x > H - x x > D - K x x x > C - A J 10 9 x x > > Not only was it ruled by the TD as okay, at least two senior directord here > said okay and the AC said, " When the bid was made the player believed it > was an Acol Two so there is no penalty." > > Perhaps this fits in with the misbid thread. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 02:37:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 02:37:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA21492 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 02:37:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-167.access.net.il [213.8.1.167] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA04475; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 18:34:19 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38075793.F633F1D4@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 18:34:27 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "M.M. Schoof" CC: BLML Subject: Re: AW: Nearest left thumb References: <01BF1706.A91C25A0@k515.zeelandnet.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The simplest convention is : Small even is encouraging , if have no odd card , high odd is discouraging , if have no even. The clever player must decide what to lead the next trick , considering his partner's and opps' calls during the bidding , his own holding in that suit and examining dummy's cards.... Dany M.M. Schoof wrote: > > Adam Beneschan wrote > > ...(Sort of like when the ACBL banned odd-even signals, because they felt > there were too many UI problems happening when players had only odd > spots or only even spots.) > > MS: Is the above mentioned odd-even signals the same as roman signaling (odd is positive, even is color prefferance)? Because I don't see the UI. > I know that some opps have a problem with understanding the deeper consequentions of the system (e.g. in a 4 S contract the lead is C 4 meaning diamonds en the conclude that the missing queen of clubs is in the other hand, where in fact the lead was from Q94). > When questioned about our signaling we will always explain that the lead asks for a diamond return but doesn't give information of the club holding. > Whether I play diamonds as asked by my partner is totaly depending on my view of the cards (including my deduction based on the cards in the dummy, my own cards and the bidding). I might decide that I think that my partner doesn't have odd cards and wants my to play clubs. > But this is normal for every signaling system, you must always think and so must the leader. > > Marcel Schoof From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 07:05:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 07:05:19 +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 HAA22344 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 07:05:11 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com ([130.252.223.221]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id OAA06747 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA10041; 15 Oct 99 14:00:12 -0700 Date: 15 Oct 99 13:57:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199910151400.AA10041@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBL Ban on odd-even carding Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This attitude is sophistry in the extreme, but not surprising (from the ACBL). With standard spot-card signalling, the order (from most encouraging to least encouraging) is: T-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2 Upside down, it is: 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-T Odd-even, it is: 3-5-7-9-2-4-6-8-T. (Within my limited experience (1977-1982, ACBL, when the method was legal), the users of odd-even signals were 'mad scientists' using such 'new-fangled' methods as 3rd/5th spot card leads and Journalist hono(u)r leads. so I never saw 9-7-5-3-T-8-6-4-2, although it is conceivable. Users of odd-even were likely to have converted from upside-down, not standard). In *all* of these, it is possible to have suit-preference implications in the 'discouraging half' of the spot cards. The players -- outside my own circle of hackers -- who most consistently used either odd/even or upside-down were the Los Angeles experts, and the roaming professionals who descended for Regionals and Nationals. In the course of many bad boards given to me by them, I never *once* saw any dithering when an inappropriate spot was perforce played. I hope (and believe) the same would have been said about me and my normal set of partners. I had many experiences with partnership-desk partners (one session each ) who would dither whenever they wanted to make sure that partner was paying attention to their signal. The standard response from me was to consider the action suggested by the dithering as being prohibited unless there was *no* other possible continuation; as I am not a player of the expert ranks, I could very rarely discover that the suggested return was the 'only' one. At the end of the hand, it usually sufficed to announce to partner "If you try that one more time, I'll take you to a C&E hearing myself" to achieve salubrious effects. I was extremely displeased by the unspoken assumption behind the ACBL's barring of odd-even methods -- that we 'mad scientists' were less ethical than the run-of-the-mill player. (I actually believe the opposite -- mad scientists see no value in winning a contest played according to strict rules by violating those rules; it would be a truly Pyrrhic victory, entailing the loss of all self-esteem. And most of us *did* know the rules,) I am continually amused by comments like Chyah's -- and I am not blaming her for them; it is the ACBL's stated position, not hers -- that the reason for banning odd-even is that there is a difficulty when the 'right' spot card is not available. This is obviously and *equivalently* true for all spot-card signalling methods; the only technical justifications are in favor of upside-down, where the 'wrong' spot is (marginally) less likely to cost a trick. Perhaps the real problem is that -- while it is possible to drop an 8 under the table, playing standard signals, and announce "small heart, partner", or to drop a four under the table, playing upside-down, and announce "middle heart, partner" -- it is hard to get away with dropping the five under the table and announcing "even heart, partner" . But this only makes the odd-even method coffeehouse-proof, assuming numerate opponents. -- Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 08:12:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 08:12:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22520 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 08:11:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA28825 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 18:11:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA06299 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 18:12:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 18:12:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910152212.SAA06299@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Dany Haimovici > Is it forbidden to encourage/discourage O-E signals on the first lead of > any suit in ACBL events ??? >From the ACBL GCC (rules are the same for MidChart and SuperChart): CARDING Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender's first discard. Except for the first discard, only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are approved. Encrypted signals are not approved. In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any method (such as suit preference systems at trick one) when they are deemed to be playing it in a manner which is not compatible with the maintenance of proper tempo (much like dual message signals). This decision may be appealed to the tournament committee. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 13:30:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 13:30:18 +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 NAA23036 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 13:30:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991016032940.QRWG6101.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:29:41 -0700 From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: ACBL Ban on odd-even carding Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:29:47 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <199910151400.AA10041@gateway.tandem.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bobby Goldman was one of the fiercest defenders (and maybe responsible for) of the ACBL position. Basically the same view for two-way notrumps. He was a member of the Comp. & Conv. Committee and I don't expect you will see a change from them on this issue. They would be who you should lobby (in writing) if you care to. (via Gary Blaiss) Linda From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 13:48:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 13:48:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23081 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 13:48:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh7f.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.239]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA00653 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:46:03 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <000b01bf16c7$9495a000$f52c63c3@davidburn> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:41 AM 10/15/99 +0100, David B wrote: >I have been staying out of this, because the main protagonists and >others appear to be covering all salient points very thoroughly, and >because I have not fully understood all the arguments, having skipped >some of the points in the thread. However, I offer a real-life example >that caused much confusion among my circle of players, in order to >make sure that I have some notion of what is going on. > >The bidding proceeds: > >West North East South >1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H > >Now, suppose that NS play this auction: > >West North East South >Pass 1NT Dble 2H > >as a transfer to spades, and that neither of them has ever forgotten >that they do this. Suppose North in the first auction alerts 2H. "What >does that mean?" says West. "Well", says North, "if you hadn't opened >1S, I would know that he had spades, but now I am not sure." West >passes, and so does everybody else; South has hearts; EW claim that >had they known this, one of them would have bid 2S for a better score >than they received defending 2H. North's hand was: AQx Kxx Axxxx Kx > >My understanding of people's positions is that Herman would claim that >there has been misinformation by which EW have been damaged; Michael >would claim that North has done his duty and that there has been no >infraction of MI. Before I express my own opinion, I would like to >check that this is indeed what Herman and Michael actually believe. > Although I don't care for the wording of North's "explanation", and am unsure of the applicability of the alert standards, you've certainly got the sense of my position. North is obligated to explain relevant partnership agreements, and to make clear what limitations apply to those agreements. An explanation more like "our normal agreement is that 2H over 1NT is a transfer to spades and that actions over 1nt overcalls are as if opened, but we have no agreement about whether the same principle applies with regard to transferring into the opponents' suit," comes closer to my ideal (with due credit to Steve). Is this mis-information? Hardly, assuming that the underlying facts are true. The opponents have been given all that they are entitled to: an accurate explanation of such agreements as you do have. What they are not entitled to is your best guess as to the cards actually held by your partner, especially when that guess is influenced by your own holding. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 19:23:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:23:59 +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 TAA23800 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:23:36 +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 <19991016092239.SKWD12074.mail.rdc1.pa.home.com@cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com> for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 02:22:39 -0700 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 05:22:35 -0400 Message-ID: References: <01BF1706.A91C25A0@k515.zeelandnet.nl> <003001bf1709$3e50f220$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003001bf1709$3e50f220$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.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 On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:31:38 -0500, Chyah wrote: >There are two kinds of odd/even signaling. One is when you >are discarding and the ACBL still permits that. The other is >in response to the opening lead or while following suit. This >second version is not permitted. > >The reason for the ban is that when people do not have the >correct card needed, they pause for thought indicating that >they have a problem and creating UI. > Chyah, this is in no way intended as a swipe at you, I realise you're only stating the ACBL position. However, this partial ban on Roman (odd/even) really does irritate me. Yes, it has been explained to me before, at some length, that the reason for the ban is that it's believed that there are too many UI problems created by them. What does not seem to have been taken into account is that those of us who wish to play Roman leads and/or signals and/or discards in an ethical manner (on OKBridge, safely out of the reach of any NCBO!) are FULLY AWARE of these potential problems. If you are going to play Roman in an ethical manner, you have to accept that the need to play IN TEMPO is more important than usual, and prepare accordingly. If your pd is on lead, and you know you will have a discard problem if pd leads a particular suit, start thinking about what you will do in that suit BEFORE pd's card hits the table. If you're still stuck when it's your turn to play, then you pitch ANY card in the suit, **IN TEMPO**, and accept the fact that it will almost certainly mislead partner as the (occasional) cost of playing Roman. This may not be seen as an option by really good players, especially not by the top players such as the late Bobby Goldman (referring to Linda's post for a moment here). Those blessed with anything remotely approaching Bobby Goldman's abilities play any signalling system well, they don't NEED to use Roman. However, for pairs that play at the ability level of my wife and myself, where the clarity of suit preference signals adds a substantial benefit to our defence, we louse up more than enough boards by bad bidding and card play that adding the occasional board or two to the list because we didn't have time to work out the best 'incorrect' signal is not a problem. We don't have a room full of specs dissecting our every play. ;-) In most (all?) other cases where there is UI from tempo variations, the remedy that is available in F2F bridge is to call the director, and let him do his job. There is no logical reason why tempo variations when playing Roman leads/signals/discards should be excluded from this. The answer to those who do not play Roman ethically is to penalise the unethical, not to bar everyone from playing it. My wife and I have played Roman leads, signals and discards on OKBridge for the last four and a half years. I issue an open invitation to any member of this mailing list who is also on OKBridge, and who believes that it is unlikely (or worse) that a pair can play Roman ethically - e-mail me, and we'll either set up a game, or you can come and spec. one of our pre-arranged games. You can do all the scrutinising of our card play tempo that you wish, I defy you to find any correlation between our tempo and the times that we do not have the correct card. (An explanatory note for any members of this mailing list who do not play bridge on the internet - the medium itself introduces random "hesitations" in the bidding and card play due to factors that are beyond the control of the individual players. That's the reason why I said 'correlation' above, you have to allow for the times when there WILL be a tempo variation when you do not hold the correct card, but that tempo variation is not the fault of the player. These tempo variations will also occur when it is obvious that there is no card selection problem.) Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 19:39:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:39:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23837 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:39:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.141] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11cQJM-000HIB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:39:36 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01bf17ba$57472720$8d5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 02:56:02 +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 October 1999 04:56 Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? > >The fact that "most players in this club" bid >in a certain way is not, in any case, an agreement between two players, >unless they have agreed, at least in general terms, to play that standard >club system ("Merseyside standard, partner?"). > >Mike Dennis > +=+ But beware! When the partnership discovers in practice that it can interpret actions by reference to that method they do have an agreement, implicitly established. Also, in principle, it is prima facie evidence of an agreement when a player acts upon an understanding that is 'special' and the partner interprets the action correctly. [For definition of 'special' see WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 19:39:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:39:54 +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 TAA23838 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:39:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.141] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11cQJO-000HIB-00; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:39:38 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01bf17ba$589e79c0$8d5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , Subject: Re: A Hesitation Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 03:07:26 +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@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 11 October 1999 10:19 Subject: Re: A Hesitation >Now, where does this tell me that "half of 420 and half of 450" is >legal? > >David Burn > +=+ For ACs the half-and-half adjustment is authorized by 12C3. There is a move to amend 12C3 to extend the power to the DIC. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 19:40:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:40:00 +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 TAA23846 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:39:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.141] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11cQJP-000HIB-00; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:39:39 +0100 Message-ID: <002f01bf17ba$59571b60$8d5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "Jesper Dybdal" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne - LONG Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:08:36 +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 > -----Original Message----- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws Date: 13 October 1999 19:53 Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne >On Tue, 5 Oct 1999 07:42:44 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > >>There >>is to be a review of its effects after a period of experience >>and an invitation is extended to bridge players and officials >>to let me have their reactions when they have the experience >>(or not, as the case may be) - I am acting as Secretary to the >>formulating group. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Even though I have no experience with it yet, I do have a >reaction. > >First of all I would like to say that I think this is an >excellent document, and a fine initiative by the WBF. > >It is useful not only for ACs, but also for TDs and probably many >players. > ++=++ The group takes a bow. So should the President whose personal initiative brought the group together. It can be seen, perhaps, that there *is* an intention to influence the approach of the Tournament Directors. ++=++ > >I give detailed comments on parts of it below; if these sound >negative, please remember that they are just details and that I >am extremely pleased with the document as a whole. > ++=++ It is in the nature of things that there has to be more negative comment than positive. Members of the group expect this. ++=++ > >The WBF wrote: > >In "Function of an Appeal Committee": >>The committee may recommend likewise to the Director >>a review of any disciplinary penalty he may have applied >>under Law 91A but may not rescind or vary it. > >I think it would be a good idea to also give some guidance >concerning L90 penalties. May an AC change a L90 penalty? (I >would say yes, except when the specific penalty is prescribed by >regulation.) > [#] The AC may change or rescind a PP. I think I could insert '(unlike any Law 90 penalty)'; will think about it. [#] >In "Score adjustment": >>The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12C2) is >>appropriate when a violation of law causes damage to an >>innocent side that has not damaged itself by irrational, >>wild or gambling action subsequent to the infraction. > >This seems inconsistent with the text that follows, which makes >it clear that L12C2 is to be used (for the offending side) even >when the NOS has "damaged itself by ...". I suggest that the >text might be better it this sentence were simply terminated >after "damage". The "irrational, wild or gambling action" aspect >seems to me to be described very adequately in the text that >follows. > [#] I will look at the possibility of making two statements out of the one [#] >In "Law 12C3": >>This section of the laws operates unless the Zonal Authority >>elects otherwise. It applies in WBF tournaments. The purpose >>of this law is to enable an appeal committee to form a view >>as to what is an equitable outcome in the score, and to >>implement that outcome, if it considers that the mechanical >>application of Law12C2 does not produce a fair answer for >>one or both of the sides involved. It makes the appeal >>committee the final arbiter of equity. > >Would it not be a good idea to say clearly here that L12C3 is >applicable only in situations where a L12C2 adjustment is >otherwise in order? I.e., L12C3 cannot be used as an excuse to >not follow L12C1 or L64A, for instance. > >>It is desired that Law 12C3 be amended to extend the powers >>it currently gives to appeals committees also to Chief >>Directors. (This could be a zonal option.) > >The basic problem with L12C3 is that it means that TDs and ACs >rule the game by different rules. This problem will still be >there if CTDs, but not other TDs, are allowed to use L12C3. I >suggest that L12C3 should either be available to _all_ TDs or be >removed completely. (My personal preference would be for >removing it: I like L12C2.) > >I do not understand why anyone would want to limit it to CTDs: in >most events, there is only one TD, who is then the CTD. Those >events that have more than one TD are often major events where >TDs of some quality are used, and it should be possible to trust >them to not abuse L12C3. > >In any case, assuming L12C3 is not discarded completely, I would >like it to say explicitly that it is to be used to assign a >weighted average of different possible scores (and mention that >this should be done in IMPs or MPs). This is what it is used for >in practice, and I see no reason for the law to allow ACs to >assign scores in any other way. It would also solve David Burn's >problem with the current wording. > ++=++ I note what you say. The trend is to extend the availability of 12C3 adjustments but any further thinking must await the reactions of the approving authorities on the law change proposal. ++=++ > >In "Unauthorized information", in a paragraph about types of AI >that need not be disclosed to opponents: >>A player is permitted to make and use judgements about the >>abilities and tendencies of opponents and about the >>inclinations ('style') of his partner in matters where the >>partner's decisions are spontaneous rather than habitual or >>systemic > >Is there such a thing as a style in decisions that are >spontaneous to such a degree that the style should not be >disclosable? > >It seems to me that as soon as the word "style" becomes >appropriate, there must be a sufficient degree of habit to make >the style disclosable. > ++=++ I think you are probably wrong. A situation not previously experienced, for example, may still be wholly a matter of spontaneous judgement. The principle of the fading memory could perhaps also apply. It is likely that ACs have some decisions to make in this area before we have better definition of the scope of this statement. ++=++ > >In "Use of unauthorized information": >>attention to an opponent's convention card at a significant >>moment when it is not partner's turn to call or play; > >This could be misunderstood to mean that partner's "attention to >an opponent's convention card at a significant moment" is not UI >when it _is_ his turn to call. Why not end the sentence after >"moment"? Or perhaps add ", particularly" after "moment"? > [#] 'particularly' sounds good. I wonder if this can be deemed not a change of substance? [#] > >>When use of unauthorized information made available by >>partner is alleged there are four key questions for the >>appeal committee: > >I don't like the wording: I do not normally allege that my >opponent has _used_ UI, but I often allege that he has chosen a >logical alternative forbidden by L16A, which is not the same. > >>2. Could the unauthorized information be thought to suggest >>demonstrably the action that was taken by the player who >>possessed it? > >Should it not say something about suggesting "over a logical >alternative"? > ++=++ This is a section in which the group altered my original draft to its liking, most other changes in group discussion were lighter in touch. ++=++ > >>[A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst >>the class of players in question and using the methods of >>the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a >>significant proportion of such players, of whom it is >>reasonable to think some might adopt it.] > >I don't think I understand exactly how (or if) this combination >of "serious consideration" and "might adopt it" differs in effect >from some of the other definitions in use. "Significant" and >"some" are not very precise terms. But it is not bad as a >general indication of what kind of criteria are relevant when >judging what an LA is. > ++=++ Ton was minded to state a percentage. The wording approved left it to sponsoring organizations to give guidance on the interpretation of the principle here stated. The 'some might adopt it' phrase is a key qualification of what goes before it ++=++ > >In "Discrepancies between explanations given and the related >hands": >>If the members of a partnership offer differing >>explanations, or if a conflicting statement on the >>convention card has caused an opponent to be confused, a >>procedural penalty for violation of Law 75 may be applied > >We are usually not so strict in Denmark: I have never given a PP >for that kind of problem. Of course, there is nothing new in the >fact that we give fewer PPs than TDs in international events do, >but this is a point where the text may not be suitable at other >than the very highest levels. > ++=++ 'may be applied' leaves the options open to make the kind of judgement that determines what is appropriate in the particular environment. Together with the cross reference to the later section on PPs, use of 'may' is key. ++=++ > >In "Psychic calls": >>3. psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the >>partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, >>that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such >>psychic calls to occur > >In Denmark, we consider partner's _general_ psyche frequency to >be AI. (This is not written in any regulation, but it is my >impression that it is the way we generally play and rule.) The >frequency is on the CC and is considered a partnership agreement. >For as long as I can recall, our attitude to psychers have been >much more tolerant than that of many other countries; strangely, >we seem to have extremely few problems with psyches. > >>A psychic call which is found on the above basis to be a >>matter of partnership understanding is disallowed and an >>artificial score adjustment may be awarded, together with a >>procedural penalty to the offending side if deemed >>appropriate. > >It seems to me that a call is not really psychic if it is based >on a partnership understanding. > ++=++ Confession: I went into the group meeting with exactly this (longstanding) belief. But whilst listening to the discussion I was idly thumbing the law book. The definition of 'Psychic Call' jumped out of the page and hit me. It applies whether or not, being only determined by the question of the nature of the misstatement. I am not even prepared to say now that it is necessarily inapplicable to a misbid. More thought to be devoted to this last point. ++=++ > I find it very difficult to see >any significant difference between a player who forgets to alert >a transfer bid and a player who forgets to alert and explain "he >psyched in that situation last week". In the former case, we >would routinely give an assigned adjusted score (L40C, L12C2) if >there was damage; in the latter case, this text seems to say that >we should give an artificial adjusted score regardless of damage >because it is a violation of L40B. > >But could the player "psyching" repeatedly not expect his partner >to alert, just as the player using a transfer bid does, so that >the bid is not in violation of L40B because his opponents could >"reasonable be expected to understand its meaning"? > ++=++ In this context opponents are expected to understand without any prompting. ++=++ > >In "Special": >>In the laws, regulations, and this Code of Practice, 'special' >>means 'additional to what is normal and general'. > >In the COP, the word is used only once, in the phrase "special >emphasis or tone of voice, or a gesture" about UI. No problem >with that. > >In the laws, it is used in L40B. I don't think this definition >helps me very much: it might be taken to mean that the use of >Stayman need not be disclosed because it is normal and general. > >On the other hand, I am unable to provide a suitable definition >of "special" for L40B: I would prefer the word to be removed from >L40B. > >In "Procedural penalties": >>In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a player who >>forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is not >>subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a >>procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated >>circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated. > >This seems to imply that for instance a misbid may sometimes be >subject to penalty (though not "automatic"), and that a >convention can be "misused". I don't understand that. Which law >says that a misbid is an irregularity? > >Repeated misbids can produce implicit agreements, but are not in >themselves irregularities in any way. I would remove the word >"automatic" and the last sentence above. > >Of course, repeated instances of incorrect _explanations_ of >conventions can, in aggravated circumstances, be reason for a PP >- but that is a different matter. > ++=++ That would include occasions when the misbidding is determined to be habitual to the extent that it can be anticipated, and this is not disclosed. Misbids are potentially also subject to penalty if they reach a degree that is seen as a Law 74B1 problem. There is scope for NCBO guidance in this matter of degree. ++=++ > >Score adjustment is the way to redress damage. > >Yes! - but only when there is an irregularity. > ++=++ Again 'thankyou' for a material contribution to the development of the project. ++=++ >-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 19:43:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:43:23 +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 TAA23887 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:43:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.141] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11cQJU-000HIB-00; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:39:44 +0100 Message-ID: <003101bf17ba$5bfe1f80$8d5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "Konrad Ciborowski" Cc: Subject: Re: Forbidding psyching Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:38:25 +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: Konrad Ciborowski .> >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >> The L40A allows psyching. The L80F allows the >> tournament organizer to enforce some regulations of >> his own provided that they are not in contradiction >> with the Law. Hence, forbidding psyching is illegal. +=+ I would just remind everyone of the determination in Geneva, in a Kaplan appeal against WBF regulations, that Law 80F applies to regulations made under 80F but does not apply to regulations made under 80E, or any other Law such as 40D. There is a complementary ruling from the WBF Laws Committee, given in response to enquiry from the European Bridge League, that a regulation which bans the psyching of conventional bids (in all or in defined situations) is legitimate. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 16 19:44:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:44:57 +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 TAA23908 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:44:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.108] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11cQOE-000HQZ-00; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:44:38 +0100 Message-ID: <003c01bf17bb$0b34dc00$8d5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "Dave Armstrong" Cc: Subject: Re: Forbidding psyching Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:43:52 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 09:25:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.96] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11cdCp-000Guy-00; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:25:43 +0100 Message-ID: <006801bf182d$bfa7bfa0$605208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:18:05 +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: 13 October 1999 19:53 Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne +++=+++ One or two afterthoughts, following my previous scribblings and my nth reading of your remarks, Jesper : +++=+++ > >The WBF wrote: > Jesper Dybdal wrote: >In "Law 12C3": > >Would it not be a good idea to say clearly here that L12C3 is >applicable only in situations where a L12C2 adjustment is >otherwise in order? I.e., L12C3 cannot be used as an excuse to >not follow L12C1 or L64A, for instance. > +=+ The Code says very clearly, reflecting the Law, that the power relates to varying an assigned adjusted (12C2) score. Maybe experience will confirm that the belt-and-braces wording that you suggest is necessary, but for the present the statement in the Code is correct and, if followed carefully, will not lead the committee astray. To begin with, there has to be a 12C2 adjusted score to vary before the AC can "form a view". +=+ > >The basic problem with L12C3 is that it means that TDs and ACs >rule the game by different rules. This problem will still be >there if CTDs, but not other TDs, are allowed to use L12C3. > +=+ There is confusion in this thinking. Other than the Director himself, all TDs are assistants appointed under Law 81C1; they have duties delegated from the Director ('DIC') under 81D, but only as his delegate and without final responsibility for what they do. If 12C3 is changed as has been proposed, the effect will be to lay upon the CID the duty to decide a 12C3 adjustment in appropriate circumstances, and he will still be empowered to delegate the administration of this law upon the same terms (Law 81C5). Because the responsibility is his alone, the DIC can always instruct his assistant as to a ruling to be made; the ruling is always his although often made vicariously. Furthermore, the DIC is not compelled to delegate the 12C3 power, nor any, to an assistant. +=+ > > >In "Discrepancies between explanations given and the related >hands": >>If the members of a partnership offer differing >>explanations, or if a conflicting statement on the >>convention card has caused an opponent to be confused, a >>procedural penalty for violation of Law 75 may be applied > >We are usually not so strict in Denmark: I have never given a PP >for that kind of problem. > +=+ So be it - in Denmark! :-)) Who should suppose that, in every detail, the world will follow Denmark when not even the mightiest nation may aspire...? +=+ > >In "Special": >>In the laws, regulations, and this Code of Practice, 'special' >>means 'additional to what is normal and general'. > >In the COP, the word is used only once, in the phrase "special >emphasis or tone of voice, or a gesture" about UI. No problem >with that. > >In the laws, it is used in L40B. I don't think this definition >helps me very much: it might be taken to mean that the use of >Stayman need not be disclosed because it is normal and general. > +=+ In a simple, unextended form, Stayman may perhaps be 'normal and general' - used by and the expectation of virtually everybody. It may be - I do not say it is, I await the judgement of others on the point, but if it is no-one is in any way embarrassed or damaged should the effect of the Code then be as you suggest. What the Group has done here is to put a definition to a term that has proved misty in the past; we now have to see what the effects are when matters that are not 'special' are those which are general and normal, and may perhaps be taken for granted like many commonplace things in bridge. +=+ Cheers ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 17 16:15:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:15:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26686 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:15:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.254.69] (helo=davidburn) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11cjao-0003yO-00; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 07:14:54 +0100 Message-ID: <000501bf1866$b6a10540$45feabc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <006801bf182d$bfa7bfa0$605208c3@swhki5i6> Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 07:13:19 +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 Grattan wrote: > If 12C3 is changed as has been proposed, the > effect will be to lay upon the CID the duty to decide a 12C3 > adjustment in appropriate circumstances Presumably the FBI will have this duty in Amercian tournaments. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 17 18:28:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:28:47 +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 SAA26820 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:28:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.98] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11clg6-000PlR-00; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 09:28:30 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01bf1879$93043860$a55108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 09:14:51 +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 ; Jesper Dybdal Cc: Bridge Laws Date: 17 October 1999 07:33 Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne >Grattan wrote: > >> If 12C3 is changed as has been proposed, the >> effect will be to lay upon the CID the duty to decide a 12C3 >> adjustment in appropriate circumstances > >Presumably the FBI will have this duty in Amercian tournaments. > +=+ Freudian? +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 17 21:40:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:40:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27527 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:40:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-22-55.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.22.55]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA15466 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:40:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38099E10.F2249AF2@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:59:44 +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: Diefstal autosleutels References: <000701bf17ba$c2200ee0$9905bed4@pim> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pim Snyers wrote: > > beste, > > de sleutels van het voertuig van onze verzekerde worden gestolen (+ handtas > echtgenote, waarin identiteitspapieren). PV werd opgemaakt. > > Hierdoor zou ook het voertuig van verzekerde kunnen gestolen worden. > > Het voertuig van verzekerde is in bradinaglas verzekerd. > > De vervanging van de sleutels kost al vlug enkele duizenden franken > (transponder key, e.d.). > > Zijn deze kosten van vervanging te verhalen op de verzekeraar ? Preventie > om een nakend schadegeval te vermijden ? > > Graag jullie opmerkingen, waarvoor reeds mijn dank. > > Pim Snyers Ik heb het ook een keer meegemaakt, en ik geloof niet dat mijn klant gelijk heeft gehaald. Het was echter niet mijn probleem. Ik verzekerde de diefstal woning en die hebben het (begrijpelijk) niet in dekking genomen (wel de sleutel, niet het slot !). De wagen was in leasing in Luxemburg maar het is niet betaald geworden. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 17 21:40:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:40:40 +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 VAA27526 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:40:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-22-55.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.22.55]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA15462 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:40:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38099BD6.DA293B55@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:50:14 +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: You learn something new every day Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Friday night, I played with Norbert, fellow international TD and blml reader (dag, Norbert). You know it is always difficult to rule for yourselves ... On the second table, this happened. I'm on lead against 3NT and since I have xxx xxxx xxx Axx, I had not paid too much attention to the bidding. Before leading, I ask RHO to repeat the bidding. 1Cl - 1Sp - 1NT - 3NT is his response. So I lead my middle diamond. Dummy comes down with 4-3-5-1 and my partner grumbles something about my lead. At the end of play (9 tricks made), we find out what has happened. The bidding had gone 1Di-1Sp-1NT-3NT, opener had 4-4 in the minors and when I asked again, he made a mistake. He only whispered the bidding, so none of the others heard it, and could not correct. If I lead a club, we might keep him to 8 tricks. We did not impose a ruling, but we did go and look it up, and that is when we learnt something new. Want to know as well ? RTFLB ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 01:40:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 01:04:17 +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 BAA28716 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 01:03:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-144.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.144]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA25379 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 17:03:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3809E42F.2DF0CE32@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:58:55 +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: Diefstal autosleutels References: <000701bf17ba$c2200ee0$9905bed4@pim> <38099E10.F2249AF2@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ooops. A few months ago, I said I would surprise you once more with a post on Belgian Insurance. Here it is. Sorry. Herman De Wael wrote: > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 02:56:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 02:56:53 +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 CAA29482 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 02:56:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27567 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:56:32 +0200 Received: from ip62.virnxr3.ras.tele.dk(195.215.245.62), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb27562; Sun Oct 17 18:56:24 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne - LONG Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:56:24 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <002f01bf17ba$59571b60$8d5108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <002f01bf17ba$59571b60$8d5108c3@swhki5i6> 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 CAA29485 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:08:36 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Jesper Dybdal >To: bridge-laws >Date: 13 October 1999 19:53 >Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne >[#] The AC may change or rescind a PP. That is also how I read L93. However, many PPs are issued because a regulation says something like "5-10 minutes late: 1VP", and I assume that we agree that the AC cannot change such a PP unless their judgment of the facts is different from the TD's. >>It seems to me that as soon as the word "style" becomes >>appropriate, there must be a sufficient degree of habit to make >>the style disclosable. >> >++=++ I think you are probably wrong. A situation not >previously experienced, for example, may still be >wholly a matter of spontaneous judgement. What I find difficult to understand is how this can happen in a situation where it is also influenced by a "style" known to partner. But yes, I could certainly be wrong. > The >principle of the fading memory could perhaps also >apply. It is likely that ACs have some decisions to >make in this area before we have better definition >of the scope of this statement. ++=++ I don't think there is anything incorrect in the text. It just seems to me to be concerned with a situation that will never occur. I look forward to seeing an AC prove me wrong. >>The WBF wrote: >>>When use of unauthorized information made available by >>>partner is alleged there are four key questions for the >>>appeal committee: >> >>I don't like the wording: I do not normally allege that my >>opponent has _used_ UI, but I often allege that he has chosen a >>logical alternative forbidden by L16A, which is not the same. >> >>>2. Could the unauthorized information be thought to suggest >>>demonstrably the action that was taken by the player who >>>possessed it? >> >>Should it not say something about suggesting "over a logical >>alternative"? >> >++=++ This is a section in which the group altered >my original draft to its liking, most other changes >in group discussion were lighter in touch. ++=++ I find it _very_ important that we can adjust a score without in any way accusing players of "using" UI, and I therefore believe that we need to be consistently careful when wording rules, regulations, and rulings. So if possible, please try to get rid of the "use of UI" wording. >>It seems to me that a call is not really psychic if it is based >>on a partnership understanding. >> >++=++ Confession: I went into the group meeting >with exactly this (longstanding) belief. But whilst >listening to the discussion I was idly thumbing >the law book. The definition of 'Psychic Call' >jumped out of the page and hit me. It applies >whether or not, being only determined by the >question of the nature of the misstatement. But surely it is no longer a misstatement when it has become a partnership understanding? If a players opens 1H third in hand, and his partner alerts and explains "that usually shows a normal 1H opening and our agreement is that I should treat it as such, but he also opens 1H on most hands with 0-3 hcp and 2-3 hearts", then the 1H bid on a 0-3 hand is not a misstatement and therefore not a psyche. Of course, he might get into trouble with some system regulations... But there probably is a grey area of calls that are based on partnership understandings to the degree that they need to be disclosed, but not to the degree that they should be subject to system regulations. "He has psyched that call twice before in the two years we've been partners" is IMO such an example. >I am >not even prepared to say now that it is >necessarily inapplicable to a misbid. The word "deliberate" seems to me to make it clearly inapplicable. > I find it very difficult to see >>any significant difference between a player who forgets to alert >>a transfer bid and a player who forgets to alert and explain "he >>psyched in that situation last week". In the former case, we >>would routinely give an assigned adjusted score (L40C, L12C2) if >>there was damage; in the latter case, this text seems to say that >>we should give an artificial adjusted score regardless of damage >>because it is a violation of L40B. >> >>But could the player "psyching" repeatedly not expect his partner >>to alert, just as the player using a transfer bid does, so that >>the bid is not in violation of L40B because his opponents could >>"reasonable be expected to understand its meaning"? >> >++=++ In this context opponents are expected to >understand without any prompting. ++=++ But what exactly makes "this context" different from an ordinary situation on the second or third round of bidding which does not have a place on the CC? It is quite common to make calls that opponents have no chance of understanding unless they ask (usually prompted by an alert). >>Repeated misbids can produce implicit agreements, but are not in >>themselves irregularities in any way. I would remove the word >>"automatic" and the last sentence above. >> >>Of course, repeated instances of incorrect _explanations_ of >>conventions can, in aggravated circumstances, be reason for a PP >>- but that is a different matter. >> >++=++ That would include occasions when the >misbidding is determined to be habitual to the >extent that it can be anticipated, and this is not >disclosed. Yes. In those situations I believe we should stress that the irregularity is the incorrect or incomplete disclosure, not the misbid itself. It is important for many players that misbidding is legal. That is why I believe that the COP wording here is not perfect (even though its main point is to say that there is no automatic penalty). >Misbids are potentially also subject >to penalty if they reach a degree that is seen >as a Law 74B1 problem. There is scope for >NCBO guidance in this matter of degree. ++=++ That is of course absolutely correct. >++=++ Again 'thankyou' for a material contribution >to the development of the project. ++=++ I am glad that we now have a way of giving the relevant people in the WBF our opinion of such documents. Even if my comments should turn out to have no effect at all, that will at least be the result of a deliberate decision and not the result of a lack of communications. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 02:56:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA29493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 02:56:53 +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 CAA29483 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 02:56:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27566 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:56:32 +0200 Received: from ip62.virnxr3.ras.tele.dk(195.215.245.62), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda27562; Sun Oct 17 18:56:22 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:56:22 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <006801bf182d$bfa7bfa0$605208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <006801bf182d$bfa7bfa0$605208c3@swhki5i6> 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 CAA29484 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:18:05 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >>The WBF wrote: >> >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>In "Law 12C3": >> >>Would it not be a good idea to say clearly here that L12C3 is >>applicable only in situations where a L12C2 adjustment is >>otherwise in order? I.e., L12C3 cannot be used as an excuse to >>not follow L12C1 or L64A, for instance. >> >+=+ The Code says very clearly, reflecting the Law, that >the power relates to varying an assigned adjusted (12C2) >score. Maybe experience will confirm that the belt-and-braces >wording that you suggest is necessary, but for the present >the statement in the Code is correct and, if followed carefully, >will not lead the committee astray. To begin with, there has >to be a 12C2 adjusted score to vary before the AC can "form >a view". +=+ Having read it once more, I agree that the COP wording does say it fairly clearly. >>The basic problem with L12C3 is that it means that TDs and ACs >>rule the game by different rules. This problem will still be >>there if CTDs, but not other TDs, are allowed to use L12C3. >> >+=+ There is confusion in this thinking. Other than the Director >himself, all TDs are assistants appointed under Law 81C1; >they have duties delegated from the Director ('DIC') under 81D, >but only as his delegate and without final responsibility for >what they do. If 12C3 is changed as has been proposed, the >effect will be to lay upon the CID the duty to decide a 12C3 >adjustment in appropriate circumstances, and he will still be >empowered to delegate the administration of this law >upon the same terms (Law 81C5). Because the responsibility >is his alone, the DIC can always instruct his assistant as to >a ruling to be made; the ruling is always his although often >made vicariously. Furthermore, the DIC is not compelled to >delegate the 12C3 power, nor any, to an assistant. +=+ This is interesting. We use terms such as "TD", "CTD", and "DIC", and I am now confused as to what they mean. L81 seems to say - in accordance with what you say here - that there is one "Director" and possibly some assistants, and does not mention any CTD or DIC concept. But in L93, the concept of "Chief Director" appears explicitly. I have always understood these terms as follows: * A person who is authorized to give rulings at a table is a TD. * One of the available TDs in an event is the CTD/DIC. * Appeals of law/regulation questions must be handled by the CTD in person, because of the word "Chief" in L93. You seem to be saying that the person defined as "the Director" in L81 is the CTD, and that the term "Director" elsewhere in the laws (e.g., L70: "... the Director adjudicates...") means "the CTD or a person he has appointed to act on his behalf". But if the CTD can delegate _all_ his duties and powers, then there does not seem to be any difference between (a) "the Director" as used in L70 and many other laws and (b) "the Chief Director" as used in L93 and the proposed L12C3. Both terms then mean "either the CTD himself or somebody he has authorized". In that case it will make no difference at all whether the proposed L12C3 contains the term "the Director" or the term "the Chief Director" - and I would then suggest the former as being more in accordance with the terminology used in most of the laws. >>In "Special": >>>In the laws, regulations, and this Code of Practice, 'special' >>>means 'additional to what is normal and general'. >> >>In the COP, the word is used only once, in the phrase "special >>emphasis or tone of voice, or a gesture" about UI. No problem >>with that. >> >>In the laws, it is used in L40B. I don't think this definition >>helps me very much: it might be taken to mean that the use of >>Stayman need not be disclosed because it is normal and general. >> >+=+ In a simple, unextended form, Stayman may perhaps >be 'normal and general' - used by and the expectation of >virtually everybody. It may be - I do not say it is, I await >the judgement of others on the point, but if it is no-one is >in any way embarrassed or damaged should the effect of >the Code then be as you suggest. I open 1NT, my partner bids 2C Stayman, RHO asks, I say "We have no special agreement about that". I don't want that to be legal - and I would be surprised if you do, so maybe I have misunderstood something here. >What the Group has done >here is to put a definition to a term that has proved misty >in the past; I agree that we do need some kind of definition. Or, IMO even better, removal of the word from the laws, so that all partnership agreements are clearly disclosable. >we now have to see what the effects are when >matters that are not 'special' are those which are general >and normal, and may perhaps be taken for granted like >many commonplace things in bridge. +=+ -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 03:08:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:08:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA29539 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:08:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA28389 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:08:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA07305 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:08:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:08:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910171708.NAA07305@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: I think partner has... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> "We play transfers > >> in other situations, and we have no agreement about this > >> particular situation. My guess is that it is a transfer.". SW>I like the first sentence (maybe with clarification about which other SW>situations), but I think it would be better to omit the second. > From: Jesper Dybdal > Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 20:14:08 +0200 > The second sentence is problematic, yes. Perhaps it should have > been phrased as "It is my judgment that it would be most > consistent with our general style to play transfers in this > situation", which makes it clear that it is possibly relevant > information about partnership agreements and style. > > Do we agree that if that is what is actually meant, then it is > information that the opponents are entitled to? Jesper, as ever, goes to the heart of the matter. I've delayed responding because I'm not entirely sure of the answer. > The ideal way would be to enumerate all the situations in which > we positively do play transfers and all those in which we > positively do not though other players might. Unfortunately that > is not possible in practice. Yes, we agree on the theory. Sometimes a full explanation may be possible in practice, but often it won't be. > A much shorter and more practical > way is IMO to simply inform your opponents about your judgment of > the probability of partner believing that we play transfers here: > instead of giving the opponents a much too long-winded set of > facts, give them the conclusion. I am afraid this is the only practical answer, but it comes with its own problems. One clarification is perhaps in order: the explanation given should not depend on one's own cards. > But it should be made very clear that such a judgment is only a > (possibly) helpful addendum to the basic explanation, which is > "no agreement", and that the judgment might not be the same as > partner's. Yes. Herman will point out the problems that occur when the judgment does not match partner's cards, but I don't think that's so bad. If necessary, an AC can examine the set of agreements that actually exists and decide whether the explanation given adequately reflects those agreements. I think the basic point to remember, though, is that we are trying to find a practical shortcut that has the same effect as the long but theoretically required full explanation. If the effect on the opponents' actions is the same, they won't have been damaged by MI. This is precisely the normal approach to an MI situation: had the opponents been given a full and correct explanation, would they have done anything different? > It is important to distinguish between (a) explanations that > sound vague because the agreements are vague and (b) explanations > that sound vague because the player cannot remember the > agreement. In (a), the explanation is correct, no MI; in (b), the > explanation may well be MI. Yes, exactly. In case b, the "de Wael school" has a point: just pick an explanation and give it. If you have guessed right, no problem. If not, it's a standard MI case. Either way, hedging doesn't help anyone. Case a is a different matter. The opponents are entitled to a full and correct explanation of whatever relevant agreements exist. If it's not possible to give them that in the time available, then give the best practical approximation and hope it leads them to the same action they would have taken with a full explanation. > As long as vague agreements can exist, explanations of vague > agreements must also exist. Yes. This is not the same thing as "vague explanations of agreements." The latter might have to exist because of time constraints, but they are to be avoided when possible. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 03:32:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:32:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA29615 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:32:49 +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 NAA28543 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:32:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA07323 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:32:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:32:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910171732.NAA07323@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne - LONG Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > [#] The AC may change or rescind a PP. I think I could > insert '(unlike any Law 90 penalty)'; will think about it. [#] Or an AC can assign a L90 penalty. This is probably too well known to be worth mentioning. Jesper>It seems to me that a call is not really psychic if it is based Jesper>on a partnership understanding. > ++=++ Confession: I went into the group meeting > with exactly this (longstanding) belief. But whilst > listening to the discussion I was idly thumbing > the law book. The definition of 'Psychic Call' > jumped out of the page and hit me. It applies > whether or not, being only determined by the > question of the nature of the misstatement. This is a very important point. Where is the borderline between psychic and systemic actions? We have discussed before when "frequent psychics" become part of system, but I don't think I have seen any clear consensus. It seems to me the answer is to be found in, among other factors, what fraction of the time the "psychic" action is taken when holding a potentially suitable hand, but I doubt this opinion is universal, and I am not at all convinced it is the whole story. Of course the same question applies to deviations from system, not only clear psychics. Suppose one player insists on counting 4321 high card points (the Walrus), while another gives abnormally strong weight to honor location, suit lengths, aces, tens, etc., with the result that hands may count out quite differently from the announced point range. How is this disclosable? Are they playing different systems? May the agreements be regulated? > I am > not even prepared to say now that it is > necessarily inapplicable to a misbid. More > thought to be devoted to this last point. ++=++ Whatever is decided, I am strongly in favor of treating misbids identically to psychics. There is no difference except the mental state of the player, and we cannot know that anyway. Where there is no strong need for mind reading, why not avoid it? David S. will perhaps disagree with the above, saying he can determine the player's mental state if needed. Perhaps he can; lesser TD's cannot. The point is, why is there any reason to treat the two cases differently? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 04:26:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA29778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:26:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe8.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.112] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA29773 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:26:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 73148 invoked by uid 65534); 17 Oct 1999 18:26:04 -0000 Message-ID: <19991017182604.73147.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.115.199] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <199910111643.JAA00538@mailhub.irvine.com> <199910111648.JAA00632@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Bid after two non-bids Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:25:45 -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 After Jesper's post the following danced into my head: On what basis ought the penalty for an established revoke discovered in the middle of the hand be different from one discovered at the end of the hand. Should it be L11A? Not informing the revoker of the consequences of future tricks? Why is that? Revoker had a duty to summon the director as well, didn't he? Might the motivation for drawing attention [giving his partner UI that he revoked] and then not calling the director be that if it should come to pass that it was possible for his partner to have overtaken the poisoned heart trick that the imposed penalty would be but one trick instead of two!! Which brings to mind another matter concerning revokes. Should it really be allowed that once the period of correction [of a revoke] has passed that revoker may announce [L9] that he has revoked? It seems that for defenders that if one has revoked that the consequence for that partner's play should be so affected until the point that the revoke is uncovered by the play. The other side being protected by L64. Grattan, please. This puzzle occurred to me. If a player announces a revoke after it is too late to correct, not mentioning which spot he has, does every card in the revoke suit become a penalty card [L49]? Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesper Dybdal To: Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 11:35 AM Subject: Re: Bid after two non-bids > On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:48:34 PDT, Adam Beneschan > wrote: > > >Actually, I missed Law 11A, which applies here. However, this Law > >says "The right to penalize *may* be forfeited...", and I don't really > >understand what the rest of the Law, which explains just when this > >right is forfeited, means. I need some help here. > > I think it is obvious what it means, but I find it strangely > difficult to come up with a good and clear example. So here is a > less good example: > > A player revokes on a heart trick that he does not win, and the > revoke is established. He notices that he has revoked and calls > attention to it. Instead of calling the TD, his opponents, who > are much more experienced players, play on. The offender later > wins some tricks, including a heart trick which could just as > well have been overtaken by his partner, making this a 2-trick > revoke. The opponents now call the TD and wants 2 tricks. > > I think that L11A says that by not calling the TD to have the > details explained, the opponents have forfeited the right to (at > least) the second transferred trick, because the non-offending > side gained from the offending side's ignorance of the penalty. > Without that ignorance, the heart would have been overtaken to > keep it a 1-trick revoke. > > But the example is not so clear: > (a) Does it make a difference that all 4 players have a duty to > call the TD when attention has been called to the irregularity? > (b) Does "takes any action" refer to any action after the > irregularity or only to action after attention is called it? (It > seems to me that both variants are problematic, but for different > irregularities.) > (c) In my example, does the offending side lose only the second > transferred trick, or have they completely forfeited the right to > penalize the irregularity? > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 08:10:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA00380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:10:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00374 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:09:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from p9as03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.155] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11cyUr-0000oU-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:09:46 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:15:57 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf18ed$2f725100$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Sunday, October 17, 1999 1:00 PM Subject: You learn something new every day >On Friday night, I played with Norbert, fellow international >TD and blml reader (dag, Norbert). > >You know it is always difficult to rule for yourselves ... > >On the second table, this happened. > >I'm on lead against 3NT and since I have xxx xxxx xxx Axx, I >had not paid too much attention to the bidding. >Before leading, I ask RHO to repeat the bidding. >1Cl - 1Sp - 1NT - 3NT is his response. > >So I lead my middle diamond. > >Dummy comes down with 4-3-5-1 and my partner grumbles >something about my lead. > >At the end of play (9 tricks made), we find out what has >happened. > >The bidding had gone 1Di-1Sp-1NT-3NT, opener had 4-4 in the >minors and when I asked again, he made a mistake. He only >whispered the bidding, so none of the others heard it, and >could not correct. > >If I lead a club, we might keep him to 8 tricks. > >We did not impose a ruling, but we did go and look it up, >and that is when we learnt something new. >Want to know as well ? RTFLB ! I read L41B and find that I am not entitled to a review of the auction. Leaders partner, or presumed declarer, but not leader. I read that my right to a review is when I first "play" a card. As the opening face down lead is not made in the play period I accept that I am not entitled to a review. You are right Herman. I didn't know that:-) Interesting then is the regulation that we have talked about recently, and which has been adopted widely in Wales. The regulation says that all bidding cards should remain on the table until the opening lead has been faced. If after the final pass, leader may ask if it is his turn to lead, but may not have available to him a review of the auction, are the bidding cards UI to leader? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 09:04:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:04:33 +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 JAA00438 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:04:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.99.60.72] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11czLY-0001Om-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:04:13 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:02:21 +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 I started with this case. The bidding proceeds: West North East South 1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H Now, suppose that NS play this auction: West North East South Pass 1NT Dble 2H as a transfer to spades, and that neither of them has ever forgotten that they do this. Suppose North in the first auction alerts 2H. "What does that mean?" says West. "Well", says North, "if you hadn't opened 1S, I would know that he had spades, but now I am not sure." West passes, and so does everybody else; South has hearts; EW claim that had they known this, one of them would have bid 2S for a better score than they received defending 2H. North's hand was: AQx Kxx Axxxx Kx I have received confirmation from Michael and Herman that their respective positions are roughly as I stated them. Michael and others believe that provided North has told West all relevant agreements, experience and so forth, EW have no claim of damage through MI. Herman, essentially, does not believe this. The difficulty I have with Michael's view, which appears to be the majority position and is certainly supported by the Laws and by a body of cases, is this. The effect of North's explanation on West was to create the impression that South perhaps had spades; if that were so, then West did not want to bid spades. In terms of what West actually did, the effect was the same as if North had assured West that South had spades. Despite having given this explanation to West, North then proceeded to act on the assumption that South had hearts. Now, suppose that North were an out-and-out villain. Wishing to play in 2H, and not to hear 2S from either opponent, what would a villainous North do? He would do exactly as this North did: create the impression that his side had a lot of spades, and then pass out 2H. He might claim afterwards, of course, that he "took the view that South had forgotten", and those who support Michael's side would have to accept this testimony. Whatever we require of the Laws, it seems to me obvious that they should simply not permit a player to act in this fashion. Of course, nobody would accuse this particular North of being a villain - but that is not what we do when we apply the Laws. We say to North: "You have done - not doubt for the best of reasons and with the purest of hearts - something that may have been done by a villain in different circumstances; therefore, we will rule against you." If the Laws are to meet the basic requirement of making nefarious conduct unprofitable, then they are bound to penalise those who are not nefarious but merely incompetent - nobody ever revokes on purpose, but we dock them the same two tricks as we would have done if they had. This seems to me a necessary price to pay for the elimination of conduct that is truly nefarious. It occurs to me also that had this incident occurred when screens were in use, there would not (perhaps) have been a problem. South would have told West that he had hearts; West would have bid 2S, and at any rate the table would have made more progress towards the result that one instinctively feels is the "right" one on the deal. When the tray arrived at the other side, of course, North might tell East that South had spades, but the likely outcome is that North would look at West's 2S bid and - with empirical justification - decide that South's memory was at fault. It seems to me that a requirement we might place on the Laws is that they operate in the same fashion whatever the conditions of contest - that is, if under certain conditions West would be in possession of the "correct" information, he should be deemed to possess it under all conditions. The difficulty arises, of course, from the fact that the Laws create a requirement for a pair to disclose their methods even though they may be incapable of doing so (because, temporarily, they do not know what their methods are). However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to view the matter in this light: if a player creates a doubt in his opponent's mind (because of a doubt in the player's own mind), and if the opponent is thereby caused to act in a manner disadvantageous to his side, the Laws should provide the opponent with some redress. Perhaps we should create the infraction of "Inadequate Information". All those in favour, say aye-aye. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 09:13:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:13:02 +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 JAA00471 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:12:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.79] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11czTn-0004bk-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:12:44 +0100 Message-ID: <004d01bf18f5$193f5ba0$4f5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:01:36 +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 ??? wrote: >This is where you are wrong. You do not have an obligation >to tell what you know, you have an obligation to tell the >system. That is not the same thing, or "I forgot" would not >be MI. > +=+ I have not followed this thread, deleting all except the occasional message. But the above statement held a question for me. Let us look at the stated requirements:- 1. To disclose the use of a call or play which is the subject of a special partnership understanding and which has a meaning that it is reasonable to think opponents may not understand. [Law 40B] 2. To explain the full meaning of a call or play, the Director having power to adjust the score if he deems opponents to have suffered damage because this requirement is not met. [Law 40C] 3. To complete a convention card, if the SO requires it, in the manner prescribed by the SO. [Law 40E] 4. To make special partnership agreements fully and freely available to opponents - both explicit and implicit agreements. [Law 75A] 5. To disclose implicit agreements ensuing from habitual violations of partnership agreements. [Law 75B] 6. In reply to opponent's question, to disclose all special information conveyed to the responder through partnership agreement or partnership experience.[Law 75C] 7. Law 75D tells how and when explanations shall be corrected. { So? Well, for a start 'system' is not mentioned; it is all about the meanings of calls and plays, understandings and agreements. Taken all together this may be 'system', but it should be noted at least that the requirement attaches to the calls individually. Second, the 40C requirement is to disclose meaning - the meaning of a misbid is not the message intended by the misbidder but the message attaching to the partnership agreement; a call which has no place in the partnership methods is without meaning, but if the partner attaches a meaning to it, successfully, other than by reference to normal and general understandings, the question is by what means he does so and whether there is a basis within the (extended*) partnership experience for doing so, and which must be disclosed. When a player makes a call intending a meaning that would not be generally recognized, and the partner picks up the intention of the call successfully, the implication is (and the conclusion may be) that they have a common, esoteric point of reference that induces the partner's recognition of what the caller intends; if such is the case, then they have a special partnership understanding as to the meaning of the call. || *Note: 'extended' = to include knowledge from experience external to the core partnership experience but mutually shared. || } ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >A call has a meaning. The opponents are entitled to know >what that meaning is. Unless there is evidence to the >contrary, the TD will rule that the meaning of a call >corresponds to the intention of the player who made it, and >to the hand he holds. If that meaning is not disclosed to >opponents, there is MI. > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 09:16:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:16:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00486 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:16:16 +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 11czX2-000Lvh-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:16:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:09:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Diefstal autosleutels In-Reply-To: <38099E10.F2249AF2@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38099E10.F2249AF2@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip > >Ik heb het ook een keer meegemaakt, en ik geloof niet dat >mijn klant gelijk heeft gehaald. >Het was echter niet mijn probleem. Ik verzekerde de >diefstal woning en die hebben het (begrijpelijk) niet in >dekking genomen (wel de sleutel, niet het slot !). >De wagen was in leasing in Luxemburg maar het is niet >betaald geworden. > > at last!, a clear ruling from the HdW school :)) 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 Oct 18 09:16:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:16:26 +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 JAA00487 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:16:16 +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 11czX2-000Lvg-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:16:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:08:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: You learn something new every day In-Reply-To: <01bf18ed$2f725100$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf18ed$2f725100$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Date: Sunday, October 17, 1999 1:00 PM >Subject: You learn something new every day > > >>On Friday night, I played with Norbert, fellow international >>TD and blml reader (dag, Norbert). >> >>You know it is always difficult to rule for yourselves ... >> >>On the second table, this happened. >> >>I'm on lead against 3NT and since I have xxx xxxx xxx Axx, I >>had not paid too much attention to the bidding. >>Before leading, I ask RHO to repeat the bidding. >>1Cl - 1Sp - 1NT - 3NT is his response. >> >>So I lead my middle diamond. >> >>Dummy comes down with 4-3-5-1 and my partner grumbles >>something about my lead. >> >>At the end of play (9 tricks made), we find out what has >>happened. >> >>The bidding had gone 1Di-1Sp-1NT-3NT, opener had 4-4 in the >>minors and when I asked again, he made a mistake. He only >>whispered the bidding, so none of the others heard it, and >>could not correct. >> >>If I lead a club, we might keep him to 8 tricks. >> >>We did not impose a ruling, but we did go and look it up, >>and that is when we learnt something new. >>Want to know as well ? RTFLB ! > > >I read L41B and find that I am not entitled to a review of the >auction. Leaders partner, or presumed declarer, but not >leader. I read that my right to a review is when I first "play" >a card. As the opening face down lead is not made in the >play period I accept that I am not entitled to a review. This is nonsense. If you read the whole of 41B it makes clear also that: "... or either defender may at his first turn to play a card require a review of the auction." It's my turn to play a card. I'm the opening leader. I request a review. Easy. What the first sentence does is confer extra rights on other players after the opening lead face down. > >You are right Herman. I didn't know that:-) > >Interesting then is the regulation that we have talked about >recently, and which has been adopted widely in Wales. The > regulation says that all bidding cards should remain on the >table until the opening lead has been faced. >If after the final pass, leader may ask if it is his turn to lead, >but may not have available to him a review of the auction, >are the bidding cards UI to leader? the reason for this is that until a player has played to the first trick (any player that is) he still has the right of review. Technically the cards should be hidden in turn from each player as they play. chs john >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 Mon Oct 18 09:41:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:30:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe4.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.108] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA00541 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:29:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 55259 invoked by uid 65534); 17 Oct 1999 23:29:16 -0000 Message-ID: <19991017232916.55258.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.114.157] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <01bf18ed$2f725100$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:28:50 -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 But take a look at L20C2. and nothing has cbhanged there or L41B since 1987. L41B does make sense as opening leader had the right to review before making his face down lead, and the face down lead has the effect of a played card absent MI. Maybe Herman was thinking of something else. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 5:15 PM Subject: Re: You learn something new every day > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Date: Sunday, October 17, 1999 1:00 PM > Subject: You learn something new every day > > > >On Friday night, I played with Norbert, fellow international > >TD and blml reader (dag, Norbert). > > > >You know it is always difficult to rule for yourselves ... > > > >On the second table, this happened. > > > >I'm on lead against 3NT and since I have xxx xxxx xxx Axx, I > >had not paid too much attention to the bidding. > >Before leading, I ask RHO to repeat the bidding. > >1Cl - 1Sp - 1NT - 3NT is his response. > > > >So I lead my middle diamond. > > > >Dummy comes down with 4-3-5-1 and my partner grumbles > >something about my lead. > > > >At the end of play (9 tricks made), we find out what has > >happened. > > > >The bidding had gone 1Di-1Sp-1NT-3NT, opener had 4-4 in the > >minors and when I asked again, he made a mistake. He only > >whispered the bidding, so none of the others heard it, and > >could not correct. > > > >If I lead a club, we might keep him to 8 tricks. > > > >We did not impose a ruling, but we did go and look it up, > >and that is when we learnt something new. > >Want to know as well ? RTFLB ! > > > I read L41B and find that I am not entitled to a review of the > auction. Leaders partner, or presumed declarer, but not > leader. I read that my right to a review is when I first "play" > a card. As the opening face down lead is not made in the > play period I accept that I am not entitled to a review. > > You are right Herman. I didn't know that:-) > > Interesting then is the regulation that we have talked about > recently, and which has been adopted widely in Wales. The > regulation says that all bidding cards should remain on the > table until the opening lead has been faced. > If after the final pass, leader may ask if it is his turn to lead, > but may not have available to him a review of the auction, > are the bidding cards UI to leader? > Anne > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 11:01:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:01:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02237 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:01:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from p13s07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.20] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11d1AQ-000642-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:00:50 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 02:07:02 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1905$164dedc0$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: Roger Pewick To: blml Date: Monday, October 18, 1999 1:24 AM Subject: Re: You learn something new every day >But take a look at L20C2. and nothing has cbhanged there or L41B since >1987. L41B does make sense as opening leader had the right to review before >making his face down lead, and the face down lead has the effect of a played >card absent MI. Maybe Herman was thinking of something else. Maybe indeed. We'll soon find out. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 13:02:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 13:02:57 +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 NAA02392 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 13:02:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-220-64.s318.tnt5.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.220.64]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id XAA24955 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:02:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002401bf1915$1e04c560$40dc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:01:40 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 7:02 PM Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? > I started with this case. > > The bidding proceeds: > > West North East South > 1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H > > Now, suppose that NS play this auction: > > West North East South > Pass 1NT Dble 2H > > as a transfer to spades, and that neither of them has ever forgotten > that they do this. Suppose North in the first auction alerts 2H. "What > does that mean?" says West. "Well", says North, "if you hadn't opened > 1S, I would know that he had spades, but now I am not sure." West > passes, and so does everybody else; South has hearts; EW claim that > had they known this, one of them would have bid 2S for a better score > than they received defending 2H. North's hand was: AQx Kxx Axxxx Kx > The first problem, on which all of the rest of this must necessarily follow, is the question of what the actual N/S agreement really is. If they are playing "system on" over NT overcalls, and in their NT system the 2H bid actually shows spades, then the analysis which follows falls apart. > I have received confirmation from Michael and Herman that their > respective positions are roughly as I stated them. Michael and others > believe that provided North has told West all relevant agreements, > experience and so forth, EW have no claim of damage through MI. > Herman, essentially, does not believe this. > > The difficulty I have with Michael's view, which appears to be the > majority position and is certainly supported by the Laws and by a body > of cases, is this. The effect of North's explanation on West was to > create the impression that South perhaps had spades; if that were so, > then West did not want to bid spades. In terms of what West actually > did, the effect was the same as if North had assured West that South > had spades. Despite having given this explanation to West, North then > proceeded to act on the assumption that South had hearts. > To reiterate my point above, if the actual N/S agreement was that the call showed spades, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with creating this impression. If N wants to take a flyer and hope that his partner has forgotten the agreement, he's perfectly entitled to do that (provided past experience has not created an implicit agreement, and that there wasn't UI indicating that S had forgotten the agreement). > Now, suppose that North were an out-and-out villain. Wishing to play > in 2H, and not to hear 2S from either opponent, what would a > villainous North do? He would do exactly as this North did: create the > impression that his side had a lot of spades, and then pass out 2H. He > might claim afterwards, of course, that he "took the view that South > had forgotten", and those who support Michael's side would have to > accept this testimony. > This is why it is important that in a situation that a partnership has not discussed, and in which they do not have an agreement, they state "no agreement" or something similar. IMO the problem comes when a player knows that there is an agreement, but forgets what it is. Or, perhaps, a player knows very well what the agreement is, but is pretty sure that partner has forgotten (there's that UI again). [snip] > > The difficulty arises, of course, from the fact that the Laws create a > requirement for a pair to disclose their methods even though they may > be incapable of doing so (because, temporarily, they do not know what > their methods are). This gets back to one of the central themes of this thread. Why doesn't the pair know what their methods are? Do they have no agreement about the situation in question? In that case, that is what must be disclosed and anything else is MI. Has one of the players forgotten the agreement? If so, he's in a bind. His best way out may well be to take his best guess. At least if he's right, the hand can proceed normally. If he guesses wrong, or expresses doubt, then the TD will have to sort out MI and perhaps UI afterwards regardless of what the actual agreement was. >However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to > view the matter in this light: if a player creates a doubt in his > opponent's mind (because of a doubt in the player's own mind), and if > the opponent is thereby caused to act in a manner disadvantageous to > his side, the Laws should provide the opponent with some redress. > Perhaps we should create the infraction of "Inadequate Information". > All those in favour, say aye-aye. > > David Burn > > IMO the expression of doubt is MI, which is already redressable. It's certainly not the explanation of the partnership's agreements to which the opponents are entitled. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 13:52:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 13:52:39 +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 NAA02467 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 13:52:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei3g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.112]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA14007 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:47:01 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:02 AM 10/18/99 +0100, David B wrote: >Now, suppose that North were an out-and-out villain. Wishing to play >in 2H, and not to hear 2S from either opponent, what would a >villainous North do? He would do exactly as this North did: create the >impression that his side had a lot of spades, and then pass out 2H. He >might claim afterwards, of course, that he "took the view that South >had forgotten", and those who support Michael's side would have to >accept this testimony. > This is part of the reason that I prefer the formulation I gave in my response to you. Many people, including Herman and several who (like me) disagree with him, seem to believe that the Laws either require or at least encourage you to share your estimate of what partner is up to with the opponents. This is simply not true. The only proper information to share with the opponents is a correct description of partnership agreements, both explicit and implicit. Not probabilities, not funny stories about the last time partner forgot this particular agreement. Speculation, whether couched as such or not, just leads to problems. If this North knows that in fact this sequence promises hearts only, as indeed he might, then it is of course cheating (as DWS would no doubt point out) if he says otherwise. But if North either doesn't know, or his knowledge is aided by looking at the cards in his own hand, then he should only be providing the opponents with the clear explanation of his agreements. >Whatever we require of the Laws, it seems to me obvious that they >should simply not permit a player to act in this fashion. They do not do so, as I have pointed out. A deliberate misrepresentation by North concerning partnership agreements is certainly MI, and violates other legal and ethical precepts as well. But that is not really your point: your concern is that North might get away with his crimes if a TD of my particular persuasion is on the scene. This is probably true, but it is not realistic to expect either of the Laws or of enforcement mechanisms that they will catch all evildoers. Might some slimy North profit in the manner you describe? I concede freely that it could happen, although I don't have much concern that this will be a frequent problem. >If the Laws are to meet the basic requirement of making nefarious conduct >unprofitable, then they are bound to penalise those who are not >nefarious but merely incompetent - nobody ever revokes on purpose, but >we dock them the same two tricks as we would have done if they had. >This seems to me a necessary price to pay for the elimination of >conduct that is truly nefarious. The analogy is flawed in presuming that the existence of an undiscussed sequence is necessarily indicative of incompetence. Every partnership (OK, maybe not Meckwell) has gray areas in their methods. These crop up in my favorite partnership at least once every 15 or 20 hands, despite the fact that we have played seriously together for a decade and have invested hundreds of hours in discussions about our methods. The truth is that a North who accurately explains his partnership agreements, including the clear delineation about which information definitely does apply to a situation such as this and which areas are, by contrast, undiscussed, has done nothing wrong, either in bridge terms or legal terms. Conclusions that EW might draw in a case such as this are simply at their own risk. The alternative view is "unplayable", in my opinion. Consider if we are to accept EW's complaint and adjust the score for MI. Now an unscrupulous EW have a classic double-shot available to them. By passing, they get a good score when North guesses wrong, but are protected by a score adjustment when North guesses right. >It occurs to me also that had this incident occurred when screens were >in use, there would not (perhaps) have been a problem. South would >have told West that he had hearts; West would have bid 2S, and at any >rate the table would have made more progress towards the result that >one instinctively feels is the "right" one on the deal. When the tray >arrived at the other side, of course, North might tell East that South >had spades, but the likely outcome is that North would look at West's >2S bid and - with empirical justification - decide that South's memory >was at fault. It seems to me that a requirement we might place on the >Laws is that they operate in the same fashion whatever the conditions >of contest - that is, if under certain conditions West would be in >possession of the "correct" information, he should be deemed to >possess it under all conditions. > >The difficulty arises, of course, from the fact that the Laws create a >requirement for a pair to disclose their methods even though they may >be incapable of doing so (because, temporarily, they do not know what >their methods are). However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to >view the matter in this light: if a player creates a doubt in his >opponent's mind (because of a doubt in the player's own mind), and if >the opponent is thereby caused to act in a manner disadvantageous to >his side, the Laws should provide the opponent with some redress. >Perhaps we should create the infraction of "Inadequate Information". >All those in favour, say aye-aye. Nay nay. There is already an infraction for Inadeqate Information: it is called Misinformation. How about this principle instead: players are free to draw whatever conclusions they will from opponents' explanations, but are only entitled to redress for MI when they have actually been misinformed. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 15:01:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA02591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:01:02 +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 PAA02586 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:00:55 +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 ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:53:30 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <002f01bf17ba$59571b60$8d5108c3@swhki5i6> <002f01bf17ba$59571b60$8d5108c3@swhki5i6> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:52:07 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne - LONG Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesper Dybdal writes: > "He has psyched that call twice before in >the two years we've been partners" is IMO such an example. This is an area of some confusion for me. I get the distinct impression, though I've yet to hear anyone actually say so, that whether one _remembers_ that partner has done this is irrelevant. Yet it seems to me that if one _doesn't_ remember it, the effect is the same as if partner had never done it. So why should a player be penalized for his poor memory in this case? Or is my impression wrong? 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/AwUBOAqpfL2UW3au93vOEQILMACfRpITThr5F8NSe3pAhLb2NeiZSy4AoNCY vnPeSHbTsqgRH6g2JxaMaUUa =xH3s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 15:10:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA02612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:10:27 +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 PAA02607 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:10:19 +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 ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 01:08:46 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01bf1905$164dedc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 01:03:31 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Anne Jones" writes: >-----Original Message----- >From: Roger Pewick >To: blml >Date: Monday, October 18, 1999 1:24 AM >Subject: Re: You learn something new every day > > >>But take a look at L20C2. and nothing has cbhanged there or L41B since >>1987. L41B does make sense as opening leader had the right to review before >>making his face down lead, and the face down lead has the effect of a >played >>card absent MI. Maybe Herman was thinking of something else. > >Maybe indeed. We'll soon find out. >Anne I think he must have been thinking of something else, since he specified that he asked for the review _before_ he chose his lead. I suspect he's referring to Law 47E2(a): "an opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card." 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/AwUBOAqrrr2UW3au93vOEQJ+HwCfdPlT0/9HgecAQemyi1Gb/lABUuoAnAzB y2XhCbSn0o7DgJBrF7s8dDF2 =1ct+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 16:07:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA02690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:07:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02685 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:07:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-5-23.access.net.il [213.8.5.23] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10471; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:07:27 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <380AB927.FBC7C840@zahav.net.il> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:07:35 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Jones CC: BLML Subject: Re: You learn something new every day References: <01bf1905$164dedc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Anne , Dear John (like the song) and dear Herman I am surprised that it appeared at all , but better to put it in front. As long as I remembered the task is simple : A. Every player has the right to ask for review of the auction after the final before (and at) his first turn to play - see 20C2. B. Every player ,including the future dumb dummy , is responsible to correct an error (inexact review) during the review - see 20E . C. If the incorrect review caused damage - then We (I mean Dany & me ..hahahaha) must use Law 12C1 ..see again 20E. I wrote the above , and went to read TFLB - now I understand why it was so difficult for many people to copy the right answer : There is a need for a HUGE effort to turn over the page , after you read 20C1 , to go on reading 20E !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well - how to use L12C1 - I believe it's not important for this thread: You may award Pulitzer prize to Herman , send his RHO to gallows , or buy a drink to all those drunk players..... Cheers Dany Anne Jones wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Pewick > To: blml > Date: Monday, October 18, 1999 1:24 AM > Subject: Re: You learn something new every day > > >But take a look at L20C2. and nothing has cbhanged there or L41B since > >1987. L41B does make sense as opening leader had the right to review before > >making his face down lead, and the face down lead has the effect of a > played > >card absent MI. Maybe Herman was thinking of something else. > > Maybe indeed. We'll soon find out. > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 17:19:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:19:46 +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 RAA02759 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:19:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.190] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11d74p-000CyB-00; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:19:28 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01bf1939$186a1960$be5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:03:04 +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 Date: 17 October 1999 18:25 Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne >On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:18:05 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > > >This is interesting. We use terms such as "TD", "CTD", and >"DIC", and I am now confused as to what they mean. > >L81 seems to say - in accordance with what you say here - that >there is one "Director" and possibly some assistants, and does >not mention any CTD or DIC concept. But in L93, the concept of >"Chief Director" appears explicitly. > +=+ We ought perhaps to confine ourselves to 'Director' and 'Assistant Director' . That is the concept underlying the laws; but grey mists have blurred perceptions over time and the other terms we see used are attempts to make certain of the distinction when it is important to do so. +=+ > > >You seem to be saying that the person defined as "the Director" >in L81 is the CTD, and that the term "Director" elsewhere in the >laws (e.g., L70: "... the Director adjudicates...") means "the >CTD or a person he has appointed to act on his behalf". > +=+ Yes, I think I agree with this perception. What is more, the COP establishes quite early that the 'Chief Tournament Director' is 'The Director' to which Law 81 refers. +=+ > >I open 1NT, my partner bids 2C Stayman, RHO asks, I say "We have >no special agreement about that". I don't want that to be legal >- and I would be surprised if you do, so maybe I have >misunderstood something here. > +=+ That would be an inadequate reply. It would run into Law 40C difficulties; and it may be appropriate to add that 75C does not say that the *only* matter to be included in an explanation is "all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience" - but that this must be included when "explaining the significance". What 75C says it is not necessary to disclose are *inferences* drawn from general knowledge and experience, the *meaning* must be disclosed, however mundane. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 17:19:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:19:45 +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 RAA02760 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:19:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.190] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11d74r-000CyB-00; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:19:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01bf1939$193383e0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:15:40 +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: BLML Date: 17 October 1999 23:34 Subject: Re: You learn something new every day > >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Date: Sunday, October 17, 1999 1:00 PM >Subject: You learn something new every day > >I read L41B and find that I am not entitled to a review of the >auction. Leaders partner, or presumed declarer, but not >leader. I read that my right to a review is when I first "play" >a card. As the opening face down lead is not made in the >play period I accept that I am not entitled to a review. > +=+ Anne, Herman, Does your law book have a Law 20C2 ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 17:20:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:20:00 +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 RAA02772 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:19:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.190] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11d74o-000CyB-00; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:19:26 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01bf1939$17916ca0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne - LONG Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 07:56:10 +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: 17 October 1999 18:54 Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne - LONG >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> [#] The AC may change or rescind a PP. I think I could >> insert '(unlike any Law 90 penalty)'; will think about it. [#] > >Or an AC can assign a L90 penalty. This is probably too well known to >be worth mentioning. > +=+ Added to which the point is brought out adequately in the COP.+=+ > >> I am >> not even prepared to say now that it is >> necessarily inapplicable to a misbid. More >> thought to be devoted to this last point. ++=++ > >Whatever is decided, I am strongly in favor of treating misbids >identically to psychics. > +=+ I take Jesper's point that a misbid is not "a deliberate misstatement" so it does not fit the definition. But this does not mean that I disagree with your fundamental point. ~G~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 17:36:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:36:27 +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 RAA02820 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:36:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.185] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11d7L2-000DRO-00; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:36:12 +0100 Message-ID: <004101bf193b$6f0003a0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Ed Reppert" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne - LONG Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:35:19 +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: 18 October 1999 06:23 Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne - LONG > >This is an area of some confusion for me. I get the distinct impression, >though I've yet to hear anyone actually say so, that whether one >_remembers_ that partner has done this is irrelevant. Yet it seems to me >that if one _doesn't_ remember it, the effect is the same as if partner had >never done it. > +=+ Hi Ed (and gang) , The COP is available for you to read on various bridge pages - if any changes are made before Bermuda they can now hardly be changes of substance. It has an answer for your question. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 19:30:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:30:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from jaguars.cableinet.net (jaguars-int.cableinet.net [193.38.113.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA02941 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:30:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 3797 invoked from network); 18 Oct 1999 08:09:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.146.69) by jaguars with SMTP; 18 Oct 1999 08:09:52 -0000 Message-ID: <380AE501.147A135B@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 10:14:41 +0100 From: masterit Reply-To: masterit@cableinet.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: directing Subject: all those Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk All those in favour, say aye-aye. David Burn that's some sort of sloth isn't it? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 19:36:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:36:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02958 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:35:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.251.12] (helo=davidburn) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11d9CV-0000CS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 10:35:32 +0100 Message-ID: <003301bf194b$d67cadc0$0cfbabc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 10:33:28 +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 Michael wrote: [snip] > The truth is that a North who accurately explains his partnership > agreements, including the clear delineation about which information > definitely does apply to a situation such as this and which areas are, by > contrast, undiscussed, has done nothing wrong, either in bridge terms or > legal terms. Conclusions that EW might draw in a case such as this are > simply at their own risk. This, in my view, is not really acceptable. EW should not be placed at risk because NS do not know what they are doing. What have EW done to deserve this "risk"? Why should the Laws force them to take it? > The alternative view is "unplayable", in my opinion. Consider if we are to > accept EW's complaint and adjust the score for MI. Now an unscrupulous EW > have a classic double-shot available to them. By passing, they get a good > score when North guesses wrong, but are protected by a score adjustment > when North guesses right. Quite so. If my opponent is not prepared (or not able) to fulfil his legal obligation to tell me what his partner's call shows, then I believe the Laws should fully protect me from the consequences (and I believe that L40C in fact offers the necessary protection). This is not a "double shot" at all, nor is it unplayable - unlike the alternative. I do not believe that the Laws leave it open for a player to say, in effect: "If I have to guess what my partner's doing, then the opponents should also have to guess." > There is already an infraction for Inadequate Information: it is > called Misinformation. Not so. The information that North gave was entirely correct - he did not misinform his opponents in any way. However, the information he gave was not adequate to enable West to take an action that he would have taken had he been in possession of information to which he was legally entitled. > How about this principle instead: players are free > to draw whatever conclusions they will from opponents' explanations, but > are only entitled to redress for MI when they have actually been misinformed. It won't work. Nobody should have to "draw conclusions" from opponents' explanations: those explanations are in Law supposed to leave no room for the drawing of conclusions. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 20:25:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:25:50 +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 UAA03008 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:25:40 +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 MAA02936 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:27:38 +0200 Message-ID: <380AE234.CD0286E5@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:02:44 +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: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > The alternative view is "unplayable", in my opinion. Consider if we are to > accept EW's complaint and adjust the score for MI. Now an unscrupulous EW > have a classic double-shot available to them. By passing, they get a good > score when North guesses wrong, but are protected by a score adjustment > when North guesses right. > No. If North guesses "2H=NAT" _and_ explains "2H=NAT" then EW are _not_ protected by the adjusted score. They _are_ protected by the AS only when North explains 2H=S and then guesses 2H=NAT. This is all based on the assumption that NS don't have this sequence described in their system and cannot prove what their agreement really is. In such case I think they should not be allowed, IMHO, to tell the opponents "2H could be NAT but it could also well be a transfer because in a similar sequence we play that..." for the reasons pointed out by David. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Oct 18 21:11:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:11:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03090 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:11:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from pe8s12a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.92.233] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dAgt-0005RN-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:11:00 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: all those Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:16:37 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf195a$3e56f320$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: masterit To: directing Date: Monday, October 18, 1999 11:09 AM Subject: all those >All those in favour, say aye-aye. > >David Burn > >that's some sort of sloth isn't it? That's not a nice thing to say about David. The sloth does not post before 11.0am :-) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 21:59:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:59:29 +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 VAA03179 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:59:22 +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 HAA02887 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 07:59:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991018080027.006f24d8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:00:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Forbidding psyching In-Reply-To: <380755D5.F1F43F96@zahav.net.il> References: <4.1.19991014203655.00a6a820@pop.swinternet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:27 PM 10/15/99 +0200, Dany wrote: >If the player believed it's a hand of 8 playing tricks , and we trust >him( knowing his/her knowledge), then I think I'll not apply any PP >but adjust the score for the NO , if the AFtG (Artificial Forcing to >Game ) bid was forbidden to be psyched.... >DWS , please add this peculiar shortcut to the H-BLML's dictionary There's no legal justification for any adjustment for either side. A psych is "an intentionally misleading call" (L40A). If you determine that there was no such intention, then there was no psych. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 22:16:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:16:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03262 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:16:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-14.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.14]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA22530 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:16:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380AFC91.BF612450@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:55:13 +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: You learn something new every day References: <001e01bf1939$193383e0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ Anne, Herman, > Does your law book have a > Law 20C2 ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I can't speak for Anne, who did not find it, but I can speak for myself and Dany, who did : Our Lawbooks do have a Law 20C2, and a 20E ! And it's the reference to L12C1 I'm talking of ! L12C1 ! not L12C2 !!!!! ;-) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 22:16:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:16:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03258 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:16:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-14.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.14]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA22518 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:16:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380AF890.C34B7667@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:38:08 +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: I think partner has... References: <199910171708.NAA07305@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > > It is important to distinguish between (a) explanations that > > sound vague because the agreements are vague and (b) explanations > > that sound vague because the player cannot remember the > > agreement. In (a), the explanation is correct, no MI; in (b), the > > explanation may well be MI. > > Yes, exactly. In case b, the "de Wael school" has a point: just pick an > explanation and give it. If you have guessed right, no problem. If > not, it's a standard MI case. Either way, hedging doesn't help anyone. > Indeed. > Case a is a different matter. The opponents are entitled to a full and > correct explanation of whatever relevant agreements exist. If it's not > possible to give them that in the time available, then give the best > practical approximation and hope it leads them to the same action they > would have taken with a full explanation. > > > As long as vague agreements can exist, explanations of vague > > agreements must also exist. > > Yes. This is not the same thing as "vague explanations of agreements." > The latter might have to exist because of time constraints, but they are > to be avoided when possible. I agree with everything that has been said. My point is that it will be almost impossible to prove that vague agreements exist, and that the vague explanation would be correct. But you are always allowed to try. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 22:16:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:16:44 +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 WAA03243 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:16:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-14.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.14]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA22473 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:16:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380AF241.79E34515@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:11:13 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <002401bf1915$1e04c560$40dc7ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Burn > > > > The first problem, on which all of the rest of this must necessarily follow, > is the question of what the actual N/S agreement really is. If they are > playing "system on" over NT overcalls, and in their NT system the 2H bid > actually shows spades, then the analysis which follows falls apart. > Sorry Hirsh, but that is not the first problem, that is the zeroeth problem. We are trying to establish what the rulilng is, after the director has established that the system corresponds to the bidder's hand. So your post is not helpful. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 18 22:16:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:16:48 +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 WAA03245 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:16:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-14.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.14]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA22481 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:16:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380AF58F.6367493B@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:25:19 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > At 12:02 AM 10/18/99 +0100, David B wrote: > > >Now, suppose that North were an out-and-out villain. Wishing to play > >in 2H, and not to hear 2S from either opponent, what would a > >villainous North do? He would do exactly as this North did: create the > >impression that his side had a lot of spades, and then pass out 2H. He > >might claim afterwards, of course, that he "took the view that South > >had forgotten", and those who support Michael's side would have to > >accept this testimony. > > > This is part of the reason that I prefer the formulation I gave in my > response to you. Many people, including Herman and several who (like me) > disagree with him, seem to believe that the Laws either require or at least > encourage you to share your estimate of what partner is up to with the > opponents. This is simply not true. The only proper information to share > with the opponents is a correct description of partnership agreements, both > explicit and implicit. Not probabilities, not funny stories about the last > time partner forgot this particular agreement. Speculation, whether couched > as such or not, just leads to problems. > Indeed. > If this North knows that in fact this sequence promises hearts only, as > indeed he might, then it is of course cheating (as DWS would no doubt point > out) if he says otherwise. But if North either doesn't know, or his > knowledge is aided by looking at the cards in his own hand, then he should > only be providing the opponents with the clear explanation of his agreements. > Indeed, but ... > >Whatever we require of the Laws, it seems to me obvious that they > >should simply not permit a player to act in this fashion. > > They do not do so, as I have pointed out. A deliberate misrepresentation by > North concerning partnership agreements is certainly MI, and violates other > legal and ethical precepts as well. But that is not really your point: your > concern is that North might get away with his crimes if a TD of my > particular persuasion is on the scene. This is probably true, but it is not > realistic to expect either of the Laws or of enforcement mechanisms that > they will catch all evildoers. Might some slimy North profit in the manner > you describe? I concede freely that it could happen, although I don't have > much concern that this will be a frequent problem. > Indeed, but ... > >If the Laws are to meet the basic requirement of making nefarious conduct > >unprofitable, then they are bound to penalise those who are not > >nefarious but merely incompetent - nobody ever revokes on purpose, but > >we dock them the same two tricks as we would have done if they had. > >This seems to me a necessary price to pay for the elimination of > >conduct that is truly nefarious. > While I agree with David's sentiments, I do not agree that they are compelling enough to support my point of view, when considered alone. So I concur with Mike's dismission of David's argument, but that does not mean I am converted to Mike's point of view, of course. > The analogy is flawed in presuming that the existence of an undiscussed > sequence is necessarily indicative of incompetence. Every partnership (OK, > maybe not Meckwell) has gray areas in their methods. These crop up in my > favorite partnership at least once every 15 or 20 hands, despite the fact > that we have played seriously together for a decade and have invested > hundreds of hours in discussions about our methods. > OK, Mike, now you will certainly agree that those hundreds of hours of discussion give you some advantage over opponents as to making the correct guess about the meaning of your partner's bid. And you will agree that everything that is said in those hundreds of hours is (theoretically at least) disclosable to opponents? Why then not simply tell them your deduction, and not hide behind "in all the hundreds of hours, we have never discussed this particular sequence". It is far better, IMHO, to tell the opponents one thing, without showing any doubt, than to tell them that you don't know. They will force something out of you, the TD will rule just the same, and they have additional information (the doubt), that they are not entitled to. > The truth is that a North who accurately explains his partnership > agreements, including the clear delineation about which information > definitely does apply to a situation such as this and which areas are, by > contrast, undiscussed, has done nothing wrong, either in bridge terms or > legal terms. Conclusions that EW might draw in a case such as this are > simply at their own risk. > It is very dangerous to make statements like this. Since the object is "entitled" information, not "authorised" information, the drawing of conclusions is IMO not at the risk of opponents. But that is a totally different matter. > The alternative view is "unplayable", in my opinion. Consider if we are to > accept EW's complaint and adjust the score for MI. Now an unscrupulous EW > have a classic double-shot available to them. By passing, they get a good > score when North guesses wrong, but are protected by a score adjustment > when North guesses right. > This double shot only comes about when North tells about the doubt. If he does not say anything indicating he is not certain, there is no double shot. There is a single shot. If north guesses right, nothing, if he guesses wrong, MI and TD. Simple. > >It occurs to me also that had this incident occurred when screens were > >in use, there would not (perhaps) have been a problem. South would > >have told West that he had hearts; West would have bid 2S, and at any > >rate the table would have made more progress towards the result that > >one instinctively feels is the "right" one on the deal. When the tray > >arrived at the other side, of course, North might tell East that South > >had spades, but the likely outcome is that North would look at West's > >2S bid and - with empirical justification - decide that South's memory > >was at fault. It seems to me that a requirement we might place on the > >Laws is that they operate in the same fashion whatever the conditions > >of contest - that is, if under certain conditions West would be in > >possession of the "correct" information, he should be deemed to > >possess it under all conditions. > > > >The difficulty arises, of course, from the fact that the Laws create a > >requirement for a pair to disclose their methods even though they may > >be incapable of doing so (because, temporarily, they do not know what > >their methods are). However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to > >view the matter in this light: if a player creates a doubt in his > >opponent's mind (because of a doubt in the player's own mind), and if > >the opponent is thereby caused to act in a manner disadvantageous to > >his side, the Laws should provide the opponent with some redress. > >Perhaps we should create the infraction of "Inadequate Information". > >All those in favour, say aye-aye. > > Nay nay. There is already an infraction for Inadeqate Information: it is > called Misinformation. How about this principle instead: players are free > to draw whatever conclusions they will from opponents' explanations, but > are only entitled to redress for MI when they have actually been misinformed. > > Mike Dennis -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 00:41:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:29:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03326 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:29:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-51.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.51]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24902 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:29:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380B11D4.24E7F550@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:25:56 +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: all those References: <380AE501.147A135B@cableinet.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk masterit wrote: > > All those in favour, say aye-aye. > > David Burn > > that's some sort of sloth isn't it? No an aye-aye (had to look it up) is a Madagascan squirrel-like primate with very long fingers. Quite unlike David, except for one of it's characteristics : it's nocturnal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 00:56:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 00:56:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from athos.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03755 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 00:56:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:56:05 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA28158; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:36:20 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Herman De Wael'" , "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: You learn something new every day Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:29:15 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3CC@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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837643338@XION> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> >> +=+ Anne, Herman, >> Does your law book have a >> Law 20C2 ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >I can't speak for Anne, who did not find it, but I can speak >for myself and Dany, who did : > >Our Lawbooks do have a Law 20C2, and a 20E ! > >And it's the reference to L12C1 I'm talking of ! > >L12C1 ! not L12C2 !!!!! ;-) I thought so already that the question was not whether you had the right to ask a bidding review (yes - 20C2), but what the consequences are of the mistake declarer made in his review. If I read 20E correctly, then everybody at the table is responsible for correcting the review, and damage resulting from an uncorrected review is treated according to 12C1. That would mean that we get an artificial score A+/A-... Is that right? Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 01:10:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 01:10:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03804 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 01:10:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-7-160.access.net.il [213.8.7.160] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04248; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:09:56 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <380B3846.EFF2CA7E@zahav.net.il> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:09:58 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: You learn something new every day References: <001e01bf1939$193383e0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> <380AFC91.BF612450@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Very good Herman You were not too tired to turn the page , going on to 20E... But , didn't yet tell us what did you choose from my basket of applying L12C1 ......... Cheers Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > +=+ Anne, Herman, > > Does your law book have a > > Law 20C2 ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I can't speak for Anne, who did not find it, but I can speak > for myself and Dany, who did : > > Our Lawbooks do have a Law 20C2, and a 20E ! > > And it's the reference to L12C1 I'm talking of ! > > L12C1 ! not L12C2 !!!!! ;-) > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 01:13:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 01:13:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03830 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 01:13:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-7-160.access.net.il [213.8.7.160] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05091; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:12:43 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <380B38F5.24634A4A@zahav.net.il> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:12:53 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Forbidding psyching References: <4.1.19991014203655.00a6a820@pop.swinternet.net> <3.0.1.32.19991018080027.006f24d8@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you Eric .....my inclination is to agree with your opinion. The final decision , in case of that "club game" , should be accordingly to the real situation...... Dany Eric Landau wrote: > > At 06:27 PM 10/15/99 +0200, Dany wrote: > > >If the player believed it's a hand of 8 playing tricks , and we trust > >him( knowing his/her knowledge), then I think I'll not apply any PP > >but adjust the score for the NO , if the AFtG (Artificial Forcing to > >Game ) bid was forbidden to be psyched.... > >DWS , please add this peculiar shortcut to the H-BLML's dictionary > > There's no legal justification for any adjustment for either side. A psych > is "an intentionally misleading call" (L40A). If you determine that there > was no such intention, then there was no psych. > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 01:36:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 01:36:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03900 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 01:36:22 +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 LAA16492 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA07971 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:36:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:36:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910181536.LAA07971@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You learn something new every day X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Our Lawbooks do have a Law 20C2, and a 20E ! > > And it's the reference to L12C1 I'm talking of ! > > L12C1 ! not L12C2 !!!!! ;-) The cross-reference was added in 1987. I wonder whether it could have been intended to be 12A1. Or maybe 12C1 was meant after all. If nobody knows what the bidding has been, how can there be a result? Grattan? Odd that no one has drawn attention to this until now (at least no one I've seen). The ACBL's _Duplicate Decisions_ refers TD's to L12 but not specifically to 12C1. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 01:41:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 23:05:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA03462 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 23:05:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from uni-duesseldorf.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:05:11 +0200 Message-ID: <380B1B15.AB292BE1@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:05:25 +0200 From: Richard Bley X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [de]C-QXW0310J (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: de, en To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You learn something new every day References: <001e01bf1939$193383e0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> <380AFC91.BF612450@village.uunet.be> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Herman! Isn´t it odd, that L12C1 is referred to and not 12C2? I think that should be on the changes for the next lawbook list. Richard Herman De Wael schrieb: (sniph) > And it's the reference to L12C1 I'm talking of ! > > L12C1 ! not L12C2 !!!!! ;-) > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 02:09:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 02:09:10 +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 CAA04165 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 02:08:45 +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 MAA18177 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:08:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA08027 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:08:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:08:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910181608.MAA08027@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 Burn" > EW should not be placed at > risk because NS do not know what they are doing. What have EW done to > deserve this "risk"? Why should the Laws force them to take it? Players suffer this risk in many other situations. If an incompetent South takes a working 20% line for his contract instead of a non- working 90% line, that's just too bad for EW. Similarly, if EW have all the correct information about the NS (non-)agreements and go wrong, that's too bad. Most of the time, failing to have agreements will hurt NS, but sometimes EW will be hurt instead. So it goes. On the other hand, I am very sympathetic to your view that the rules should make villainy hard to get away with and to Grattan's apparent view that players may have agreements even when they don't realize it. If we take seriously the footnote in L75D2 -- and Grattan, why is this important principle hidden inside parentheses in a footnote -- and the principle that doubt is resolved against offenders, don't we have most of the tools we need? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 02:38:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 02:38:01 +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 CAA04212 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 02:37:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13227; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:37:08 -0700 Message-Id: <199910181637.JAA13227@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: all those In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:25:56 PDT." <380B11D4.24E7F550@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:37:07 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > masterit wrote: > > > > All those in favour, say aye-aye. > > > > David Burn > > > > that's some sort of sloth isn't it? > > No an aye-aye (had to look it up) is a Madagascan > squirrel-like primate with very long fingers. > > Quite unlike David, except for one of it's characteristics : > it's nocturnal. I seem to remember, from the times when I used to do lots of crossword puzzles, that an "ai" is a three-toed sloth. That's just one "ai", however. I suppose ai-ai would be a six-toed sloth, or perhaps a pair of three-toed sloths, or a three-toed sloth with an extra eye, or something like that. My dictionary doesn't list "ai", although it does list aye-aye with the same meaning as Herman gave. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 02:57:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:31:43 +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 WAA03338 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:31:34 +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 IAA04775 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:32:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991018083246.006f43b8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:32:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne - LONG In-Reply-To: <199910171732.NAA07323@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:32 PM 10/17/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >Whatever is decided, I am strongly in favor of treating misbids >identically to psychics. There is no difference except the mental >state of the player, and we cannot know that anyway. Where there >is no strong need for mind reading, why not avoid it? There is a very strong need in this case, unless we want to treat novice players who don't know what they're doing the same as we treat experienced players who psych at every other call. Why not treat accidental killings identically to first degree murders? 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 Oct 19 03:06:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 03:06:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from jaguars.cableinet.net (jaguars-int.cableinet.net [193.38.113.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA04318 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 03:06:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 10896 invoked from network); 18 Oct 1999 15:46:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.146.210) by jaguars with SMTP; 18 Oct 1999 15:46:33 -0000 Message-ID: <380B528A.E4E4243C@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:02:02 +0100 From: masterit Reply-To: masterit@cableinet.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: directing Subject: those who Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk sorry hdw, i was getting aye-aye mixed up with ai. ai IS the three-toed sloth, of s.america. is i an ai? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 03:47:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:16:49 +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 WAA03251 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:16:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-14.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.14]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA22510 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:16:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380AF7B3.C3D20DE7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:34:27 +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: <004d01bf18f5$193f5ba0$4f5208c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I find the last sentence of what Grattan Endicott wrote: very enlightening. > { So? Well, for a start 'system' is not > mentioned; it is all about the meanings of calls > and plays, understandings and agreements. > Taken all together this may be 'system', but it > should be noted at least that the requirement > attaches to the calls individually. Second, the > 40C requirement is to disclose meaning - the > meaning of a misbid is not the message intended > by the misbidder but the message attaching to > the partnership agreement; a call which has no > place in the partnership methods is without > meaning, but if the partner attaches a meaning > to it, successfully, other than by reference to > normal and general understandings, the question > is by what means he does so and whether there > is a basis within the (extended*) partnership > experience for doing so, and which must be > disclosed. This one: > When a player makes a call intending > a meaning that would not be generally > recognized, and the partner picks up the > intention of the call successfully, the implication > is (and the conclusion may be) that they have a > common, esoteric point of reference that > induces the partner's recognition of what the > caller intends; if such is the case, then they > have a special partnership understanding as to > the meaning of the call. || *Note: 'extended' = to > include knowledge from experience external > to the core partnership experience but > mutually shared. || } ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Please frame and hang over your bed. Am I right, Grattan, in drawing the following conclusion ? When a player makes a call, intending it to have a particular "meaning", and his partner interprets this in the same manner, then that is evidence of "system" and therefor disclosable. Would the following statement also hold up ? When a player makes a call, intending it to have a particular "meaning", and his partner interprets this in a different manner, there is an obligation on the partnership to convince the director that partner's interpretation is the systemic one. Barring that there is evidence of "system". If that statement holds (and IMO it does), there follows : When a player makes a call, intending it to have a particular "meaning", that meaning is disclosable to opponents, and failure to disclose this shall lead to a ruling on MI, unless the partnership can prove that the meaning that was disclosed to opponents in stead is the correct systemic one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 04:02:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:38:46 +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 WAA03366 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:38:30 +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 MAA05748 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:37:24 GMT Message-ID: <380B14AD.3215084B@meteo.fr> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:38:05 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn a écrit : > > I started with this case. > > The bidding proceeds: > > West North East South > 1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H > > Now, suppose that NS play this auction: > > West North East South > Pass 1NT Dble 2H > > as a transfer to spades, and that neither of them has ever forgotten > that they do this. Suppose North in the first auction alerts 2H. "What > does that mean?" says West. "Well", says North, "if you hadn't opened > 1S, I would know that he had spades, but now I am not sure." West > passes, and so does everybody else; South has hearts; EW claim that > had they known this, one of them would have bid 2S for a better score > than they received defending 2H. North's hand was: AQx Kxx Axxxx Kx > > I have received confirmation from Michael and Herman that their > respective positions are roughly as I stated them. Michael and others > believe that provided North has told West all relevant agreements, > experience and so forth, EW have no claim of damage through MI. > Herman, essentially, does not believe this. > > The difficulty I have with Michael's view, which appears to be the > majority position and is certainly supported by the Laws and by a body > of cases, is this. The effect of North's explanation on West was to > create the impression that South perhaps had spades; if that were so, > then West did not want to bid spades. In terms of what West actually > did, the effect was the same as if North had assured West that South > had spades. Despite having given this explanation to West, North then > proceeded to act on the assumption that South had hearts. > > Now, suppose that North were an out-and-out villain. Wishing to play > in 2H, and not to hear 2S from either opponent, what would a > villainous North do? He would do exactly as this North did: create the > impression that his side had a lot of spades, and then pass out 2H. He > might claim afterwards, of course, that he "took the view that South > had forgotten", and those who support Michael's side would have to > accept this testimony. > > Whatever we require of the Laws, it seems to me obvious that they > should simply not permit a player to act in this fashion. Of course, > nobody would accuse this particular North of being a villain - but > that is not what we do when we apply the Laws. We say to North: "You > have done - not doubt for the best of reasons and with the purest of > hearts - something that may have been done by a villain in different > circumstances; therefore, we will rule against you." If the Laws are > to meet the basic requirement of making nefarious conduct > unprofitable, then they are bound to penalise those who are not > nefarious but merely incompetent - nobody ever revokes on purpose, but > we dock them the same two tricks as we would have done if they had. > This seems to me a necessary price to pay for the elimination of > conduct that is truly nefarious. > > It occurs to me also that had this incident occurred when screens were > in use, there would not (perhaps) have been a problem. South would > have told West that he had hearts; West would have bid 2S, and at any > rate the table would have made more progress towards the result that > one instinctively feels is the "right" one on the deal. When the tray > arrived at the other side, of course, North might tell East that South > had spades, but the likely outcome is that North would look at West's > 2S bid and - with empirical justification - decide that South's memory > was at fault. It seems to me that a requirement we might place on the > Laws is that they operate in the same fashion whatever the conditions > of contest - that is, if under certain conditions West would be in > possession of the "correct" information, he should be deemed to > possess it under all conditions. I don't see your point: with screens, South would bid 2H with the same uncertainty as described by North, related to his agreements (or lack of agreement or incomplete agreement...) and he would undoubtedly disclose his agreements (lack of, or...) in the same way as North had done it on the other side of the screen. Your assumption that South "would have told West he had hearts" is an assumption that South would unethically and deliberately provide MI, maybe trying to be helpful but running the risk to confuse opponents with different explanations on both sides of the screen, maybe trying to avoid trouble by hiding an hole in their agreements. > > The difficulty arises, of course, from the fact that the Laws create a > requirement for a pair to disclose their methods even though they may > be incapable of doing so (because, temporarily, they do not know what > their methods are). However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to > view the matter in this light: if a player creates a doubt in his > opponent's mind (because of a doubt in the player's own mind), and if > the opponent is thereby caused to act in a manner disadvantageous to > his side, the Laws should provide the opponent with some redress. > Perhaps we should create the infraction of "Inadequate Information". > All those in favour, say aye-aye. OK if a player creates doubt because he has forgotten an agreement, he his guilty of MI, but I disagree when there is a "real" doubt due to an incomplete or absent agreement: he can't be guilty for an infraction of "insufficient agreement". JP Rocafort > > David Burn -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 04:28:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 04:28:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from gadolinium (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA04626 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 04:28:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.99.59.154] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11dHWH-0003Wt-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:28:30 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bf1996$43e47e20$9a3b63c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199910181608.MAA08027@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:26:13 +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 Steve Willner wrote: > > EW should not be placed at > > risk because NS do not know what they are doing. What have EW done to > > deserve this "risk"? Why should the Laws force them to take it? > > Players suffer this risk in many other situations. If an incompetent > South takes a working 20% line for his contract instead of a non- > working 90% line, that's just too bad for EW. Similarly, if EW have > all the correct information about the NS (non-)agreements and go wrong, > that's too bad. Most of the time, failing to have agreements will > hurt NS, but sometimes EW will be hurt instead. So it goes. Yes, but players do not have a legal obligation to follow the best line in the play. They do have a legal obligation to explain their calls to the opponents. > If we take seriously the footnote in L75D2 -- and Grattan, why is this > important principle hidden inside parentheses in a footnote -- and the > principle that doubt is resolved against offenders, don't we have most > of the tools we need? I believe so. But it seems to me important that we should use them! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 04:54:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 03:29:02 +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 DAA04385 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 03:28:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA30585 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:28:37 +0200 Received: from ip158.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.158), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda30582; Mon Oct 18 19:28:27 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:28:25 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <=lcLOPHYl4n+lCHqJqgOapO=mBP3@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <001e01bf1939$193383e0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> <380AFC91.BF612450@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <380AFC91.BF612450@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 DAA04386 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:55:13 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >And it's the reference to L12C1 I'm talking of ! > >L12C1 ! not L12C2 !!!!! ;-) Yes, that is surprising. Another question is how we should treat the side that received the incorrect explanation when we adjust. The partner of the player asking for the review is also guilty of not correcting the review, so that side is surely at least "partially at fault" when giving a L12C1 adjustment. Or are both sides "directly at fault"? If it had read "L12C2", which I believe it ought to, it seems to me that both sides should be treated as offenders when adjusting. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 05:05:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 05:05:33 +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 FAA04726 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 05:05:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt096nfb.san.rr.com [24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA26581 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00fd01bf199b$b05eeea0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001d01bf1939$186a1960$be5208c3@swhki5i6> Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:59:27 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: Jesper Dybdal > >I open 1NT, my partner bids 2C Stayman, RHO asks, I say "We have > >no special agreement about that". I don't want that to be legal > >- and I would be surprised if you do, so maybe I have > >misunderstood something here. SOs should handle this sort of thing through the Alert procedure wherever possible. In ACBL-land, an unAlerted 2C response to 1NT asks opener to bid a major suit. There is no need to question the meaning of the bid, and doing so should be illegal. Why? Because selective questioning of the meaning of an unAlerted bid invariably indicates an interest in that suit. One purpose of Alerts is to prevent that sort of thing. On the other hand, it is perfectly okay for responder's LHO to inquire about style in regard to the 2C bid. Opener may explain, "It promises four cards in at least one major," or "Our 2C response is often made without a major." These are special partnership agreements that must be disclosed. Opener does not have to explain that 2C asks opener to bid a major suit if he has one, since that is the assumed meaning in the absence of an Alert. > > > +=+ That would be an inadequate reply. It would > run into Law 40C difficulties; Surely L40C must be taken in context with L40B, which refers to a "special partnership understanding." > and it may be > appropriate to add that 75C does not say that > the *only* matter to be included in an explanation > is "all special information conveyed to him > through partnership agreement or partnership > experience" - but that this must be included when > "explaining the significance". What 75C says > it is not necessary to disclose are *inferences* > drawn from general knowledge and experience, > the *meaning* must be disclosed, however > mundane Ergo, the "mundane" meaning of a double of a natural 1x opening must be disclosed (takeout), but the inference that it implies support for the unbid suits and shortness in the suit doubled comes from general knowledge and experience, hence need not be disclosed? L75A. Special partnership agreements... Evidently Grattan feels that a "mundane" agreement such as takeout doubles and Stayman 2C constitutes a "special partnership agreement," since that is the only sort of agreement for which L75 requires disclosure. Perhaps he will cite some partnership bidding agreements that are not "special," and are therefore not subject to L75 or L40B/C. When I open 1S, the meaning of the bid is that I am contracting to take seven tricks with spades as trumps. Normal inferences are that I have at least four spades and an above-average hand. Neither the meaning nor the inferences are anything special, hence they need not be disclosed. If 1S promises at least five spades, or denies some number of HCP, that is a special partnership agreement that must be disclosed according to L75 and/or regulations of the SO. I think it is time for the lawmakers to strike the word "special" from L75 if it has no significance. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 05:16:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 05:16:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04751 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 05:16:42 +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 OAA28775 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:18:59 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991018141701.007dee20@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:17:01 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:02 AM 10/18/99 +0100, David Burn wrote: >I started with this case. > >The bidding proceeds: > >West North East South >1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H > >Now, suppose that NS play this auction: > >West North East South >Pass 1NT Dble 2H > >as a transfer to spades, and that neither of them has ever forgotten >that they do this. Suppose North in the first auction alerts 2H. "What >does that mean?" says West. "Well", says North, "if you hadn't opened >1S, I would know that he had spades, but now I am not sure." West I don't like that form of explanation at all, but the basic idea seems correct. >passes, and so does everybody else; South has hearts; EW claim that You should emphasize this part of the story--this is the real key, IMHO. I would most certainly ask North why he passed. >had they known this, one of them would have bid 2S for a better score >than they received defending 2H. North's hand was: AQx Kxx Axxxx Kx > >I have received confirmation from Michael and Herman that their >respective positions are roughly as I stated them. Michael and others >believe that provided North has told West all relevant agreements, >experience and so forth, EW have no claim of damage through MI. >Herman, essentially, does not believe this. > >The difficulty I have with Michael's view, which appears to be the >majority position and is certainly supported by the Laws and by a body >of cases, is this. The effect of North's explanation on West was to >create the impression that South perhaps had spades; if that were so, >then West did not want to bid spades. In terms of what West actually >did, the effect was the same as if North had assured West that South >had spades. Despite having given this explanation to West, North then >proceeded to act on the assumption that South had hearts. The fact that North proceeded to act on the assumption that South had hearts gives us good reason to suspect that he did not in fact give a complete explanation in the first place. But if he can convince me that he had revealed everything he knew, and had not forgotten some agreement he had made, then there was no MI. >Now, suppose that North were an out-and-out villain. Wishing to play >in 2H, and not to hear 2S from either opponent, what would a >villainous North do? He would do exactly as this North did: create the >impression that his side had a lot of spades, and then pass out 2H. He >might claim afterwards, of course, that he "took the view that South >had forgotten", and those who support Michael's side would have to >accept this testimony. Well, we would have to accept that testimony if there was no evidence to the contrary. This is one of those strategies that can only work once in your life if it becomes known, though. And our villainous North had better have a convincing story to explain why he passed. >Whatever we require of the Laws, it seems to me obvious that they >should simply not permit a player to act in this fashion. Of course, I simply don't agree. The Laws cannot guarantee that no player could ever deliberately lie and get away with it. Or, I suppose, they could guarantee it at a greater cost. I have no interest in punishing a million innocent pairs in order to prevent one hypothetical crooked pair from getting away with something once in a great while. >nobody would accuse this particular North of being a villain - but >that is not what we do when we apply the Laws. We say to North: "You >have done - not doubt for the best of reasons and with the purest of >hearts - something that may have been done by a villain in different >circumstances; therefore, we will rule against you." If the Laws are >to meet the basic requirement of making nefarious conduct >unprofitable, then they are bound to penalise those who are not >nefarious but merely incompetent - nobody ever revokes on purpose, but >we dock them the same two tricks as we would have done if they had. >This seems to me a necessary price to pay for the elimination of >conduct that is truly nefarious. If the conduct were common enough to warrant this, yes. >It occurs to me also that had this incident occurred when screens were >in use, there would not (perhaps) have been a problem. South would >have told West that he had hearts; West would have bid 2S, and at any >rate the table would have made more progress towards the result that >one instinctively feels is the "right" one on the deal. When the tray >arrived at the other side, of course, North might tell East that South >had spades, but the likely outcome is that North would look at West's >2S bid and - with empirical justification - decide that South's memory >was at fault. It seems to me that a requirement we might place on the >Laws is that they operate in the same fashion whatever the conditions >of contest - that is, if under certain conditions West would be in >possession of the "correct" information, he should be deemed to >possess it under all conditions. Again, I place no such restrictions on the Laws. >The difficulty arises, of course, from the fact that the Laws create a >requirement for a pair to disclose their methods even though they may >be incapable of doing so (because, temporarily, they do not know what >their methods are). However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to There is a difference between 'not knowing what my methods are' and 'not having a method'. The former is covered by the MI laws--if I had an agreement that the bid showed hearts, but had forgotten, I have given MI. The latter is not covered by any law, and I don't see why it needs to be. If partner and I don't have an agreement about what 2H means in this situation, then we don't, period. I think we have to reveal whatever partnership experience is relevant to the case, and I interpret that requirement more broadly than most, but I do not think that we need to go beyond that. >view the matter in this light: if a player creates a doubt in his >opponent's mind (because of a doubt in the player's own mind), and if >the opponent is thereby caused to act in a manner disadvantageous to >his side, the Laws should provide the opponent with some redress. I just find this baffling. If _I do not have an agreement_ about a bid, and I give the opponents every single bit of relevant information (partnership experience) I have regarding its (possible) meaning, then I cannot be held to have given MI. What my opponents have a right to is knowledge of my agreements and my partnership experience. If I have revealed that, then I have done my legal duty. If partner doesn't have what the opponents think he has, either because he has misbid, or psyched, or because in the absence of an agreement he made up a bid that I had insufficient partnership experience to expect, then that's tough--they had all the information I had. I think one's own side suffers far more often in these cases of uncertainty than the opponents do. >Perhaps we should create the infraction of "Inadequate Information". >All those in favour, say aye-aye. In keeping with our animal theme, I say "Neigh-neigh". :) >David Burn -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 05:19:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 03:28:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA04370 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 03:27:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from p31s10a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.106.50] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dGZR-00043o-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:27:42 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:29:30 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf198e$55ee6340$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, October 18, 1999 1:49 PM Subject: Re: You learn something new every day >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> >> +=+ Anne, Herman, >> Does your law book have a >> Law 20C2 ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >I can't speak for Anne, who did not find it, but I can speak >for myself and Dany, who did : Of course I found it. I even quoted from it. I decided however I could make a case for it not to apply. Before the opening lead is made the laws applying to the auction period apply. L20B.A player may have previous calls restated when it is his turn to call. It was not Herman's turn to call. L20C2 refers to the point in time when a defended is to "play". The definition of a play is that which occurs during the play period. L17E says the auction period ends after the opening lead has been faced. It follows therefore that the person who is about to make the opening lead cannot ask for a review of the bidding. I remember a while ago putting foreward another argument viz A claim does not apply to the trick in progress. My point is, it is not difficult to read the Law Book and make it say anything you want it to say. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 05:41:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 03:22:37 +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 DAA04347 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 03:22:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13974; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 10:21:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199910181721.KAA13974@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 16 Oct 1999 05:22:35 PDT." Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 10:21:44 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: > However, this partial ban on Roman (odd/even) really does > irritate me. Yes, it has been explained to me before, at > some length, that the reason for the ban is that it's > believed that there are too many UI problems created by > them. What does not seem to have been taken into account is > that those of us who wish to play Roman leads and/or signals > and/or discards in an ethical manner (on OKBridge, safely > out of the reach of any NCBO!) are FULLY AWARE of these > potential problems. Uh, I don't see how you could possibly make such an assertion. I'm sure *you* are fully aware of the problems, and perhaps you have some friends who play this way and are aware of the problems, but you're basically implying that virtually everyone who uses Roman signals is fully aware of the UI problems. And, of course, you have no way of knowing this. There really shouldn't be any UI problems as long as you know what to do when your spots are all odd or all even. If you've learned something like "Play an odd spot to encourage, but if you have no odd spots play your highest even spot", or something like that, you'll know what to do without fumbling. But as is the case with a lot of methods that become popular, the masses who say "This sounds like a good idea, let's do it", don't bother to think through the potential problems. You can't accuse them of being unethical, since they have no desire to break the rules. But it just doesn't occur to them that there might be a problem. And then one day, they suddenly find themselves holding K842 and wanting to encourage the suit. Oops! Nobody told us about this possibility, what do I do now? (*) I don't know whether this sort of thing was happening a lot, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. And if it was, it's understandable that some top players might feel the best overall solution was to ban them. I'm not saying I agree with this position, just that I can understand it. Also, if the late Bobby Goldman felt strongly that this was the right solution, I have to believe that there were good reasons for this. I have trouble believing that he was the sort of person to become a "fierce defender" of the ACBL position without "taking into account" the players who are able to use Roman signals in an ethical manner. I'm sure he would have been quite aware of them. (I could be wrong---I didn't know him personally or anything.) > If you are going to play Roman in an ethical manner, you > have to accept that the need to play IN TEMPO is more > important than usual, and prepare accordingly. I agree; however, it seems very possible to me that a large number of people could decide to play Roman without being aware of this need. So in an imperfect world, what do you do? I'm sure there are other ways to deal with the problem, and it seems to me that some of those other solutions must be better than a ban. But I certainly don't know what was discussed when they decided to ban the system; perhaps there was good reason to believe that a ban was the best practical solution to an actual problem. Or perhaps some influential bigwig had something bad happen to him once at the table, and pushed a ban through for that reason. I don't know. But I feel I have to give them at least some benefit of the doubt---especially because I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Goldman. (*) Standard and upside-down signals don't have this same problem. If you have T98 and want to discourage, you just play your lowest card and don't worry about it. You might be afraid that the 8 will mislead partner, but what else are you going to do? Play an even higher spot? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 06:06:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 06:06:45 +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 GAA04890 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 06:06:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.21.58] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11dJ2y-0000Y9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:06:21 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bf19a3$ede5fea0$3a15063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <380B14AD.3215084B@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:04:03 +0100 Organization: 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 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk J-P Rocafort wrote: David Burn a écrit : [DB] > It occurs to me also that had this incident occurred when screens were > in use, there would not (perhaps) have been a problem. South would > have told West that he had hearts; West would have bid 2S, and at any > rate the table would have made more progress towards the result that > one instinctively feels is the "right" one on the deal. When the tray > arrived at the other side, of course, North might tell East that South > had spades, but the likely outcome is that North would look at West's > 2S bid and - with empirical justification - decide that South's memory > was at fault. It seems to me that a requirement we might place on the > Laws is that they operate in the same fashion whatever the conditions > of contest - that is, if under certain conditions West would be in > possession of the "correct" information, he should be deemed to > possess it under all conditions. [J-PR] I don't see your point: with screens, South would bid 2H with the same uncertainty as described by North, related to his agreements (or lack of agreement or incomplete agreement...) and he would undoubtedly disclose his agreements (lack of, or...) in the same way as North had done it on the other side of the screen. Your assumption that South "would have told West he had hearts" is an assumption that South would unethically and deliberately provide MI, maybe trying to be helpful but running the risk to confuse opponents with different explanations on both sides of the screen, maybe trying to avoid trouble by hiding an hole in their agreements. When South bids 2H, he thinks it shows hearts. I suppose he might bid 2H, alert his bid, and say to West something like: "I hope he thinks this shows hearts" if South were indeed uncertain; players do that kind of thing. But I find it difficult to believe that South would *not* tell West that he had hearts; he does not know that North is going to explain it as spades - or if he does, then to bid it at all would be a strange course of action. (Unless, but tell this not in Gath, he knows that North will both explain it as showing spades and then pass it anyway, having noticed a strong resemblance between the tournament director and Michael Dennis.) The point I was trying to make is that with screens, West would know that South actually had hearts - without them, having to rely on North's explanation, he does not know this and is thereby prevented from making an advantageous 2S bid. [DB] > The difficulty arises, of course, from the fact that the Laws create a > requirement for a pair to disclose their methods even though they may > be incapable of doing so (because, temporarily, they do not know what > their methods are). However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to > view the matter in this light: if a player creates a doubt in his > opponent's mind (because of a doubt in the player's own mind), and if > the opponent is thereby caused to act in a manner disadvantageous to > his side, the Laws should provide the opponent with some redress. > Perhaps we should create the infraction of "Inadequate Information". > All those in favour, say aye-aye. [J-PR] OK if a player creates doubt because he has forgotten an agreement, he is guilty of MI, but I disagree when there is a "real" doubt due to an incomplete or absent agreement: he can't be guilty for an infraction of "insufficient agreement". The problem is that these cases are going to be difficult to distinguish. If it is to the advantage of players to assert that they have no agreement, instead of having to admit that they have forgotten an agreement they do have, then some players will do this (and I have to inform Michael that the number is rather greater than he is perhaps prepared to believe). As I have said, I think the Laws should be constructed so that we do not have to determine whether a player has done X from innocent or nefarious motives; they should simply be constructed so that he cannot do X without penalty. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 06:32:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 06:32:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04941 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 06:32:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei59.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.169]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA14258 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:32:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991018163007.012e186c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:30:07 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <003301bf194b$d67cadc0$0cfbabc3@davidburn> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:33 AM 10/18/99 +0100, David B wrote: >Michael wrote: > >[snip] > >> The truth is that a North who accurately explains his partnership >> agreements, including the clear delineation about which information >> definitely does apply to a situation such as this and which areas >are, by >> contrast, undiscussed, has done nothing wrong, either in bridge >terms or >> legal terms. Conclusions that EW might draw in a case such as this >are >> simply at their own risk. > >This, in my view, is not really acceptable. EW should not be placed at >risk because NS do not know what they are doing. What have EW done to >deserve this "risk"? Why should the Laws force them to take it? The "risk" of not knowing the cards held by the other players is one that is (or should be) borne by all players equally. EW are _not_ entitled to a description of the cards held by either of their opponents, and indeed you will find no legal principle to the contrary. What they are entitled to is a full description of relevant partnership agreements, period. How they choose to use that information in making bidding and play decisions is the "risk" that I was referring to. >> The alternative view is "unplayable", in my opinion. Consider if we >are to >> accept EW's complaint and adjust the score for MI. Now an >unscrupulous EW >> have a classic double-shot available to them. By passing, they get a >good >> score when North guesses wrong, but are protected by a score >adjustment >> when North guesses right. > >Quite so. If my opponent is not prepared (or not able) to fulfil his >legal obligation to tell me what his partner's call shows, then I >believe the Laws should fully protect me from the consequences (and I >believe that L40C in fact offers the necessary protection). No such obligation. I repeat, the Laws require you to fully disclose _agreements only_. It is up to all the players at the table to assess the significance of that information in light of their own holdings and using their own best judgement. >> There is already an infraction for Inadequate Information: it is >> called Misinformation. > >Not so. The information that North gave was entirely correct - he did >not misinform his opponents in any way. However, the information he >gave was not adequate to enable West to take an action that he would >have taken had he been in possession of information to which he was >legally entitled. If North has given only true information to the opponents, then he can't, by definition, be guilty of MI. For the third time, West is not legally entitled to any explanation of "what South is up to", except as he may choose to deduce from a truthful and complete description of the opponents' agreements. >> How about this principle instead: players are free >> to draw whatever conclusions they will from opponents' explanations, >but >> are only entitled to redress for MI when they have actually been >misinformed. > >It won't work. Nobody should have to "draw conclusions" from >opponents' explanations: those explanations are in Law supposed to >leave no room for the drawing of conclusions. And this principle is to be found in which part of the text? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 06:37:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 06:37:41 +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 GAA04958 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 06:37:34 +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 PAA21459 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:39:54 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991018153756.007e08c0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:37:56 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <003301bf194b$d67cadc0$0cfbabc3@davidburn> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:33 AM 10/18/99 +0100, David Burn wrote: >Michael wrote: > >> have a classic double-shot available to them. By passing, they get a >good >> score when North guesses wrong, but are protected by a score >adjustment >> when North guesses right. > >Quite so. If my opponent is not prepared (or not able) to fulfil his >legal obligation to tell me what his partner's call shows, then I There is no legal obligation to tell what partner's call shows. There is a legal obligation to tell any _agreements_ we have about what it shows, or to tell any partnership experience we have relevant to what it shows. If we have told all that, clearly and completely, we have satisfied our legal obligations. >believe the Laws should fully protect me from the consequences (and I >believe that L40C in fact offers the necessary protection). This is >not a "double shot" at all, nor is it unplayable - unlike the >alternative. I do not believe that the Laws leave it open for a player >to say, in effect: "If I have to guess what my partner's doing, then >the opponents should also have to guess." I think it leaves a player open to say precisely that. Last week my opponents doubled an asking bid in a Flannery auction. We had no agreements about what a redouble of that double meant. I did it anyway, partner guessed as to the meaning, and guessed wrong. We ended up in a decent spot mostly by accident. Are you are going to penalize me on the grounds that, had we actually had an agreement, and had that agreement been fully explained to opponents [while partner of course still misunderstands it], and had they then made a bid they might have made but didn't, the score would be different? If so, we have just doomed every casual player and every casual partnership to almost certain defeat--if they manage to avoid losing by not having complete agreements in every sequence, then we'll penalize them by law! >> There is already an infraction for Inadequate Information: it is >> called Misinformation. > >Not so. The information that North gave was entirely correct - he did >not misinform his opponents in any way. However, the information he >gave was not adequate to enable West to take an action that he would >have taken had he been in possession of information to which he was >legally entitled. I agree with you--there is no infraction for inadequate information in this sense. Nor should there be. >> How about this principle instead: players are free >> to draw whatever conclusions they will from opponents' explanations, >but >> are only entitled to redress for MI when they have actually been >misinformed. > >It won't work. Nobody should have to "draw conclusions" from >opponents' explanations: those explanations are in Law supposed to >leave no room for the drawing of conclusions. That's not in my lawbook. :) >David Burn -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 06:41:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 06:41:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04991 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 06:41:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei59.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.169]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18265 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991018163920.012d4898@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:39:20 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <000701bf1996$43e47e20$9a3b63c3@davidburn> References: <199910181608.MAA08027@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:26 PM 10/18/99 +0100, David B wrote: >Yes, but players do not have a legal obligation to follow the best >line in the play. They do have a legal obligation to explain their >calls to the opponents. You may repeat this as often as you like, and I will continue to insist that it is false. Players have a legal obligation to explain their _agreements_ to the opponents, not their calls. It is an absolutely critical point, and one that seems to me to be at the heart of yours and Herman's confusion. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 07:41:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:02:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05046 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:02:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei59.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.169]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA30231 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:02:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991018170003.012e3c38@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:00:03 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991018141701.007dee20@eiu.edu> References: <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:17 PM 10/18/99 -0500, Grant wrote: >At 12:02 AM 10/18/99 +0100, David Burn wrote: >>I started with this case. >> >>The bidding proceeds: >> >>West North East South >>1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H >> >>Now, suppose that NS play this auction: >> >>West North East South >>Pass 1NT Dble 2H >> >>as a transfer to spades, and that neither of them has ever forgotten >>that they do this. Suppose North in the first auction alerts 2H. "What >>does that mean?" says West. "Well", says North, "if you hadn't opened >>1S, I would know that he had spades, but now I am not sure." West > > I don't like that form of explanation at all, but the basic idea >seems correct. > >>passes, and so does everybody else; South has hearts; EW claim that > > You should emphasize this part of the story--this is the real >key, IMHO. I would most certainly ask North why he passed. North's answer: I passed because I wasn't sure, as I explained to the opponents. North is required to make a call at his turn. He's not sure, but he must still make a decision. Certainly he can make his decision on his own judgement, based on the cards in his hand. That his decision happens to comport with the actual intended meaning of his partner's call may be a credit to either his judgement or his luck, but it is not a basis for suspicion. There seems to be a presumption that NS are guilty of some infraction or other, and that therefore there is some burden of proof upon them. But while the Laws do tend to be biased in favor of the NOS, there must first be an OS to apply this principle. It is certainly appropriate to investigate whether North's explanation is true and complete, but not under the presumption of guilt. And once we conclude that North's explanation is accurate, then the matter is closed. North cannot be guilty of MI if he has given an accurate and complete statement of partnership agreements. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 07:57:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:57:42 +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 HAA05133 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:57:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA03247 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:57:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA08332 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:57:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:57:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910182157.RAA08332@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne - LONG X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SW>Whatever is decided, I am strongly in favor of treating misbids SW>identically to psychics. There is no difference except the mental SW>state of the player, and we cannot know that anyway. Where there SW>is no strong need for mind reading, why not avoid it? > From: Eric Landau > There is a very strong need in this case, unless we want to treat novice > players who don't know what they're doing the same as we treat experienced > players who psych at every other call. My comment related to score adjustment, not to Conduct and Ethics matters. If you think score adjustment should be different for misbids and psychs, I'm afraid you will have to spell out the reasons for me. If novice players have agreements they don't explain, or if they explain agreements they don't have, why shouldn't the score be adjusted? I agree that intent is very important in C&E matters. It just didn't occur to me to mention the subject in my earlier message. > Why not treat accidental killings identically to first degree murders? I'm not sure where you are going with this analogy or whether it's appropriate, but as I understand it, for civil matters (redress of damage), these are indeed the same. Of course the _criminal_ penalties, C&E matters being the bridge analog, are quite different. (Add here the usual disclaimers about my not being a lawyer; seek competent legal advice if you need it.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 09:36:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:36:44 +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 JAA05310 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:36:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-254-147.s147.tnt1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.254.147]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA25738 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:36:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00ad01bf19c1$7771ea40$93fe7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <002401bf1915$1e04c560$40dc7ad1@hdavis> <380AF241.79E34515@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:35:27 -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: Monday, October 18, 1999 6:11 AM Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? > > Sorry Hirsh, but that is not the first problem, that is the > zeroeth problem. We are trying to establish what the > rulilng is, after the director has established that the > system corresponds to the bidder's hand. > > So your post is not helpful. > Sorry Herman, but I have read David Burn's post many times, and there is no explanation of what the actual agreement was, or even if there was one. There is an implied hint that N thought they were playing system on over a NT overcall and was confused by the transfer into the opponent's suit. However, this was not explicitly stated. Nor was it stated that the S bid showed hearts. The post did state that S *had* hearts, but this is irrelevant, as the ruling must be based on the agreements regarding the 2H bid, not about the contents of the hand. Presumably if S thought that the agreement was that his call showed hearts, after hearing the N explanation, S would have summoned the TD at the end of the auction. If the TD established that this was in fact the agreement, then the final pass would have been removed, and W could have converted back to spades. If, OTOH, S was awakened to his misbid by the N explanation, then he would quite properly have said nothing, which is what appears to have happened. The circumstantial evidence presented actually tends more toward misbid than MI. Without further details, the situation could as easily be a misbid by S as MI by N. You are making assumptions about the situation that I am not willing to make. Your assumptions may well be right, but I would like to have it confirmed by David, rather than base my opinion on a set of assumptions that may well not be applicable to the situation at hand. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 10:21:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:21:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot0-70.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-70.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05413 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:20:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-70.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA04663 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:19:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:19:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk extend to Midchart and Superchart): Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender's first discard. Except for the first discard, only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are approved. Let's look at the second sentence first. This says that, for example, one may not use odd encourages, even discourages. The assertion that the use of odd/even signalling creates more UI problems than RUCA or UDCA is obviously ridiculous. Surely one might want to encourage but not have any odd cards. Likewise, playing RUCA one might want to encourage, but have only small cards. The situations are completely analogous. The first sentence makes more sense. As I see it, one can combine any of the signalling methods with suit preference; for example, a high even card discourages and suggests a switch to the higher suit and a low even card discourages and suggests s awitch to the lower suit. This is more likely to lead to a UI-sensitive situation if one does not plan ahead. Even here one can play in tempo with the "wrong" discouraging card -- one must think *before* the trick to which one plays. I must admit that I lack the experience to pass judgement on the first sentence; I've seen enough folks who lack understanding of even the most basic UI situations to be critical of this part of the regulation. The second sentence reeks of the decaying fish smell associated with the worst in politics. Bruce Chyah Burghard wrote: : There are two kinds of odd/even signaling. One is when you : are discarding and the ACBL still permits that. The other is : in response to the opening lead or while following suit. This : second version is not permitted. : The reason for the ban is that when people do not have the : correct card needed, they pause for thought indicating that : they have a problem and creating UI. : -Chyah : ----- Original Message ----- :> Adam Beneschan wrote: :> ...(Sort of like when the ACBL banned odd-even signals, because : they felt :> there were too many UI problems happening when players had only odd :> spots or only even spots.) : Marcel Schoof wrote: : MS: Is the above mentioned odd-even signals the same as roman : signaling (odd is positive, even is color prefferance)? Because I : don't see the UI. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 11:00:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 11:00:08 +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 LAA05540 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 11:00:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21356; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:59:18 -0700 Message-Id: <199910190059.RAA21356@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:19:52 PDT." Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:59:20 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Moore wrote: > Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each > defender's first discard. Except for the first discard, only > right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are > approved. > > Let's look at the second sentence first. This says that, for example, > one may not use odd encourages, even discourages. The assertion that > the use of odd/even signalling creates more UI problems than RUCA or > UDCA is obviously ridiculous. Surely one might want to encourage but > not have any odd cards. Likewise, playing RUCA one might want to > encourage, but have only small cards. The situations are completely > analogous. No, they're not completely analogous. Using RUCA, if you want to encourage with K432, you may be worried that partner could get confused by the 4, but it's still obvious what to do---play the highest spot card you can and hope partner figures it out. (Only people who think "high encourages" means you have to play a card higher than a 6 to encourage are going to fumble around with a hand like this; hopefully there isn't anyone like that above the novice level.) Using odd-even signaling, if you want to encourage with K642, you have no idea what to do unless you've discussed it---and even then you might have to think to remember whether you're supposed to play high or low in this situation. So it's not at all ridiculous to suppose that Roman might create more UI problems, when in the hands of people who aren't great bridge players, who comprise a big majority of the ACBL and probably every other SO as well. If you're playing in an event where all the players are going to be good, good enough that one can assume they've discussed this situation and know what to do when holding only even spots and have practiced enough so that they aren't going to have to think to remember what to do, then under those circumstances, yes, the assertion is ridiculous. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 12:52:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 12:52:30 +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 MAA05719 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 12:52:02 +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 ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:44:28 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <380AF7B3.C3D20DE7@village.uunet.be> References: <004d01bf18f5$193f5ba0$4f5208c3@swhki5i6> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:46:18 -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 Herman De Wael asks: >Am I right, Grattan, in drawing the following conclusion ? > >When a player makes a call, intending it to have a >particular "meaning", and his partner interprets this in the >same manner, then that is evidence of "system" and therefor >disclosable. I can't speak for Grattan, but I'd like to stick in my admittedly inexperienced oar. :-) I think it depends on the call, and the circumstances. If the interpretation is based on "general bridge knowledge" then it may not be "system". To claim that _all_ such situations are "system" is to deny players the opportunity to make a call that has not been discussed with partner, and expect him to figure it out based on general knowledge. Either that, or it requires them to explain "general knowledge," which the laws specifically say need not be explained. >Would the following statement also hold up ? > >When a player makes a call, intending it to have a >particular "meaning", and his partner interprets this in a >different manner, there is an obligation on the partnership >to convince the director that partner's interpretation is >the systemic one. Barring that there is evidence of >"system". This is the other side of the coin. I remember one of the first games I played on my return to bridge (in 1993, in England, after a 25 year hiatus). We were playing Acol, which was a new system to me. My LHO opens 1S. Partner doubles. I treated it as takeout. Much to my surprise, he meant it as penalty (his mother taught him that way, and he'd never played it any other). Had opps asked the meaning of the double, I would have said "takeout". So far as I knew at the time, _nobody_ plays double of an opening one bid as penalty. But I was wrong; partner did. Does that make my explanation MI? I don't think so. I don't see how the lack of evidence that one partner's interpretation is "the system" in use equates to evidence that the other partner's interpretation must be "the system" in use. It's perfectly possible that _neither_ player is bidding according to system. >If that statement holds (and IMO it does), there follows : > >When a player makes a call, intending it to have a >particular "meaning", that meaning is disclosable to >opponents, and failure to disclose this shall lead to a >ruling on MI, unless the partnership can prove that the >meaning that was disclosed to opponents in stead is the >correct systemic one. There have been times when I couldn't remember whether my partner and I had agreed to play some convention or other. If she opens 1S, and I bid 2NT, is that Jacoby, is it a balanced raise with trump support, or is it inviting 3NT and denying trump support? If I guess wrong, whatever meaning I intend, that's a misbid, _not_ an undisclosed agreement. 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/AwUBOAvcwL2UW3au93vOEQI8tgCfaTyGAyBDrJaOU4/IBzpM1Ygopy0AnRWb ev+BRVkwn0Tc61NLUaszJkVg =cZ1i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 13:44:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA05785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:44:27 +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 NAA05780 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:44:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.172] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11dQBz-0008Rc-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 04:44:07 +0100 Message-ID: <000201bf19e4$2cd297a0$ac5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 04:42:41 +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: 18 October 1999 20:35 Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne >Grattan Endicott wrote: > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 15:03:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:03:24 +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 PAA05877 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:03:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.172.57.177] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11dRQR-0004sM-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 06:03:08 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bf19ee$e34c4300$b139ac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991018163007.012e186c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 06:00:38 +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 Michael wrote (and Grant wrote in the same vein): > No such obligation. I repeat, the Laws require you to fully disclose > _agreements only_. It is up to all the players at the table to assess the > significance of that information in light of their own holdings and using > their own best judgement. Well, L40B requires players to disclose "the use of such call or play". If West asks North: "How does your side use 2H in this auction?", I think that this Law requires North to tell West how his side uses 2H. If North does not know, and if his not knowing damages West, then L40C says that the Director may assign an adjusted score. This seems, at any rate, to be how Grattan, Herman and I read these Laws. I think that Michael and others may be basing their arguments entirely on L75, and not paying sufficient attention to L40. There is a good reason for this, of course: L40B is headed "Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited", and refers to calls or plays based on special understandings. But (a) the heading is not part of the Law, and (b) even if it were, an understanding may be concealed as much through uncertainty as through malice. > For the third time, West is not legally > entitled to any explanation of "what South is up to", except as he may > choose to deduce from a truthful and complete description of the opponents' > agreements. There is no real question that South was "up to" anything. South was bidding hearts to show hearts. In some conditions (screens), West would know this; why should he not know it in all conditions? > >It won't work. Nobody should have to "draw conclusions" from > >opponents' explanations: those explanations are in Law supposed to > >leave no room for the drawing of conclusions. > > And this principle is to be found in which part of the text? Laws 40B and 40C, as I read them. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 16:37:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 16:37:38 +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 QAA06095 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 16:37:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id HAA16350 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:36:54 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:36 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: all those 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: <380B11D4.24E7F550@village.uunet.be> > > All those in favour, say aye-aye. > > > > David Burn > > > > that's some sort of sloth isn't it? > > No an aye-aye (had to look it up) is a Madagascan > squirrel-like primate with very long fingers. I believe David was confusing it with an ai (a sloth much beloved of English scrabble players). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 19:45:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:45:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06484 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:44:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from p8ds01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.142] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dVou-0001QL-00; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 02:44:41 -0700 Message-ID: <001401bf1a16$73765200$8e8193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: all those Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:42:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Date: 18 October 1999 16:16 Subject: Re: all those > >No an aye-aye (had to look it up) is a Madagascan >squirrel-like primate with very long fingers. > +=+ As to squirrels, my insurer has pronounced them 'not vermin', so I have no protection from them. They may not be vermin, but they can be pests. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 19 22:40:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 22:40:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA06803 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 22:39:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA15480 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 08:40:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991019084117.006f375c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 08:41:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991018170003.012e3c38@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.6.32.19991018141701.007dee20@eiu.edu> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We've been talking about uncertainty, but the real issue isn't uncertainty; it's ambiguity. Try these: I've been playing for 20 years at the Kudgill Club. While on vacation, I go to a tournament, and encounter an acquaintance who's also been playing for 20 years at the same club, but we've never played as partners. We decide to give it a go. We agree that we will play "Kudgill Club standard", with which we are both intimately familiar. We have no further discussion. At the club, everyone plays the auction 1H-2H as showing spades and clubs. Everyone plays the auction 2H-3H as promising a long running minor and demanding a bid of 3NT with a heart stopper. However, 50% of the regular partnerships (including 50% of mine and 50% of his), play the auction 1H-P-2H-3H as spades and clubs, while the other 50% play it as a stopper-ask. Sure enough, we get an auction that goes 1H-P-2H-, and partner bids 3H. Case 1: I hold xxx/KQxx/Kxx/Kxx. I will bid 3NT with complete confidence that I know what partner is doing. Case 2: I hold x/KQxx/xxxx/xxxx. I will bid 4C with complete confidence that I know what partner is doing. But before I can bid, my RHO inquires about the meaning of partner's 3H bid. If I follow the logic of the Dennis-Landau school, I will say "We have no agreement about this particular auction, but you should know that 1H-2H would show spades and clubs, and that 2H-3H would promise a long running minor and require me to bid 3NT with a heart stopper. We have no other agreements that might be relevant here." If I follow the logic of the deWael-Burn school, I will say "He has a long running minor and is telling me to bid 3NT with a heart stopper" in case 1, and will say "He has spades and clubs" in case 2. In either case, I will be sure that I am giving correct information. What do I say? 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 Oct 19 22:59:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 22:59:27 +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 WAA06859 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 22:59:20 +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 JAA17198 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991019090042.006a4254@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:00:42 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oops... blush. I just reread my previous post, and realized that it makes no sense at all, as I got the high cards scrambled in my two example hands. I hope the intention got through anyhow. Please adjust the hands so that the argument makes sense, and try reading it again. 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 Oct 20 01:41:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:02:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07211 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:01:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.133]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA27939 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:01:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380C6542.74FB5ACC@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:34:10 +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: all those References: <001401bf1a16$73765200$8e8193c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > +=+ As to squirrels, my insurer has pronounced > them 'not vermin', so I have no protection from > them. They may not be vermin, but they can be > pests. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Do British Fire insurance policies include cover against vermin ? Interesting. You learn something new every day ! (yesterday biology, today professional intrests, whatever next ?) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 01:53:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:53:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07444 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:53:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA02604 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:55:46 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991019105343.007ac4d0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:53:43 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <000b01bf19ee$e34c4300$b139ac3e@davidburn> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991018163007.012e186c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:00 AM 10/19/99 +0100, David Burn wrote: >Michael wrote (and Grant wrote in the same vein): > >> No such obligation. I repeat, the Laws require you to fully disclose >> _agreements only_. It is up to all the players at the table to >assess the >> significance of that information in light of their own holdings and >using >> their own best judgement. > >Well, L40B requires players to disclose "the use of such call or >play". If West asks North: "How does your side use 2H in this >auction?", I think that this Law requires North to tell West how his >side uses 2H. If North does not know, and if his not knowing damages >West, then L40C says that the Director may assign an adjusted score. >This seems, at any rate, to be how Grattan, Herman and I read these >Laws. I think that Michael and others may be basing their arguments >entirely on L75, and not paying sufficient attention to L40. There is >a good reason for this, of course: L40B is headed "Concealed >Partnership Understandings Prohibited", and refers to calls or plays >based on special understandings. But (a) the heading is not part of >the Law, and (b) even if it were, an understanding may be concealed as >much through uncertainty as through malice. I'm sorry, David, but this doesn't seem to be up to your usual standard of argument--perhaps I am missing something. Let us leave the heading aside. What is the antecedent of "_such_" in "such call or play"? I would say that it quite transparently refers to "...a call or play based on a special partnership understanding". I most certainly agree that one must disclose calls or plays based on partnership understandings. What we are discussing here are calls or plays that are not based on a partnership understanding at all. As to point 'b', again I think this begs the question. If partner and I have not discussed whether a certain bid is a transfer or natural, and it is not a clear inference from our other agreements, then we have no understanding about that bid. This is most emphatically true when I guess it to mean one thing and partner intended it to mean something different. So we are not concealing an understanding with uncertainty-- there is no understanding for us to conceal. >There is no real question that South was "up to" anything. South was >bidding hearts to show hearts. In some conditions (screens), West >would know this; why should he not know it in all conditions? Because things are different with screens? >David Burn -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 02:41:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:02:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07210 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:01:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.133]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA27931 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:01:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380C63AD.2F5CFEE1@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:27:25 +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: You learn something new every day References: <001e01bf1939$193383e0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> <380AFC91.BF612450@village.uunet.be> <380B1B15.AB292BE1@uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: > > Hi Herman! > > Isn´t it odd, that L12C1 is referred to and not 12C2? > I think that should be on the changes for the next lawbook list. > Now that I have read it, I don't think it is odd ! When I am told the bidding went 1Cl -... in stead of 1Di, I effectively stopped playing the same game. So an artificial score seems quite all right to me. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 03:04:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:02:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07207 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:01:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.133]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA27924 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:01:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380C633C.D1D11D1B@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:25:32 +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: <199910181608.MAA08027@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991018163920.012d4898@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > At 07:26 PM 10/18/99 +0100, David B wrote: > >Yes, but players do not have a legal obligation to follow the best > >line in the play. They do have a legal obligation to explain their > >calls to the opponents. > > You may repeat this as often as you like, and I will continue to insist > that it is false. Players have a legal obligation to explain their > _agreements_ to the opponents, not their calls. It is an absolutely > critical point, and one that seems to me to be at the heart of yours and > Herman's confusion. > > Mike Dennis As I said to Grant, you cannot show anything if there is not some sort of agreement. If I bid 2He on XXXxxx x Xxx Xxx (any sort of situation) and I intend this to adequately describe my hand, then I am "showing" a spade suit. I am not showing AKJ762 of spades. Thus, opponents are entitled to know I have six spades, not that I have the 2 of spades. I cannot call 2He, intend it to show six spades, and then tell the TD that we have not agreed that 2He shows spades. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 03:09:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 03:09:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from inet16.us.oracle.com (inet16.us.oracle.com [209.246.15.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA07780 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 03:09:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailsun2.us.oracle.com (mailsun2.us.oracle.com [144.25.88.74]) by inet16.us.oracle.com (8.9.2/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA04923; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dlsun565.us.oracle.com (sun-jboyce.us.oracle.com [144.25.19.129]) by mailsun2.us.oracle.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05235; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jboyce@localhost) by dlsun565.us.oracle.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA16909; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:55:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:55:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199910191655.JAA16909@dlsun565.us.oracle.com> X-Authentication-Warning: dlsun565.us.oracle.com: jboyce set sender to jboyce@us.oracle.com using -f From: Jim Boyce To: cfgcs@eiu.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.19991019105343.007ac4d0@eiu.edu> (message from Grant Sterling on Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:53:43 -0500) Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Reply-to: jboyce%sun-jboyce@us.oracle.com References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991018163007.012e186c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.19991019105343.007ac4d0@eiu.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ... DB There is no real question that South was "up to" anything. South was DB bidding hearts to show hearts. In some conditions (screens), West DB would know this; why should he not know it in all conditions? GS Because things are different with screens? I believe that West will know what South intended because South will probably commit an infraction of MisInformation. South will probably explain, if asked, that the 2H bid shows hearts. East and West are entitled to an explanation of the North-South system. From the problem statement, we infer that NS play transfers over an opening 1NT, and have agreed to play "systems on" over a 1NT overcall. They apparently haven't discussed what it means to transfer into the opponents' bid suit. -jim boyce DB David Burn GS -Grant Sterling GS cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 03:29:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 03:29:00 +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 DAA07874 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 03:28:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00988 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:28:43 +0200 Received: from ip17.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.17), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda00985; Tue Oct 19 19:28:33 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:28:33 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <001e01bf1939$193383e0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> <380AFC91.BF612450@village.uunet.be> <380B1B15.AB292BE1@uni-duesseldorf.de> <380C63AD.2F5CFEE1@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <380C63AD.2F5CFEE1@village.uunet.be> 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 DAA07875 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:27:25 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Richard Bley wrote: >> >> Hi Herman! >> >> Isn´t it odd, that L12C1 is referred to and not 12C2? >> I think that should be on the changes for the next lawbook list. >> > >Now that I have read it, I don't think it is odd ! > >When I am told the bidding went 1Cl -... in stead of 1Di, I >effectively stopped playing the same game. So an artificial >score seems quite all right to me. But is that not also the case when you are given an incorrect explanation of the meaning of a call? If L12C2 is good enough for ordinary MI, why not also for this? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 03:41:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:48 +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 BAA07396 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:37 +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 11dbPZ-0007PP-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:42:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:28:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: <01BF1706.A91C25A0@k515.zeelandnet.nl> <003001bf1709$3e50f220$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> <3807535F.D67F19FE@zahav.net.il> In-Reply-To: <3807535F.D67F19FE@zahav.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >I think I don't understand the English language anymore.. > >Is it forbidden to encourage/discourage O-E signals on the first lead of >any suit in ACBL events ??? > >If the reason is hesitation , when the partner has no even or odd >(relevant) card , then what happens when a player holds 1098 and his >partner leads A of suit...show me more than 2 of 97 players who will not >think 50 sec more than usual. It does not take 50 seconds to work out which is the lowest card form 1098: it does not take any time at all. Only a cheat or a beginner would hesitate. It would take a bit longer to work out which is the odd card from 642. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 20 03:56:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 03:56:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA07974 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 03:56:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from p91s07a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.167.146] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ddUL-0004G1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:55:58 -0700 Message-ID: <002801bf1a5b$155e2220$968493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 18:52:36 +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 Date: 19 October 1999 06:25 Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? >Michael wrote (and Grant wrote in the same vein): > >> No such obligation. I repeat, the Laws require you to fully disclose >> _agreements only_. > +=+ And, of course, special information that derives from partnership experience or partnership agreement. [Special information: information that is additional to what would be normally and generally derived] +=+ > >> >It won't work. Nobody should have to "draw conclusions" from >> >opponents' explanations: those explanations are in Law supposed to >> >leave no room for the drawing of conclusions. > +=+ 'Conclusions' are the same as inferences? Then conclusions that are not the subject of partnership agreement or identified from partnership experience - conclusions that are in the domain of players generally - need not be cited. +=+ ~ Grattan ~ >> From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 04:19:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07355 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:00 +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 11dbPP-0007QL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:42:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:01:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lady Connell: MI? References: <199910142052.QAA05563@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910142052.QAA05563@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> 1S P P X >> 2C X! P P >> P >> >> The second double was alerted because it was takeout, as it said >> unambiguously on both CCs. It was also asked about, and described as >> takeout. >> >> Partner then passed it out with C Kx, finding partner with a penalty >> double hand. >> >> "Why did you pass it with your hand?" >> >> "Partner often forgets this is takeout so I guessed she had forgotten >> this time." > >Unless this was played with screens, one suspects there was UI, but >that is awfully hard to investigate, let alone prove. David: do you >expect the TD's you train to ask about tone of voice (oral bidding) or >mannerisms (bid boxes) in cases like this? I think they should. I am a believer that if TDs get all the relevant evidence then I expect competent TDs to make good decisions. The possibilities of the existence of UI is relevant evidence. >As others have said, failure to disclose the partnership history seems >to be MI (L75C). -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 20 04:25:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:02:18 +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 BAA07206 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:01:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.133]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA27914 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:01:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380C6088.D3077039@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:14:00 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.19991018153756.007e08c0@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > > There is no legal obligation to tell what partner's call > shows. There is a legal obligation to tell any _agreements_ we > have about what it shows, or to tell any partnership experience > we have relevant to what it shows. If we have told all that, > clearly and completely, we have satisfied our legal obligations. > Sorry to labour a point, Grant, but your sentence does not make sence, once you analyse it. you say: > There is no legal obligation to tell what partner's call > shows. you use the word "show". Please tell me how a call can "show" anything without an agreement about this. If a player bids hearts when he holds spades, I am presuming that he intends his bid to "show" spades. I am also presuming there is some agreement behind this, or he would not do it. That is the basis of our argument, and your stressing over and over again that we only need to explain agreements is getting worn. Our argument is that we are assuming agreements. So we must disclose ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 04:41:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:11 +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 BAA07354 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:00 +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 11dbPL-0007PR-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:42:40 +0000 Message-ID: <06XmaSA0xGD4EwF2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:04:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Forbidding psyching References: <4.1.19991014203655.00a6a820@pop.swinternet.net> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991014203655.00a6a820@pop.swinternet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dave Armstrong wrote: >David Stevenson wrote - > >> Anne has merely misquoted the regulation. it only bans the psyches of >>GF or near GF *artificial* openings. > >It is quite true what David says but I was quite surprised recently when >this hand was opening a Benjamin two as eight+ playing tricks in diamonds >(I can't quite remember which way around the majors were but the minors are >correct - >S - x >H - x x >D - K x x x >C - A J 10 9 x x > >Not only was it ruled by the TD as okay, at least two senior directord here >said okay and the AC said, " When the bid was made the player believed it >was an Acol Two so there is no penalty." > >Perhaps this fits in with the misbid thread. Not at all: the ruling was merely made without consulting me! There is no doubt that *either* the player psyched his opening 2C which is an illegal use of system and should be ruled as 40/60 *or* the system allows for that hand to be opened 2C which is an illegal system and should be ruled as 40/60. I am sorry but my colleagues and the AC were wrong on this occasion. I believe they misunderstood the regulations. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 05:08:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:27 +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 BAA07361 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:07 +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 11dbPP-0007PQ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:42:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:57:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: I think partner has... References: <199910171708.NAA07305@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910171708.NAA07305@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 20:14:08 +0200 >> The second sentence is problematic, yes. Perhaps it should have >> been phrased as "It is my judgment that it would be most >> consistent with our general style to play transfers in this >> situation", which makes it clear that it is possibly relevant >> information about partnership agreements and style. >> It is important to distinguish between (a) explanations that >> sound vague because the agreements are vague and (b) explanations >> that sound vague because the player cannot remember the >> agreement. In (a), the explanation is correct, no MI; in (b), the >> explanation may well be MI. [Note: I have my doubts as to whether this is the correct attribution: wrong number of >>s, for example] >Yes, exactly. In case b, the "de Wael school" has a point: just pick an >explanation and give it. If you have guessed right, no problem. If >not, it's a standard MI case. Either way, hedging doesn't help anyone. This is not true. Hedging may not help anyone so long as it gets to the TD. However, in many cases of MI and similar infractions players do their best without benefit of calling the TD, and knowing whether an explanation ifs definitely correct helps. I often play at a bridge club called Blundellsands. There is zero chance of my calling the TD for MI: it really would not be suitable. Fortunately my guessing is quite good when I know how accurate an explanation is likely to be. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 20 05:18:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA08293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 05:18:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA08288 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 05:18:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from uni-duesseldorf.de (actually Isis221.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (local, PP); Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:17:47 +0200 Message-ID: <380CC3D4.E6B11DC7@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:17:40 +0200 From: Richard Bley X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [de] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: de To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: You learn something new every day References: <001e01bf1939$193383e0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> <380AFC91.BF612450@village.uunet.be> <380B1B15.AB292BE1@uni-duesseldorf.de> <380C63AD.2F5CFEE1@village.uunet.be> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jesper, Hi Herman! Jesper Dybdal schrieb: > > On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:27:25 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >Richard Bley wrote: > >> > >> Hi Herman! > >> > >> Isn´t it odd, that L12C1 is referred to and not 12C2? > >> I think that should be on the changes for the next lawbook list. > >> > > > >Now that I have read it, I don't think it is odd ! > > > >When I am told the bidding went 1Cl -... in stead of 1Di, I > >effectively stopped playing the same game. So an artificial > >score seems quite all right to me. > > But is that not also the case when you are given an incorrect > explanation of the meaning of a call? > > If L12C2 is good enough for ordinary MI, why not also for this? Yeah It seems to be a quite ordinary job to adjust the score accroding to 12C2 in such a case. And imagine the misuse-potential here: The opp "forgets" to mention your partners Lightner-double. So you lead passive and bad and the contract works. Now it seems really awful to use 12C1 for this case (60/40 or so) instead of adjusting the score to say 6HX -1 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 06:00:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:02:24 +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 BAA07209 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:01:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.133]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA27918 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:01:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380C61EC.E8DF78A2@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:19:56 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.19991018153756.007e08c0@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > >to say, in effect: "If I have to guess what my partner's doing, then > >the opponents should also have to guess." > > I think it leaves a player open to say precisely that. Last > week my opponents doubled an asking bid in a Flannery auction. We > had no agreements about what a redouble of that double meant. I would guess that your agreement would then be : plusvalues. I don't think there is misinformation if you tell that to the opponents. I have always said that I agree that sometimes, there can be situations where you have no agreements. This may well be such a case. > I did > it anyway, partner guessed as to the meaning, and guessed wrong. We > ended up in a decent spot mostly by accident. Are you are going to > penalize me on the grounds that, had we actually had an agreement, > and had that agreement been fully explained to opponents [while > partner of course still misunderstands it], and had they then made a > bid they might have made but didn't, the score would be different? If > so, we have just doomed every casual player and every casual partnership > to almost certain defeat--if they manage to avoid losing by not having > complete agreements in every sequence, then we'll penalize them by law! > Well, your example is less than perfect, but yes, that is what I mean. If a player intends a heart bid to show spades, the opponents should be aware of this, or they will be damaged by their inability to bid hearts and/or spades while knowing what they are doing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 06:02:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:46 +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 BAA07393 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:33 +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 11dbPX-0007QL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:42:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:24:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne References: <006801bf182d$bfa7bfa0$605208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >You seem to be saying that the person defined as "the Director" >in L81 is the CTD, and that the term "Director" elsewhere in the >laws (e.g., L70: "... the Director adjudicates...") means "the >CTD or a person he has appointed to act on his behalf". > >But if the CTD can delegate _all_ his duties and powers, then >there does not seem to be any difference between (a) "the >Director" as used in L70 and many other laws and (b) "the Chief >Director" as used in L93 and the proposed L12C3. Both terms then >mean "either the CTD himself or somebody he has authorized". In >that case it will make no difference at all whether the proposed >L12C3 contains the term "the Director" or the term "the Chief >Director" - and I would then suggest the former as being more in >accordance with the terminology used in most of the laws. I would suggest the latter - for the same reason! I think using the term CTD {Chief Tournament Director} [I prefer TDic {Tournament Director in charge} or DIC {Director in charge} myself] indicates that it is not part of an Assistant's duties without a positive delegation, ie that while Assistants can use the power if the CTD agrees they should not assume it as they do with most of their powers. Just to complicate life, in England and Wales we have a CTD of the NCBO. Thus, at a top English event, Max Bavin may be present: he may not be in charge of the event despite being England's CTD. In fact, I am about to direct at a Welsh event where I shall not be in charge: but I am the Welsh CTD [OK, Anne, allegedly!]. I think most NCBOs have a CTD. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 20 06:08:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:31 +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 BAA07369 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:10 +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 11dbPX-0007PR-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:42:52 +0000 Message-ID: <$askiUAa7GD4EwHF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:15:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce J. Moore wrote: >extend to Midchart and Superchart): > > > Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each > defender's first discard. Except for the first discard, only > right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are > approved. > >Let's look at the second sentence first. This says that, for example, >one may not use odd encourages, even discourages. The assertion that >the use of odd/even signalling creates more UI problems than RUCA or >UDCA is obviously ridiculous. Surely one might want to encourage but >not have any odd cards. Likewise, playing RUCA one might want to >encourage, but have only small cards. The situations are completely >analogous. Not at all. When you wish to play an even card from 753 or an odd card from 642 there is no card that you can play that gives the correct signal and you may easily hesitate while wondering what to do about it. When you wish to play a high card from 32 or a low card from 98 there is a clear and obvious card to play and there is no reason to hesitate. Whether or not the regulation is correct is a different question, but there is no doubt that a method that means you may not have a card to play will lead to problems that a method that always gives you a card to play will not. I have seen on a CC that a pair plays a 6, 5, 4, 3 or 2 as discouraging, and 10, 9, 8 or 7 as encouraging. That is just as bad as odd encourages. But high encouraging is not. >The second sentence reeks of the decaying fish smell associated with the >worst in politics. It is a perfectly reasonable regulation with a logical basis. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 20 06:17:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 06:17:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA08384 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 06:17:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegnh.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.241]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA04781 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 16:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991019161451.012e0174@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 16:14:51 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <380C633C.D1D11D1B@village.uunet.be> References: <199910181608.MAA08027@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991018163920.012d4898@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:25 PM 10/19/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >"Michael S. Dennis" wrote: >> >> At 07:26 PM 10/18/99 +0100, David B wrote: >> >Yes, but players do not have a legal obligation to follow the best >> >line in the play. They do have a legal obligation to explain their >> >calls to the opponents. >> >> You may repeat this as often as you like, and I will continue to insist >> that it is false. Players have a legal obligation to explain their >> _agreements_ to the opponents, not their calls. It is an absolutely >> critical point, and one that seems to me to be at the heart of yours and >> Herman's confusion. >> >> Mike Dennis > >As I said to Grant, you cannot show anything if there is not >some sort of agreement. > >If I bid 2He on XXXxxx x Xxx Xxx (any sort of situation) and >I intend this to adequately describe my hand, then I am >"showing" a spade suit. >I am not showing AKJ762 of spades. >Thus, opponents are entitled to know I have six spades, not >that I have the 2 of spades. You are not "showing" anything to anybody at all, unless you and your partner have an agreement that 2H promises spades. This is the point. Absent an agreement with your partner, he cannot know that 2H promises spades, and so in equity there is no reason to think that the opponents are entitled to know it either. Nor, I repeat, is there any basis in the Laws for saying they are entitled to this information. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 07:03:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA08229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 04:50:32 +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 EAA08224 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 04:50:25 +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 VBV9PG5M; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:50:15 -0500 X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:58:31 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization. " That is the full text of Law 40B. There is no requirement for a partnership to have any understandings, though experience will provide them, even without discussion. To say that a player's call, intended to convey some information, is automatically a "special partnership understanding" is hard to swallow. Let's imagine a scene on a Monday evening in Columbia, Missouri, USA. A person having English as his only language arrives at the club game to find that his expected partner has gone to join the cats at Rainbow Bridge. He is paired with a visitor, a total stranger from somewhere he knows nothing about. (Outer Mongolia?) The stranger's English vocabulary is limited to the usual 14 words of the bridge auction, so that the stranger can neither fill out nor read a convention card. There cannot be any "special partnership understanding" between these players before the first call is made on the first board. Even "pass" is a mystery. Is it strong or weak? After a few boards have been played, they begin to develop some special partnership understandings, based on experience, but these will at first be quite tentative. So, "we have no agreement" is the proper answer to questions about calls (or plays) that have not previously come up, while calls or plays in situations somewhat similar to previous experience might be explained tentatively: "Well, we've never played before, and we can't fill out a convention card because of the language barrier and system ignorance. In an earlier hand in a somewhat similar situation, he ..." (A brief description of previous situation and partner's action.) A hedged explanantion in such a situation is necessary and accurate. Most casual partnerships have huge areas of undiscussed possible actions. When a fresh undiscussed situation comes up, how should they explain? A simple "we have no agreement" is technically correct, but is it satisfactory? Robert E. Harris From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 07:09:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07402 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dbPb-0007PE-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:42:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:36:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: <01BF1706.A91C25A0@k515.zeelandnet.nl> <003001bf1709$3e50f220$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: >On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:31:38 -0500, Chyah wrote: > >>There are two kinds of odd/even signaling. One is when you >>are discarding and the ACBL still permits that. The other is >>in response to the opening lead or while following suit. This >>second version is not permitted. >> >>The reason for the ban is that when people do not have the >>correct card needed, they pause for thought indicating that >>they have a problem and creating UI. >> > >Chyah, this is in no way intended as a swipe at you, I >realise you're only stating the ACBL position. > >However, this partial ban on Roman (odd/even) really does >irritate me. Yes, it has been explained to me before, at >some length, that the reason for the ban is that it's >believed that there are too many UI problems created by >them. What does not seem to have been taken into account is >that those of us who wish to play Roman leads and/or signals >and/or discards in an ethical manner (on OKBridge, safely >out of the reach of any NCBO!) are FULLY AWARE of these >potential problems. Yeah, right! *Everyone* who wants to play Roman signalling looks at the ethics. It does not happen, Brian. No doubt you and Pat are highly ethical, and many players are. But the majority of players who take up a fancy convention do so with *no* thought for ethical implications. Let me give you a current English example. Players have started to play "Lebensohl" not just as a 2NT bid, but also as a double. You open 1NT, LHO bids 2S, and partner doubles: this means he has a raise to 2NT. Experience shows that there is a further definition: if he doubles fast he has a good spade holding: if he pauses before doubling his spades are poor. A certain English player disgraced himself with his behaviour after opponents had left such a double in with xx in the overcalled suit, having taken it out with QTx in the overcalled suit three hands earlier - right both times. Yeuch! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 20 07:18:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:18:32 +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 HAA08558 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:18:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pb46.krakow.ppp.tpnet.pl [212.160.3.46]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA09878 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 23:21:09 +0200 Message-ID: <380CDE57.2BEEAA6D@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 23:10:47 +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: Re: You learn something new every day References: <001e01bf1939$193383e0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> <380AFC91.BF612450@village.uunet.be> <380B1B15.AB292BE1@uni-duesseldorf.de> <380C63AD.2F5CFEE1@village.uunet.be> <380CC3D4.E6B11DC7@uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Yeah > It seems to be a quite ordinary job to adjust the score accroding to > 12C2 in such a case. > And imagine the misuse-potential here: > The opp "forgets" to mention your partners Lightner-double. So you lead > passive and bad and the contract works. Now it seems really awful to use > 12C1 for this case (60/40 or so) instead of adjusting the score to say > 6HX -1 There is a difference, however. Your opponents only are responsible for giving you the right information about their agreements while _both_ sides (L20E) are responsible for correcting errors in repeating the auction. So if your opponent repeated the calls wrongly and your partner didn't correct him then your side is also an offending side. That's why, IMHO, an artificial adjusted score is applied. But it may be a simple mistake also. :) Fifty-fifty to me. Konrad Ciborowski ******************************************************************************** - 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 Oct 20 07:20:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:20:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA08572 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:20:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-113.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.113]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA19957; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:20:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006d01bf1a77$d9501dc0$7184d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne - LONG Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:21:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> Why not treat accidental killings identically to first degree murders? > >I'm not sure where you are going with this analogy or whether it's >appropriate, but as I understand it, for civil matters (redress of >damage), these are indeed the same. Of course the _criminal_ >penalties, C&E matters being the bridge analog, are quite different. >(Add here the usual disclaimers about my not being a lawyer; seek >competent legal advice if you need it.) I'm no lawyer either, but I should think this is quite untrue, at least as respects punitive damages. Intent does matter. If not for score adjustment, what about for procedural or disciplinary penalties? To deliberately violate the law is an offense more serious than to accidentally infringe it. To legally mislead, as in a green psych is no violation anyway. Were we not having to waffle to avoid mind reading we could out and out limit adjustments to fielded psychs instead of those that "might have been." (But only Kreskin & Co could direct.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 07:26:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:26:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from camelot.netcom.net.uk (root@camelot.netcom.net.uk [194.42.225.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA08603 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:26:03 +1000 (EST) From: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Received: from dialup-06-24.netcomuk.co.uk (dialup-06-24.netcomuk.co.uk [194.42.229.152]) by camelot.netcom.net.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA24669 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 22:25:47 +0100 (BST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 22:24:51 +0100 Reply-To: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Message-ID: <1dwMOOhjFOMz9VMBpm1ccIUOu6qe@4ax.com> References: <$askiUAa7GD4EwHF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <$askiUAa7GD4EwHF@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 HAA08605 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:15:06 +0100, DWS wrote: > > Not at all. When you wish to play an even card from 753 or an odd >card from 642 there is no card that you can play that gives the correct >signal and you may easily hesitate while wondering what to do about it. >When you wish to play a high card from 32 or a low card from 98 there is >a clear and obvious card to play and there is no reason to hesitate. > > Whether or not the regulation is correct is a different question, but >there is no doubt that a method that means you may not have a card to >play will lead to problems that a method that always gives you a card to >play will not. I'm sorry but I cannot see this. If you play high encourage and low discourage you may well not have a card to play so you do the best you can (from 32 encourage with the 3 and discourage with the 2). When playing odd to encourage and even to discourage, from 42 you may not have the right card to play so you do your best (4 to encourage, 2 to discourage). Why different? The 3 isn't an encouraging card in the first case and the 4 isn't an encouraging card in the second! Why is it so much more obvious that the right card from 32 playing high encourage is the 3, than the 4 from 42 playing odd encourage! Clearly all O/E OR enc/disc players will discuss which card to play in these situations after the first time it happens. > > > It is a perfectly reasonable regulation with a logical basis. Must be some kind of male logic that says either pretending a 3 is high is normal whereas pretending a 4 is odd is impossible or that players will discuss alternatives to enc/disc but never to O/E. I think I'll just stick to distributional. Pam (No cats, no dogs, 1 rat and 60 odd fish) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 07:40:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:40:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA08671 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:40:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveidn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.183]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA22403 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:40:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991019172143.012d3838@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:21:43 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: <000b01bf19ee$e34c4300$b139ac3e@davidburn> References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991018163007.012e186c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:00 AM 10/19/99 +0100, David B wrote: >Well, L40B requires players to disclose "the use of such call or >play". If West asks North: "How does your side use 2H in this >auction?", I think that this Law requires North to tell West how his >side uses 2H. If North does not know, and if his not knowing damages >West, then L40C says that the Director may assign an adjusted score. >This seems, at any rate, to be how Grattan, Herman and I read these >Laws. I think that Michael and others may be basing their arguments >entirely on L75, and not paying sufficient attention to L40. There is >a good reason for this, of course: L40B is headed "Concealed >Partnership Understandings Prohibited", and refers to calls or plays >based on special understandings. But (a) the heading is not part of >the Law, and (b) even if it were, an understanding may be concealed as >much through uncertainty as through malice. I have nothing to add to Grant's well-reasoned analysis of the applicability of L40B. As to L40C, I would point out two things: 1) The language imposes no direct obligation on players, but rather gives a right to the TD. 2) The use of the term "meaning" is ambiguous. Herman (and you, I think) reads this as the meaning intended by the bidder at the time he made the call. It is not an absurd interpretation, but it seems totally of context with both the heading of L40 and the language of the other Laws, which are all clearly oriented toward partnership agreements. I know, the headings aren't the Laws. But in searching for a workable basis for interpreting otherwise ambiguous language, it seems to me that the setting of that language can fairly be mined for clues. An alternative interpretation, and one which does place the language of L40C in the broader context of L40 taken as a whole, is that "meaning" is intended as that which is (or should be) commonly understood by both members of the partnership, taking into account both explicit and implicit partnership agreements. The Laws do not require us to have agreements about every possible auction, nor do they require us to pretend that we do have them for the benefit of the opponents. For this I am thankful. The first would be completely impractical, and any legal penalty accruing from failure to meet such a standard would fall much more heavily on inexperienced partnerships than on inexperienced ones. Given that the inexperienced players are already playing under a handicap for having only limited understandings, it would add insult to injury to further penalize them. And the supposition that the Laws either do or should require us to explain agreements we don't actually have is just plain silly. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 07:41:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 06:40:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz40.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.209]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA08443 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 06:40:37 +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 11dg35-0002HU-00; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 22:39:59 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA121595599; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 22:39:59 +0200 Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 22:39:59 +0200 (CES) In-Reply-To: <$askiUAa7GD4EwHF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> from "David Stevenson" at Oct 19, 1999 02:15:06 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 David Stevenson: > >Bruce J. Moore wrote: >>extend to Midchart and Superchart): >> >> >> Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each >> defender's first discard. Except for the first discard, only >> right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are >> approved. >> >>Let's look at the second sentence first. This says that, for example, >>one may not use odd encourages, even discourages. The assertion that >>the use of odd/even signalling creates more UI problems than RUCA or >>UDCA is obviously ridiculous. Surely one might want to encourage but >>not have any odd cards. Likewise, playing RUCA one might want to >>encourage, but have only small cards. The situations are completely >>analogous. > > Not at all. When you wish to play an even card from 753 or an odd >card from 642 there is no card that you can play that gives the correct >signal and you may easily hesitate while wondering what to do about it. Playing reasonably detailed odd/even signals, there is an obvious card in both situations. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 08:46:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07362 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dbPQ-0007PP-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:42:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:50:49 +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> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 12:02 AM 10/18/99 +0100, David B wrote: >>Now, suppose that North were an out-and-out villain. Wishing to play >>in 2H, and not to hear 2S from either opponent, what would a >>villainous North do? He would do exactly as this North did: create the >>impression that his side had a lot of spades, and then pass out 2H. He >>might claim afterwards, of course, that he "took the view that South >>had forgotten", and those who support Michael's side would have to >>accept this testimony. >This is part of the reason that I prefer the formulation I gave in my >response to you. Many people, including Herman and several who (like me) >disagree with him, seem to believe that the Laws either require or at least >encourage you to share your estimate of what partner is up to with the >opponents. This is simply not true. The only proper information to share >with the opponents is a correct description of partnership agreements, both >explicit and implicit. Not probabilities, not funny stories about the last >time partner forgot this particular agreement. Speculation, whether couched >as such or not, just leads to problems. > >If this North knows that in fact this sequence promises hearts only, as >indeed he might, then it is of course cheating (as DWS would no doubt point >out) if he says otherwise. But if North either doesn't know, or his >knowledge is aided by looking at the cards in his own hand, then he should >only be providing the opponents with the clear explanation of his agreements. It is not obvious to me what that clear explanation is. I have a fair experience of playing bridge, and over the years I have seen difficulties with transfers and Stayman into and out of bid suits. People have what seem to me to be strange ideas. As far as I am concerned over a 1NT overcall it is automatic to play what Americans and Londoners [I am sure there should be a term for that pairing] call "Systems On" and it is automatic for that to include transfers into the bid suit. Now, I am practising for a Welsh Cup match next Sunday with a Welshman called Paddy Murphy [!]: I have now played with him twice, and it is obvious that our styles don't match: he expects seven cards for a non- vulnerable pre-empt, for example, and I expect five. So if the sequence comes up in the Welsh Cup 1S 1NT X 2H or even 1S 1NT NB 2H what is our agreement? We have had no relevant sequence nor any relevant discussion in our two practice games. Before we discuss what is MI or what we should rule, you tell me, since my ethics are adequate: [1] What is our agreement? [2] How I should describe it to opponents >>Whatever we require of the Laws, it seems to me obvious that they >>should simply not permit a player to act in this fashion. As always, I like to look at the honest people. Tell *me* how I should behave in the given scenario. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 20 09:00:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:54:41 +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 HAA08745 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:54:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.234.39] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11dhD3-0001az-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 22:54:21 +0100 Message-ID: <005b01bf1a7c$80246940$27eaabc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.6.32.19991018141701.007dee20@eiu.edu><001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn><199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991019084117.006f375c@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 18:52:36 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > We've been talking about uncertainty, but the real issue isn't uncertainty; > it's ambiguity. Well, ambiguity is one case of uncertainty. > Try these: I will try anything, except parsnip soup and Morris dancing. > I've been playing for 20 years at the Kudgill Club. While on vacation, I > go to a tournament, and encounter an acquaintance who's also been playing > for 20 years at the same club, but we've never played as partners. We > decide to give it a go. We agree that we will play "Kudgill Club > standard", with which we are both intimately familiar. We have no further > discussion. > > At the club, everyone plays the auction 1H-2H as showing spades and clubs. > Everyone plays the auction 2H-3H as promising a long running minor and > demanding a bid of 3NT with a heart stopper. > However, 50% of the regular > partnerships (including 50% of mine and 50% of his), play the auction > 1H-P-2H-3H as spades and clubs, while the other 50% play it as a stopper-ask. This point is going to be too long to repeat later, so we will call it point X. > Sure enough, we get an auction that goes 1H-P-2H-, and partner bids 3H. Hands now transmuted according to Eric's later post so that they accord (I hope!) with his intentions: > Case 1: I hold xxx/KQxx/xxx/xxx. I will bid 3NT with complete confidence > that I know what partner is doing. [I wouldn't, since I'd have no idea whether he had a running minor or the black suits, but I think Eric wants us to assume that we "know" he has the running minor type.] > Case 2: I hold x/KQxx/Kxxx/Kxxx. I will bid 4C with complete confidence > that I know what partner is doing. [here I think Eric's notion is that we know from our own hand that partner does not have a running minor, so must have spades and clubs] > But before I can bid, my RHO inquires about the meaning of partner's 3H bid. > > If I follow the logic of the Dennis-Landau school, I will say "We have no > agreement about this particular auction, but you should know that 1H-2H > would show spades and clubs, and that 2H-3H would promise a long running > minor and require me to bid 3NT with a heart stopper. We have no other > agreements that might be relevant here." Do you consider that you should also explain point X? > If I follow the logic of the deWael-Burn school, I will say "He has a long > running minor and is telling me to bid 3NT with a heart stopper" in case 1, > and will say "He has spades and clubs" in case 2. I can't speak for Herman, since I am not qualified to discuss insurance in Belgian. For myself, I would not say either of those things in either case. I would alert 3H (because it is not natural, and I know this). When asked for an explanation, I would say that I do not know what it means. If asked why I do not know, I will explain point X above, and tell my opponents that because we have not discussed this auction, I cannot tell them what partner is actually intending to show. Will the Laws now allow me to "guess right"? Well, that depends on whether my opponents have been damaged by my failure to disclose the meaning of the call in accordance with L40B. It would not, for example, be open to my RHO to claim damage for doing something injudicious if he had both minor suit aces. But if RHO, with nothing in the minors but plenty in spades, decided to bid 4H as an "advance sacrifice" over 3NT, then I might consider him deserving of redress if my partner actually had the black suits. There is in my mind some question about whether or not my partner is legally permitted to bid 3H in the context in which he has just bid it. If he is aware of point X, then L40B appears to prohibit him from making the call, since he knows (a) that the opponents cannot be expected to understand its meaning, and (b) that I am not going to be able to disclose its meaning in accordance with the regulations. Does this mean that players should only be allowed to play conventions that (a) they can both remember and (b) they can both explain to the opponents? Unthinkable! Clearly I have failed to clarify my own position. I am not, as far as I can see, a member of the De Wael School (or DWS, as we will henceforth most certainly not call it). I believe that it is open to a player to tell his opponents that he does not know what his partner's call means. If asked why he does not know, he should explain the cause of his uncertainty, together with all relevant agreements and experience that might be helpful. But I do not believe that this insures him against any claim for damage or redress under the Laws. Of course, the fact that he does not know what is happening will be UI to his partner, and (as far as I can see) the partnership is already in breach of L40B. But that is their fault, not mine. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 09:08:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:28 +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 BAA07360 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:43:07 +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 11dbPP-0007PE-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:42:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:34:07 +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> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >I started with this case. > >The bidding proceeds: > >West North East South >1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H > >Now, suppose that NS play this auction: > >West North East South >Pass 1NT Dble 2H > >as a transfer to spades, and that neither of them has ever forgotten >that they do this. Suppose North in the first auction alerts 2H. "What >does that mean?" says West. "Well", says North, "if you hadn't opened >1S, I would know that he had spades, but now I am not sure." West >passes, and so does everybody else; South has hearts; EW claim that >had they known this, one of them would have bid 2S for a better score >than they received defending 2H. North's hand was: AQx Kxx Axxxx Kx > >I have received confirmation from Michael and Herman that their >respective positions are roughly as I stated them. Michael and others >believe that provided North has told West all relevant agreements, >experience and so forth, EW have no claim of damage through MI. >Herman, essentially, does not believe this. > >The difficulty I have with Michael's view, which appears to be the >majority position and is certainly supported by the Laws and by a body >of cases, is this. The effect of North's explanation on West was to >create the impression that South perhaps had spades; if that were so, >then West did not want to bid spades. In terms of what West actually >did, the effect was the same as if North had assured West that South >had spades. Despite having given this explanation to West, North then >proceeded to act on the assumption that South had hearts. > >Now, suppose that North were an out-and-out villain. Wishing to play >in 2H, and not to hear 2S from either opponent, what would a >villainous North do? He would do exactly as this North did: create the >impression that his side had a lot of spades, and then pass out 2H. He >might claim afterwards, of course, that he "took the view that South >had forgotten", and those who support Michael's side would have to >accept this testimony. > >Whatever we require of the Laws, it seems to me obvious that they >should simply not permit a player to act in this fashion. Of course, >nobody would accuse this particular North of being a villain - but >that is not what we do when we apply the Laws. We say to North: "You >have done - not doubt for the best of reasons and with the purest of >hearts - something that may have been done by a villain in different >circumstances; therefore, we will rule against you." If the Laws are >to meet the basic requirement of making nefarious conduct >unprofitable, then they are bound to penalise those who are not >nefarious but merely incompetent - nobody ever revokes on purpose, but >we dock them the same two tricks as we would have done if they had. >This seems to me a necessary price to pay for the elimination of >conduct that is truly nefarious. I do agree that this is what the Laws ought to say, but does that mean we can necessarily take the final step and say that is what the Laws _do_ say? >It occurs to me also that had this incident occurred when screens were >in use, there would not (perhaps) have been a problem. South would >have told West that he had hearts; West would have bid 2S, and at any >rate the table would have made more progress towards the result that >one instinctively feels is the "right" one on the deal. When the tray >arrived at the other side, of course, North might tell East that South >had spades, but the likely outcome is that North would look at West's >2S bid and - with empirical justification - decide that South's memory >was at fault. It seems to me that a requirement we might place on the >Laws is that they operate in the same fashion whatever the conditions >of contest - that is, if under certain conditions West would be in >possession of the "correct" information, he should be deemed to >possess it under all conditions. Well, I am not sure I agree with this. You showed us this sequence: West North East South 1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H and tell us we should do the same as if screens were present: but surely the effect is totally different if the auction had been: West North East South 1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H ? Now it is _East_ who is telling North what 2H is, and we are back in the same position as without screens. In fact, there are always going to be some positions where screens produce inconsistent results. Perhaps we need the full diamond screens where a player can see and speak to both opponents! >The difficulty arises, of course, from the fact that the Laws create a >requirement for a pair to disclose their methods even though they may >be incapable of doing so (because, temporarily, they do not know what >their methods are). However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to >view the matter in this light: if a player creates a doubt in his >opponent's mind (because of a doubt in the player's own mind), and if >the opponent is thereby caused to act in a manner disadvantageous to >his side, the Laws should provide the opponent with some redress. >Perhaps we should create the infraction of "Inadequate Information". >All those in favour, say aye-aye. I think the big problem is that we have to consider tqo different cases. [1] North and South have an agreement in this case. In that case they should be ruled against. The fact hat North does not know it is irrelevant. [2] North and South do not have an agreement. Should we be ruling against 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 Wed Oct 20 09:13:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:13:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08877 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:13:45 +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 TAA19147 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:13:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA09226 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:13:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910192313.TAA09226@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: I think partner has... X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Hedging may not help anyone so long as it gets to > the TD. However, in many cases of MI and similar infractions players do > their best without benefit of calling the TD, and knowing whether an > explanation is definitely correct helps. > > I often play at a bridge club called Blundellsands. There is zero > chance of my calling the TD for MI: it really would not be suitable. > Fortunately my guessing is quite good when I know how accurate an > explanation is likely to be. If the folks at Blundellsands wish to ignore Laws 10A, 72A1, and 72A6 -- and it is certainly fine with me if they do; I have enjoyed playing at clubs like that -- there is no reason for them to observe L75. That shouldn't prevent us on BLML from trying to understand what the laws require. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 09:43:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:43:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08951 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:42:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA19590 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:42:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA09262 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:42:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:42:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910192342.TAA09262@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne - LONG X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Craig Senior" > I'm no lawyer either, but I should think this is quite untrue, at least as > respects punitive damages. Intent does matter. If not for score adjustment, > what about for procedural or disciplinary penalties? Punitive damages would seem to correspond to a procedural penalty. In bridge, they are given (roughly speaking) where the offender ought to have known better. They do not require that the infraction be intentional. I am not sure how this corresponds to civil law. Disciplinary penalties I would consider one aspect of "Conduct and Ethics matters." Clearly intent matters for those. I had thought that by my second message, if not the first, it would have been clear that I was referring to _score adjustment_ only. _For score adjustment purposes_, I do not believe a misbid should be treated differently than a psych. _For score adjustment_, there seems to me to be no reason to consider intent. Is that clear enough? Does anyone want to argue the other side? If so, please give bridge reasons, not analogies. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 10:19:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:19:12 +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 KAA09015 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:18:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01962 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:18:42 +0200 Received: from ip224.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.224), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb01956; Wed Oct 20 02:18:36 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:18:36 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <006801bf182d$bfa7bfa0$605208c3@swhki5i6> 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 KAA09020 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:24:28 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >>You seem to be saying that the person defined as "the Director" >>in L81 is the CTD, and that the term "Director" elsewhere in the >>laws (e.g., L70: "... the Director adjudicates...") means "the >>CTD or a person he has appointed to act on his behalf". >> >>But if the CTD can delegate _all_ his duties and powers, then >>there does not seem to be any difference between (a) "the >>Director" as used in L70 and many other laws and (b) "the Chief >>Director" as used in L93 and the proposed L12C3. Both terms then >>mean "either the CTD himself or somebody he has authorized". In >>that case it will make no difference at all whether the proposed >>L12C3 contains the term "the Director" or the term "the Chief >>Director" - and I would then suggest the former as being more in >>accordance with the terminology used in most of the laws. > > I would suggest the latter - for the same reason! I think using the >term CTD {Chief Tournament Director} [I prefer TDic {Tournament Director >in charge} or DIC {Director in charge} myself] indicates that it is not >part of an Assistant's duties without a positive delegation, ie that >while Assistants can use the power if the CTD agrees they should not >assume it as they do with most of their powers. What you are suggesting here is that there are three types of TDs: (a) The CTD/DIC/TDic. (b) "Ordinary" assistant TDs who are allowed to make rulings and generally do what the laws (other than L81) allow the "Director" to do. (c) Assistant TDs who have been given a positive mandate to also do some or all of what the laws allow the "Chief Director" to do. This sounds very sensible. If it is the intention, a slight language clean-up in 2007 could make it clear. I would still want anybody who is allowed to use L12C2 to also be allowed to use L12C3 (if there is to be a L12C3 at all). > Just to complicate life, in England and Wales we have a CTD of the >NCBO. Thus, at a top English event, Max Bavin may be present: he may >not be in charge of the event despite being England's CTD. In fact, I >am about to direct at a Welsh event where I shall not be in charge: but >I am the Welsh CTD [OK, Anne, allegedly!]. I think most NCBOs have a >CTD. Yes, that is a good case for either using the term DIC or changing the title of these persons. (We do not have such a title in Denmark; if we did, it would be me.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 10:19:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:19:10 +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 KAA09013 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:18:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01963 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:18:42 +0200 Received: from ip224.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.224), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdc01956; Wed Oct 20 02:18:38 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:18:37 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <001e01bf1939$193383e0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> <380AFC91.BF612450@village.uunet.be> <380B1B15.AB292BE1@uni-duesseldorf.de> <380C63AD.2F5CFEE1@village.uunet.be> <380CC3D4.E6B11DC7@uni-duesseldorf.de> <380CDE57.2BEEAA6D@omicron.comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <380CDE57.2BEEAA6D@omicron.comarch.pl> 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 KAA09016 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 23:10:47 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > There is a difference, however. Your opponents only are >responsible for giving you the right information about their >agreements while _both_ sides (L20E) are responsible for >correcting errors in repeating the auction. So if your opponent >repeated the calls wrongly and your partner didn't correct >him then your side is also an offending side. > That's why, IMHO, an artificial adjusted score is >applied. An assigned adjusted score with both sides considered offending seems much more natural to me. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 10:53:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:53:31 +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 KAA09135 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:53:17 +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 11djzu-00030Z-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:52:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:43:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: You learn something new every day References: <001e01bf1939$193383e0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> <380AFC91.BF612450@village.uunet.be> <=lcLOPHYl4n+lCHqJqgOapO=mBP3@bilbo.dit.dk> In-Reply-To: <=lcLOPHYl4n+lCHqJqgOapO=mBP3@bilbo.dit.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:55:13 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >>And it's the reference to L12C1 I'm talking of ! >> >>L12C1 ! not L12C2 !!!!! ;-) > >Yes, that is surprising. > >Another question is how we should treat the side that received >the incorrect explanation when we adjust. The partner of the >player asking for the review is also guilty of not correcting the >review, so that side is surely at least "partially at fault" when >giving a L12C1 adjustment. Or are both sides "directly at >fault"? > >If it had read "L12C2", which I believe it ought to, it seems to >me that both sides should be treated as offenders when adjusting. That seems a bit vicious with a whispered and unheard mistake. As far as I am concerned, if declarer deliberately whispers so that only one player hears it [the one who asked] then the other pair is not a fault. Are you suggesting the partner should say "I know it is not my turn to hear the review, but could you repeat it louder just so I can check to see if it was correct"? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 20 10:53:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:53:33 +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 KAA09133 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:53:16 +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 11djzu-00030Y-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:53:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:30:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne - LONG References: <002f01bf17ba$59571b60$8d5108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:08:36 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jesper Dybdal >>To: bridge-laws >>Date: 13 October 1999 19:53 >>Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne > > >>[#] The AC may change or rescind a PP. > >That is also how I read L93. However, many PPs are issued >because a regulation says something like "5-10 minutes late: >1VP", and I assume that we agree that the AC cannot change such a >PP unless their judgment of the facts is different from the TD's. I do not think that the document needs to say in any detail that ACs are bound by the regulations. If an AC sees fit to amend, rescind or apply a PP then [unless the AC is crazy or dishonest] they will have a suitable reason within the framework of any regulations. I do not see how it takes the argument any forward to say that *if* a TD gives a PP *and* there is no doubt that it is accurately covered by a regulation *and* the facts are as the TD sees them *then* the AC should not change it: I would have expected it to be too obvious to mention. But an AC would have discretion if they believe the TD has the facts wrong or has applied the regulation wrong or is not bound by a regulation. I have not got my copy of the CoP immediately available. It might be a good idea for it to say that ACs are bound by the Laws of the game and the regulations of the SO. One of the ACs I have recently commented on at an NABC gave an illegal ruling, and they made it clear from the comments of the acting Chairman that they knew it to be illegal. [The actual Chairman wrote a dissenting opinion: the voting was 6-5]. ------- One thing that slightly worried me about the document was this business about Convention Disruption. The CoP say that there should be no automatic penalties, and this has been a long-held view on BLML and elsewhere. However, I do believe such penalties to be legal, and I believe them to be appropriate in special circumstances. I am not suggesting that any TD or AC should apply them, but that they are legitimate for an SO to control a legitimate abuse. Of course, initially the CoP is for WBF events, but while they try to get the rest of the world to follow, I would have preferred a wording that allows the possibility in special circumstances. I shall give you an example. There is a feeling that failures to get two-suited overcalls right cause an immense amount of trouble to the game in general. It has been suggested with some seriousness that players who get them wrong should be barred from playing them for six months! I believe that an SO who believes they are causing too great a problem for their membership should have the right to issue a regulation that there is an automatic PP of double standard [in England/Wales that would mean 20% of a top or 6 imps or 1 VP] for anyone that gets a two-suited convention wrong. That would be part of the agreement to permit their use and is in my view perfectly legal under L40D. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 20 10:53:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:53:26 +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 KAA09134 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:53:17 +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 11dk02-00030Z-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:53:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:47:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: You learn something new every day References: <01bf198e$55ee6340$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf198e$55ee6340$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >L20C2 refers to the point in time when a defended is to "play". >The definition of a play is that which occurs during the play >period. Is it? So the opening lead is never a play and each hand is composed of 51 plays? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 20 10:53:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:53:30 +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 KAA09139 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:53:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dk02-00043Z-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:53:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:45:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: You learn something new every day References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837643338@XION> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3CC@XION> In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3CC@XION> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >I thought so already that the question was not whether you >had the right to ask a bidding review (yes - 20C2), but what >the consequences are of the mistake declarer made in his >review. If I read 20E correctly, then everybody at the table >is responsible for correcting the review, and damage resulting >from an uncorrected review is treated according to 12C1. That >would mean that we get an artificial score A+/A-... Is that >right? Let us say it is an interesting question. You have reference taking you to L12C1. You have the wording of L12C1 and L12C2 that makes it clear that l12C2 is the Law to use. In my opinion you should use L12C2 because the lead into the two sections makes it clear that you should. However, I would have every sympathy for a TD who got it wrong because he had read the reference. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 20 11:10:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:10:18 +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 LAA09231 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:10:11 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com ([130.252.223.221]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id SAA21558; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 18:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA12601; 19 Oct 99 18:05:00 -0700 Date: 19 Oct 99 15:07:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199910191805.AA12601@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It appears my mailserver has dropped three days of BLML traffic, so if this has been said before, I apologize. DWS wrote: > Let me give you a current English example. Players have started to > play "Lebensohl" not just as a 2NT bid, but also as a double. You open > 1NT, LHO bids 2S, and partner doubles: this means he has a raise to 2NT. > > Experience shows that there is a further definition: if he doubles > fast he has a good spade holding: if he pauses before doubling his > spades are poor. > > A certain English player disgraced himself with his behaviour after > opponents had left such a double in with xx in the overcalled suit, > having taken it out with QTx in the overcalled suit three hands earlier > - right both times. Yeuch! Then the obvious 'solution' is to *ban lebensohl doubles* in this situation! Clearly, we cannot invoke the Laws and Proprieties to ensure that the players in our games play ethically; let us remove tempation from them, for there are some who are weak of spirit. Never mind that we may discommode certain players who *would* behave ethically; we have a duty to save them from their own feeble souls. I repeat: the fact that a systemic call, or a method of carding, or any of the other appurtenances of the game, *may* be used in an improper fashion by an unethical player is not sufficient reason to ban the method, assuming it is otherwise within the Laws. I am disinclined to accept what appears to be your thesis -- that because my methods of choice might *possibly* be misused by an unethical contestant, my wanting to use them marks me as unethical _per se_. For what period of time was the disgraced player (or his opponents -- I'm not quite sure how to read your final comment) banned? If he/she/they were *not* banned, I find this entire discussion most astonishing. If there was no C&E hearing at all (not an Appeals Committee), I am speechless. Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 11:39:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:39:09 +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 LAA09315 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:39:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.28] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11dkiC-0007UE-00; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:38:44 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bf1a9b$d3b6f860$1c5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:09:58 +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 Discussion List Date: 19 October 1999 22:26 Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? >Let's imagine a scene on a Monday evening in Columbia, Missouri, USA. >A person having English as his only language arrives at the club game to find that his expected partner has gone to join the cats at Rainbow Bridge. He is paired with a visitor, a total stranger from somewhere he knows nothing about. (Outer Mongolia?) The stranger's English vocabulary is limited to the usual 14 words of the bridge auction, so that the stranger can neither fill out nor read a convention card. There cannot be any "special partnership understanding" between these players before the first call is made on the first board. Even "pass" is a mystery. Is it strong or weak? >After a few boards have been played, they begin to develop some special partnership understandings, based on experience, but these will at first be quite tentative. So, "we have no agreement" is the proper answer to questions about calls (or plays) that have not previously come up, while calls or plays in situations somewhat similar to previous experience might be explained tentatively: "Well, we've never played before, and we can't fill out a convention card because of the language barrier and system ignorance. In an earlier hand in a somewhat similar situation, he ..." (A brief description of previous situation and partner's action.) A hedged explanantion in such a situation is necessary and accurate. >Most casual partnerships have huge areas of undiscussed possible actions. When a fresh undiscussed situation comes up, how should they explain? A simple "we have no agreement" is technically correct, but is it satisfactory? > +=+ Yeah..... what a lucky boy getting to play with someone whose every embarrassing twitch is not intimately familiar. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 11:39:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:39:06 +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 LAA09311 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:38:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.28] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11dkiA-0007UE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:38:43 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01bf1a9b$d2f52f00$1c5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:01:26 +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@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 19 October 1999 22:48 Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb >On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:15:06 +0100, DWS wrote: >> >> Not at all. When you wish to play an even card from 753 or an odd >>card from 642 there is no card that you can play that gives the correct >>signal and you may easily hesitate while wondering what to do about it. +=+ I am just a teeny weeny mite SCEPTICAL about any player who has discussed his methods, or who has played them for a while, when he comes along to a committee and says that he took time to work out what card he should play in a situation that can be foreseen, or which he has experienced previously. I like him to look slightly shamefaced as he says it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 11:56:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:56:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09366 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:56:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa6s11a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.123.167] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dkz0-00004s-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 18:56:07 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 03:02:31 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1a9f$2af6c1c0$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, October 20, 1999 2:34 AM Subject: Re: You learn something new every day >Anne Jones wrote: > >>L20C2 refers to the point in time when a defended is to "play". >>The definition of a play is that which occurs during the play >>period. > > Is it? So the opening lead is never a play and each hand is composed >of 51 plays? Well it may be, or it may not be so. L41B on immediate reading suggests that leader does not have the right to review. Reference to L 20C2 suggests that he does. How does one decide. One looks to L17 to decide when the auction ends and to the definitions to decide on what is a lead. Like L68 which I maintained some time ago, is analagous, You must admit that it is not easy for a TD (who does not read this list) to interpret the law easily at the table! Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 12:55:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:43:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09345 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:43:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from p2cs01a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.81.45] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dkmI-0007HM-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 18:42:58 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: I think partner has... Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:49:22 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1a9d$54d81c20$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 >> From: David Stevenson >> Hedging may not help anyone so long as it gets to >> the TD. However, in many cases of MI and similar infractions players do >> their best without benefit of calling the TD, and knowing whether an >> explanation is definitely correct helps. >> >> I often play at a bridge club called Blundellsands. There is zero >> chance of my calling the TD for MI: it really would not be suitable. >> Fortunately my guessing is quite good when I know how accurate an >> explanation is likely to be. Did you upset them by asking for an explanation? They probably think you are God anyway. And God would know the answers. > >If the folks at Blundellsands wish to ignore Laws 10A, 72A1, and 72A6 >-- and it is certainly fine with me if they do; I have enjoyed playing >at clubs like that -- there is no reason for them to observe L75. That >shouldn't prevent us on BLML from trying to understand what the laws >require. I wonder if Blunellsands is "affiliated." If so I think the players have no business to chose the laws that they wish to ignore. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 13:38:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:38:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09591 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:37:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg5l.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.181]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA29736 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 23:37:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991019233522.012e2550@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 23:35:22 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:50 PM 10/19/99 +0100, David S wrote: > I have a fair experience of playing bridge, and over the years I have >seen difficulties with transfers and Stayman into and out of bid suits. >People have what seem to me to be strange ideas. As far as I am >concerned over a 1NT overcall it is automatic to play what Americans and >Londoners [I am sure there should be a term for that pairing] call >"Systems On" and it is automatic for that to include transfers into the >bid suit. > > Now, I am practising for a Welsh Cup match next Sunday with a Welshman >called Paddy Murphy [!]: I have now played with him twice, and it is >obvious that our styles don't match: he expects seven cards for a non- >vulnerable pre-empt, for example, and I expect five. So if the sequence >comes up in the Welsh Cup 1S 1NT X 2H or even 1S 1NT NB 2H >what is our agreement? We have had no relevant sequence nor any >relevant discussion in our two practice games. Before we discuss what >is MI or what we should rule, you tell me, since my ethics are adequate: The explanation I suggested earlier, and which was motivated my a construct originally supplied by Steve, was something like this: "Our agreement is to play transfers over nt openings and to play systems on over nt overcalls. However, we have no agreement about whether these principles also apply to a transfer into the opponents' bid suit." Assuming that this is truthful, it seems as full and complete an explanation as the Laws require. The opponents now have as complete an understanding of your agreements as you do. It may well be that based on the cards in your hand, your reading of the opponents' manner, and/or judgement based on general bridge knowledge outside of this particular partnership, you do in fact have a pretty good idea of what partner is up to. Good for you! The opponents are equally entitled to base their decision on equivalent judgements. Your question gets back to the problem that interests me most, which is not, in fact, how we should rule as bridge officials, but how we should act as players. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 13:47:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:47:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09615 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:46:56 +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 11dmi5-000HEF-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 03:46:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 04:45:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: You learn something new every day In-Reply-To: <01bf1a9f$2af6c1c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf1a9f$2af6c1c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:34 AM >Subject: Re: You learn something new every day > > >>Anne Jones wrote: >> >>>L20C2 refers to the point in time when a defended is to "play". >>>The definition of a play is that which occurs during the play >>>period. >> >> Is it? So the opening lead is never a play and each hand is composed >>of 51 plays? > >Well it may be, or it may not be so. L41B on immediate reading suggests > that leader does not have the right to review. This is still nonsense. L41B "... Declarer or either defender may, at his first turn to play a card require a review of the auction". The first sentence gives *extra* rights. Am I defender? Yes. Is it my first turn to play a card? Yes May I require a review of the auction? Yes Is it my opening lead? Not relevant!! RTFLB please 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 Oct 20 14:02:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:59:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09387 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:59:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-238-140.s140.tnt2.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.238.140]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA20563 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:59:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003201bf1a9e$9c5786c0$8cee7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <199910181608.MAA08027@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991018163920.012d4898@pop.mindspring.com> <380C633C.D1D11D1B@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:58:27 -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, October 19, 1999 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? > I cannot call 2He, intend it to show six spades, and then > tell the TD that we have not agreed that 2He shows spades. > > -- Of course you can. You make 2H the call, assuming that you have transferred, since you play it that way with most partners. However, the silence from across the table tells you that partner is not taking the call as artificial. You mentally review your agreements, and determine that partner was right: in fact you do not play transfers with him. In that case, your 2H bid was a simple misbid, and your intended meaning was not the one that was actually covered by your agreements with this partner. You cannot allow the UI to wake you up to your agreements, and must continue to call as though the 2H call were a transfer. However, if the TD got to your table, you would tell him that there was no agreement that 2H was a transfer. Of course, this would never happen to anyone on this list in real life. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 16:11:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:11:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09881 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:11:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3 [134.117.136.23]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.1a/8.9.1/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id CAA12049 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:11:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id CAA19023; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199910200611.CAA19023@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Gremlings--Who ya Gonna Call! Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why, the BLML, of course! Had a wierd one the other day. I get called to the table after the simple auction: S W N E 1C P 1H P 2NT P 3NT P P P West makes a face down opening lead, asks the routine, "Any questions?", and East replies, "Yes; why are the backs of my cards yellow, and yours are blue?". Ah, you say to yourself, a "simple" L17D. Wait for it... Upon closer examination, South and East both have the correct cards from the correct boards; North and West have cards from the previous board. If West changes his call, would EW be the "offender"? If West passes, and North changes his call, would NS be the "offender"? What if East decides to take a call over 1H: is North still obliged to bid 3NT, or be an offender? The gremlin of UI also raises its ugly head over the actions of NS/EW. (Please comment if you think UI is at all relevant.) As serendipity had it, West still passed over 1C, and North still had a 1H call, albeit an ace stronger and a card longer. NS ended up in 3NT+2 rather than 4H+1 for a good A+. So: Should I have adjusted the score? (I didn't.) Or: Should I have simply pulled the board, assigned A-/A-, and told them to get to the next board, rather than try to get a result? Certainly one the odder ruling problems I've ever had to handle. Thanks for any input! Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 16:17:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:17:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09905 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:16:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 23:16:45 -0700 Message-ID: <01f401bf1ac2$a493f200$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 23:16:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The CoP reads, under Score adjustment:: ***** If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard to the revoke. ****** Let me get this straight. The OS reaches a 3NT game through misuse of UI. Bad breaks would normally result in the game's defeat, -50, but the NOS revokes to let declarer makes his game, +400. When the TD/AC adjusts, who gets what? And shouldn't that be "a revoke or other infraction by the innocent side"? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 16:33:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:33:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09948 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:33:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-5-86.access.net.il [213.8.5.86] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02391; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:32:41 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <380D6213.D7FBE51C@zahav.net.il> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:32:51 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott , David Stevenson CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: <000a01bf1a9b$d2f52f00$1c5208c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree 100% with Grattan .... When I wrote my opinion about 50 sec. to play from 1098 , it was more descriptive , not the numbered time David.. No one - and I am a little bit less diplomatic than Grattan's wording - has to think , or realize , what to play , when he has no odd or even cards , if they discussed the system. I remember , how I wanted to ..hang an old friend , who asked me to play him standard signals , in a sequence of bidding : The opponents bid 6H in a sequence of cue bidding, after an opening of 1D , when all suits but diamond were bid . I led A diam and my partner began to think more than 5 sec , before he played the 2.....After 5 sec I summoned the TD and told him that I'll continue Diamond , even if my partner will play ......the Joker. My partner's holding was K2.....so what , should we compel him to drop the K , or ban the standard carding , when there are these cards. I read the ACBL regulations ,and....very difficult for me to believe it holds in Vanderbilt (or Reisinger or etc..) when I was told by more than one top player - italians mostly , they played their carding & signals....... Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > "There's a great text in Galatians, > Once you trip on it, entails > Twenty-nine distinct damnations, > One sure if another fails. (Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > -----Original Message----- > From: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 19 October 1999 22:48 > Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb > > >On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:15:06 +0100, DWS wrote: > >> > >> Not at all. When you wish to play an even card from 753 or an odd > >>card from 642 there is no card that you can play that gives the correct > >>signal and you may easily hesitate while wondering what to do about it. > > +=+ I am just a teeny weeny mite SCEPTICAL > about any player who has discussed his > methods, or who has played them for a while, > when he comes along to a committee and > says that he took time to work out what > card he should play in a situation that can > be foreseen, or which he has experienced > previously. I like him to look slightly > shamefaced as he says it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 16:38:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:38:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09976 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:37:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-5-86.access.net.il [213.8.5.86] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03776 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:37:37 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <380D633D.998100F2@zahav.net.il> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:37:49 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: I think partner has... References: <01bf1a9d$54d81c20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Congratulations David , for your new HIGH , VERY HIGH job.... Dany Anne Jones wrote: > > >> From: David Stevenson > > >> Hedging may not help anyone so long as it gets to > >> the TD. However, in many cases of MI and similar infractions players do > >> their best without benefit of calling the TD, and knowing whether an > >> explanation is definitely correct helps. > >> > >> I often play at a bridge club called Blundellsands. There is zero > >> chance of my calling the TD for MI: it really would not be suitable. > >> Fortunately my guessing is quite good when I know how accurate an > >> explanation is likely to be. > > Did you upset them by asking for an explanation? They probably think > you are God anyway. And God would know the answers. Congratulations David , for your new HIGH , VERY HIGH job.... > >If the folks at Blundellsands wish to ignore Laws 10A, 72A1, and 72A6 > >-- and it is certainly fine with me if they do; I have enjoyed playing > >at clubs like that -- there is no reason for them to observe L75. That > >shouldn't prevent us on BLML from trying to understand what the laws > >require. > > I wonder if Blunellsands is "affiliated." If so I think the players have no > business to chose the laws that they wish to ignore. > > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 18:08:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA10124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 18:08:06 +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 SAA10119 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 18:07:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.99.54.176] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11dqmZ-0001Ld-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:07:40 +0100 Message-ID: <005001bf1ad2$2ebc2600$b03663c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991018163007.012e186c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.19991019105343.007ac4d0@eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:04:58 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: > I'm sorry, David, but this doesn't seem to be up to your usual > standard of argument--perhaps I am missing something. > Let us leave the heading aside. What is the antecedent of "_such_" > in "such call or play"? I would say that it quite transparently refers to > "...a call or play based on a special partnership understanding". I entirely agree with you. > I most certainly agree that one must disclose calls or plays based on > partnership understandings. What we are discussing here are calls or plays > that are not based on a partnership understanding at all. Well, we have been discussing several possible scenarios. If it is actually true that partner has made a call which would pass all of Grattan's tests for not being based on any kind of partnership understanding, then of course it is open to you to tell the opponents that this is the case. In the example where someone produced an undiscussed redouble of a double of a relay, this was (probably) applicable. I do not suggest, as it has been intimated that I do, that players should have agreements about all possible bridge auctions. I do suggest that players should answer questions such as "what does that mean?" with either "it means so-and-so", or "I do not know". If asked why they do not know, they may elaborate about the rest of their system, or their partners' tendency to psyche this and forget that, or anything else they may consider helpful. In the example: 1S 1NT Dble 2H North-South have understandings about what they do when a 1NT opening is doubled. Those understandings appeared to North (at any rate) to be a possible basis for South's actions. When the players were asked in committee about their actions, South actually said that he believed 2D would be a transfer, but he was not sure that North would believe this, so he chose to bid 2H on the grounds that that "could not be a transfer after West had bid spades". It seems to me that South's choice of action might be considered to have some basis in his side's special understandings. People have expressed a desire to know more about this specific case - the above may be useful. North, incidentally, said that he was going to bid 2S, but West had seemed surprised that South might be showing spades, so North decided that perhaps South wasn't. Comments on a postcard, though perhaps not to this thread. > As to point 'b', again I think this begs the question. If partner > and I have not discussed whether a certain bid is a transfer or natural, > and it is not a clear inference from our other agreements, then we have > no understanding about that bid. This is most emphatically true when I > guess it to mean one thing and partner intended it to mean something > different. So we are not concealing an understanding with uncertainty-- > there is no understanding for us to conceal. I am not sure about this. Herman's view seems to me to be that if a player bids something, he does so in the hope that his partner will know what it means. That hope is almost always grounded at least in part on "special" partnership knowledge or experience, so the meaning of the bid is almost always disclosable under L40. I would not go quite as far as that - I think that in certain rare cases, it is open to a player to make a bid that he knows would pass the Grattan tests, in the hope that his partner can work it out from general bridge knowledge and / or because he is a very fine player. But I do agree with Herman that when a player damages his opponents by creating the impression that his partner may have X when his partner not only has Y but was intending to show Y, there should be an automatic presumption that redress is due. I don't think it's remotely fair that when players do not know what is happening, they should be permitted - nay, obliged, according to the Dennis - Landau School - to launch into some lengthy rigmarole, and then be allowed to sit back and let the opponents form their own wrong conclusions. > Because things are different with screens? Quite so. But it seems to me that screens are a closer approximation to what one would consider "ideal" conditions (these being defined as those in which no Laws are actually necessary apart from those which define the game itself). In essence, one gives redress to players because they are not operating under ideal conditions - they are not told what their opponents' bids mean, for example, and they are disadvantaged thereby. This is a vague expression of a notion far too long and complicated to add to this thread. I will, perhaps, write some more about it if my normal faculty for argument ever returns. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 18:19:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA10241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 18:19:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA10236 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 18:19:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-32.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.32]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA04599 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:18:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380C8F36.E12BE5F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:33:10 +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: <3.0.6.32.19991018141701.007dee20@eiu.edu> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991019084117.006f375c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > We've been talking about uncertainty, but the real issue isn't uncertainty; > it's ambiguity. Try these: > Good example, Eric ! > I've been playing for 20 years at the Kudgill Club. While on vacation, I > go to a tournament, and encounter an acquaintance who's also been playing > for 20 years at the same club, but we've never played as partners. We > decide to give it a go. We agree that we will play "Kudgill Club > standard", with which we are both intimately familiar. We have no further > discussion. > I suppose everybody agrees that in these circumstances, even without any discussion, there are quite a lot of agreements, and that these must be told to opponents. > At the club, everyone plays the auction 1H-2H as showing spades and clubs. > Everyone plays the auction 2H-3H as promising a long running minor and > demanding a bid of 3NT with a heart stopper. However, 50% of the regular > partnerships (including 50% of mine and 50% of his), play the auction > 1H-P-2H-3H as spades and clubs, while the other 50% play it as a stopper-ask. > Exactly the type of fictitious circumstances that are at the core of our problem. As I said, good example. > Sure enough, we get an auction that goes 1H-P-2H-, and partner bids 3H. > > Case 1: I hold xxx/KQxx/Kxx/Kxx. I will bid 3NT with complete confidence > that I know what partner is doing. > > Case 2: I hold x/KQxx/xxxx/xxxx. I will bid 4C with complete confidence > that I know what partner is doing. > > But before I can bid, my RHO inquires about the meaning of partner's 3H bid. > RHO is interested, indeed. > If I follow the logic of the Dennis-Landau school, I will say "We have no > agreement about this particular auction, but you should know that 1H-2H > would show spades and clubs, and that 2H-3H would promise a long running > minor and require me to bid 3NT with a heart stopper. We have no other > agreements that might be relevant here." > And opponent has no idea what to bid. > If I follow the logic of the deWael-Burn school, I will say "He has a long (I am going up in the World - or is it you, David ?) > running minor and is telling me to bid 3NT with a heart stopper" in case 1, > and will say "He has spades and clubs" in case 2. > And opponent will know what to bid. > In either case, I will be sure that I am giving correct information. > > What do I say? > Well, I suppose it is easy. You are bound to tell the "meaning" of the bid. The way you are finding out this meaning has no importance. Quite probably, your partner is aware of the ambiguity. He would not make the call if he was not certain that you would be able to work it out by some means, either because in his opinion, you had some more agreements than you are telling us (such as one previous call on which you used the style of particular partner XYZ), or because he hopes you hold the cards that will enable you to deduce the meaning he is hoping to attach to his call. In either case, opponents are entitled to know this meaning, and the manner by which you find out the meaning does not matter. I'm sure David will agree, and Grant-Eric-Mike will not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 19:40:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:40:11 +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 TAA10680 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:40:00 +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 JAA21849 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:39:22 GMT Message-ID: <380D8DD0.F468808A@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:39:28 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <3.0.6.32.19991018141701.007dee20@eiu.edu> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991019084117.006f375c@pop.cais.com> <380C8F36.E12BE5F@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 : > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > We've been talking about uncertainty, but the real issue isn't uncertainty; > > it's ambiguity. Try these: > > > You are bound to tell the "meaning" of the bid. > The way you are finding out this meaning has no importance. > Quite probably, your partner is aware of the ambiguity. He > would not make the call if he was not certain that you would > be able to work it out by some means, either because in his > opinion, you had some more agreements than you are telling > us (such as one previous call on which you used the style of > particular partner XYZ), or because he hopes you hold the > cards that will enable you to deduce the meaning he is > hoping to attach to his call. > > In either case, opponents are entitled to know this meaning, > and the manner by which you find out the meaning does not > matter. Very interesting a reading of L40b indeed! but let's go on: i am playing against you and you start a slam-bidding sequence; at some time you bid Blackwood and I ask you for the "meaning" of your partner's answer. You tell me 1 or 4 aces but I am not satisfied: What a shame to have only such uncertain agreements! Try to tell me more; as you have 3 aces, you will tell me your partner has got one ace, but don't think I will be happy. What a shame to have confusing agreements which only mean one card or another, ... or a fourth one, tell me which ace your partner owns. And finally, to spare time, as your partner has made bids based on partnership agreements, tell me please all that you know about his hand whatever may be the way by which you know it, and i would be especially interested to know precisely the cards you are sure your partner does not own. JP Rocafort > > I'm sure David will agree, and Grant-Eric-Mike will not. > > -- > 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 Wed Oct 20 20:19:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:19:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10768 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:17:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from p09s05a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.117.10] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dsoT-0001Gh-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 03:17:45 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:23:15 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1ae5$1ec31e80$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, October 20, 1999 5:10 AM Subject: Re: You learn something new every day >In article <01bf1a9f$2af6c1c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones > writes >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David Stevenson >>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:34 AM >>Subject: Re: You learn something new every day >> >> >>>Anne Jones wrote: >>> >>>>L20C2 refers to the point in time when a defended is to "play". >>>>The definition of a play is that which occurs during the play >>>>period. >>> >>> Is it? So the opening lead is never a play and each hand is composed >>>of 51 plays? >> >>Well it may be, or it may not be so. L41B on immediate reading suggests >> that leader does not have the right to review. > >This is still nonsense. And you are still rude. >L41B "... Declarer or either defender may, at >his first turn to play a card require a review of the auction". The >first sentence gives *extra* rights. When I visit the dentist, in the waiting room I pick up a magazine, I tend to read it from the back first. Is this a style TDs should develop when reading the Law book? Start at the index (and FWIW mine is misprinted such that all page refs. are shifted +1) Why are the references to the page numbers and not to the law numbers? Reference Auction review of.. Get to L41B. Read the second sentence first. Insert the words "in addition" and then read the first sentence. You have now not been tempted to go to L20 before reading the rest of L41, unless you passed it in going to L16! I think this makes the law easier to interpret in the way you do. No John, it's not nonsence, its an interpretation with which you do not agree. > >Am I defender? An opponent of (presumed) declarer Yes. We can have a defender in the auction period. > >Is it my first turn to play a card? Is the making of the face down opening lead a play? If yes,Yes; If no,No See defns. we are still in the auction period. We cannot have a play in the auction period. > >May I require a review of the auction? TIC.No > >Is it my opening lead? Not relevant!! It is relevant. If it was not your turn to lead (notice lead not play), and you were not the prospective dummy, you could ask. > >RTFLB backwards >please Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 20:28:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:28:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10795 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:28:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:28:14 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA04956 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:23:27 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Gremlings--Who ya Gonna Call! Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:17:08 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3CD@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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883764338A@XION> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >Why, the BLML, of course! >Had a wierd one the other day. I get called to the table after the >simple auction: S W N E > 1C P 1H P > 2NT P 3NT P > P P >West makes a face down opening lead, asks the routine, "Any >questions?", and East replies, "Yes; why are the backs of >my cards yellow, and yours are blue?". >Ah, you say to yourself, a "simple" L17D. Wait for it... >Upon closer examination, South and East both have the correct >cards from the correct boards; North and West have cards from >the previous board. >If West changes his call, would EW be the "offender"? >If West passes, and North changes his call, would NS be the "offender"? >What if East decides to take a call over 1H: is North still obliged >to bid 3NT, or be an offender? >The gremlin of UI also raises its ugly head over the actions of NS/EW. >(Please comment if you think UI is at all relevant.) > >As serendipity had it, West still passed over 1C, and North >still had a 1H call, albeit an ace stronger and a card longer. >NS ended up in 3NT+2 rather than 4H+1 for a good A+. >So: Should I have adjusted the score? (I didn't.) >Or: Should I have simply pulled the board, assigned A-/A-, > and told them to get to the next board, rather than try > to get a result? >Certainly one the odder ruling problems I've ever had to handle. >Thanks for any input! > Tony (aka ac342) May I remark that it took East awfully long to discover the problem? All right, back to L17D. The footnote in this law states that offender's LHO *must* repeat the previous call. So if West passes, then North *must* repeat his 1H, and East (being North's LHO) must pass again, etc. I think you can't have North repeat a call on a different hand than he had before. My conclusion is that the auction is disturbed in a way that it is no longer possible to get a normal result on this deal, hence the board must be pulled and A-/A- assigned. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 20:29:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:29:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10811 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:29:01 +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 11dsz0-00013G-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:28:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:31:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: I think partner has... References: <199910192313.TAA09226@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910192313.TAA09226@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> Hedging may not help anyone so long as it gets to >> the TD. However, in many cases of MI and similar infractions players do >> their best without benefit of calling the TD, and knowing whether an >> explanation is definitely correct helps. >> >> I often play at a bridge club called Blundellsands. There is zero >> chance of my calling the TD for MI: it really would not be suitable. >> Fortunately my guessing is quite good when I know how accurate an >> explanation is likely to be. > >If the folks at Blundellsands wish to ignore Laws 10A, 72A1, and 72A6 >-- and it is certainly fine with me if they do; I have enjoyed playing >at clubs like that -- there is no reason for them to observe L75. That >shouldn't prevent us on BLML from trying to understand what the laws >require. The folks at Blundellsands do not ignore L10A, L72A1 or L72A6, and I think it an unwarranted and offensive presumption that they do. I also cannot imagine how such an offensive conclusion can be drawn from anything I wrote. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 20 20:30:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:30:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10813 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:29:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dsz0-00013E-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:28:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:41:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: <$askiUAa7GD4EwHF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <1dwMOOhjFOMz9VMBpm1ccIUOu6qe@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <1dwMOOhjFOMz9VMBpm1ccIUOu6qe@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pam wrote: >On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:15:06 +0100, DWS wrote: >> >> Not at all. When you wish to play an even card from 753 or an odd >>card from 642 there is no card that you can play that gives the correct >>signal and you may easily hesitate while wondering what to do about it. >>When you wish to play a high card from 32 or a low card from 98 there is >>a clear and obvious card to play and there is no reason to hesitate. >> >> Whether or not the regulation is correct is a different question, but >>there is no doubt that a method that means you may not have a card to >>play will lead to problems that a method that always gives you a card to >>play will not. > >I'm sorry but I cannot see this. If you play high encourage and low >discourage you may well not have a card to play so you do the best you >can (from 32 encourage with the 3 and discourage with the 2). When >playing odd to encourage and even to discourage, from 42 you may not have >the right card to play so you do your best (4 to encourage, 2 to >discourage). Why different? The 3 isn't an encouraging card in the first >case and the 4 isn't an encouraging card in the second! Some of us see other cards that are played. If a 3 is played and a 2 is missing there is always a chance that the 3 was high. Furthermore, it is often the case that a signal need not be understood until two cards are played, and if a 3 is followed by a 2 then it was clearly high [assuming you are playing a simple high = encourage rather than some more complex scenario]. >Why is it so much more obvious that the right card from 32 playing high >encourage is the 3, than the 4 from 42 playing odd encourage! Clearly all >O/E OR enc/disc players will discuss which card to play in these >situations after the first time it happens. That's not the point: I am not saying that I would ban these signals necessarily, and I am sure there are solutions. The point is that without further discussion, there is always a high card: there is not always an odd card. High is relative: odd is absolute. >> It is a perfectly reasonable regulation with a logical basis. >Must be some kind of male logic that says either pretending a 3 is high >is normal whereas pretending a 4 is odd is impossible or that players >will discuss alternatives to enc/disc but never to O/E. I am surprised that you suggest females cannot tell that 3s are higher than 2s. Most of the females of my acquaintance are intelligent enough to realise that. >I think I'll just stick to distributional. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 20 20:43:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:43:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [208.27.12.59] ([208.27.12.59]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA10867 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:43:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from EHCMAIL by [208.27.12.59] via smtpd (for octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) with SMTP; 20 Oct 1999 10:49:36 UT Received: from ehcfw.ehc.edu ([172.16.224.2]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id 49V82G3Y; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 06:44:16 -0400 Message-ID: <380D9CCE.542D67DE@ehc.edu> Received: from OEMWORKGROUP by ehcfw.ehc.edu via smtpd (for EHCMAIL [172.16.224.8]) with SMTP; 20 Oct 1999 10:49:17 UT Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 06:43:26 -0400 From: John A Kuchenbrod X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: You learn something new every day References: <01bf1a9f$2af6c1c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:34 AM > Subject: Re: You learn something new every day > > >Anne Jones wrote: > > > >>L20C2 refers to the point in time when a defended is to "play". > >>The definition of a play is that which occurs during the play > >>period. > > > > Is it? So the opening lead is never a play and each hand is composed > >of 51 plays? > > Well it may be, or it may not be so. Go to the definitions: Play: 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead. The opening lead is a contribution of declarer's LHO to the first trick. How can it not be in the play? John -- | Dr. John A. Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu | lazarus.ehc.edu/~jkuchen | From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 21:29:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:29:00 +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 VAA11419 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:28:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.224.11] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11dtuA-0005LM-00; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:27:42 +0100 Message-ID: <000001bf1aee$20c54100$0be0abc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: , References: <$askiUAa7GD4EwHF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <1dwMOOhjFOMz9VMBpm1ccIUOu6qe@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:17:12 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pam Hadfield wrote: > I'm sorry but I cannot see this. If you play high encourage and low > discourage you may well not have a card to play so you do the best you > can (from 32 encourage with the 3 and discourage with the 2). When > playing odd to encourage and even to discourage, from 42 you may not have > the right card to play so you do your best (4 to encourage, 2 to > discourage). Why different? The 3 isn't an encouraging card in the first > case and the 4 isn't an encouraging card in the second! Not quite. While you can always play a "relatively high" card and hope that partner works it out, you cannot play a "relatively odd" card with the same hope (unless you play it slowly). But I must confess, I had not thought that "odd encourages, even discourages" was per se banned by ACBL regulations or any others. What I had thought was banned was "dual message" carding, or the "Italian" style, in which odd cards encourage, even cards discourage *and are suit preference*. This (a) considerably increases the chances that you will have nothing but "wrong" cards, and (b) increases the chances that you will not appreciate "smoothly enough" that this is the case, and will therefore be far more likely to convey UI. But I don't really think it matters. The sophistication of modern signalling methods is already entirely adequate to circumvent any regulation. The tempo with which an awful lot of highly respected international players lead, or follow suit, is truly abysmal. The amount of fidgeting, shuffling, taking out of cards and putting them back, careful selection of sevens instead of sixes and so forth that goes on is quite astonishing. Watch carefully next time you're at a European Championship or an Olympiad, if you don't believe me. But be prepared to feel ill. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 21:41:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:27:32 +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 VAA11401 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:27:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-250.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.250]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA19552 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:27:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380D8606.13377840@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:06:14 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199910181608.MAA08027@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991018163920.012d4898@pop.mindspring.com> <380C633C.D1D11D1B@village.uunet.be> <003201bf1a9e$9c5786c0$8cee7ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > I cannot call 2He, intend it to show six spades, and then > > tell the TD that we have not agreed that 2He shows spades. > > > > -- > Of course you can. You make 2H the call, assuming that you have > transferred, since you play it that way with most partners. However, the > silence from across the table tells you that partner is not taking the call > as artificial. You mentally review your agreements, and determine that > partner was right: in fact you do not play transfers with him. In that > case, your 2H bid was a simple misbid, and your intended meaning was not the > one that was actually covered by your agreements with this partner. You > cannot allow the UI to wake you up to your agreements, and must continue to > call as though the 2H call were a transfer. However, if the TD got to your > table, you would tell him that there was no agreement that 2H was a > transfer. Of course, this would never happen to anyone on this list in real > life. > > Hirsch No Hirsh, not the same thing. You do not tell the director that there was "no agreement to transfer", you tell him there was an "agreement not to transfer". If you can prove this, and you may well be able to, there is no misinformation. We are talking about the case where you have NO agreement (or believe you do not). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 22:41:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:41:13 +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 WAA11566 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:40:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.245.133] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11dv1r-0000xH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:39:44 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bf1af8$30606ae0$85f5abc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.19991018141701.007dee20@eiu.edu> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991019084117.006f375c@pop.cais.com> <380C8F36.E12BE5F@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:39:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > (I am going up in the World - or is it you, David ?) It's all relative, Herman. You and I are in the same place. The world is just going down. > You are bound to tell the "meaning" of the bid. > The way you are finding out this meaning has no importance. > Quite probably, your partner is aware of the ambiguity. He > would not make the call if he was not certain that you would > be able to work it out by some means, either because in his > opinion, you had some more agreements than you are telling > us (such as one previous call on which you used the style of > particular partner XYZ), or because he hopes you hold the > cards that will enable you to deduce the meaning he is > hoping to attach to his call. > > In either case, opponents are entitled to know this meaning, > and the manner by which you find out the meaning does not > matter. > > I'm sure David will agree, and Grant-Eric-Mike will not. Up to a point, Lord Copper. In the scenario as originally described by Eric, partner has bid 3H after (1H) Pass (2H), and I know that he is trying to show either a solid minor or both black suits, but I do not know which (and partner knows that I do not know which). Now, if I had both minor suit kings, so that I knew he had the black suits, would I tell the opponents this? I doubt it, for to do so would pass UI to partner - he would be able to deduce, from the fact that I was certain he had the black suits, that I had a high card in both minors. Of course, if either of my opponents knew that we were playing Kudgill Standard, then they could also make this deduction, and I would not feel obliged to allow them to do so. In this case, I would tell the opponents that I did not know what 3H meant, since that is in fact our "agreement" per the "facts" as stated by Eric. We are, in effect, playing that 3H shows "either the blacks or a solid minor, and partner is supposed to guess which if he does not know". Of course, this would be possible only if that were a licensed meaning for 3H under the regulations of the Kudgill Club. However, if partner were an idiot who could not deduce anything from anything, or if I knew him to be a scrupulously ethical player who would know that I was giving him UI and who would not use it, then I suppose I might just tell the opponents he had the black suits. At least we could get on with the game that way, and at least the four players at the table might be able to produce a result, instead of letting some ham-fisted committee produce one for us. But that is not what happens in real life. If, say, I were to be playing with a strange but expert partner, and LHO were to open 2H (weak), and partner were to overcall a wholly undiscussed 3H, I would alert 3H and explain that I did not know what it meant. If pressed, I would perhaps say that whilst my partner and I had failed to assign any explicit meaning to 3H, many experts played 3H as requesting a stopper for 3NT, many others played it as Michaels, while some might use it on a very strong distributional hand that did not want partner to pass a takeout double. (I would not say any of this if my opponents were also experts who knew it anyway; it would not help them.) To that extent, I am with the Grants and Erics and Michaels of the world (I suppose). Where I differ from them is in the assumption that once I have acted thus, no claim of damage for damage can be made against our partnership. If 3H turns out to have been Michaels, and my RHO can make a convincing case that he would have bid if he'd known for sure that 3H was Michaels, but did not bid because he was afraid it might be a strong three-suited takeout, then I believe he would be entitled to redress if his side was damaged because he did not bid. As I see it, L40 does not permit my partner to bid 3H knowing that I will not be able to tell the opponents which of the various meanings I might ascribe to it actually conforms to his hand. Or, if it does so permit, then it guarantees the opponents redress from any damage that might occur. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 22:56:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:56:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA11601 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:55:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:55:36 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA06557 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:58:49 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: You learn something new every day Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:52:27 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3CE@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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837643379@XION> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >>Anne Jones wrote: >> >>>L20C2 refers to the point in time when a defended is to "play". >>>The definition of a play is that which occurs during the play >>>period. >> >> Is it? So the opening lead is never a play and each hand is composed >>of 51 plays? > >Well it may be, or it may not be so. L41B on immediate reading suggests > that leader does not have the right to review. Reference to L 20C2 >suggests that he does. >How does one decide. One looks to L17 to decide when the auction ends >and to the definitions to decide on what is a lead. >Like L68 which I maintained some time ago, is analagous, You must >admit that it is not easy for a TD (who does not read this list) to >interpret > the law easily at the table! >Anne I think we had a similar discussion some time before. It is true that L41B does not explicitly grant leader the right to review. It does not say that leader has *not* the right to review. And indeed, L20C2 does grant leader that right. Also, L20C2 refers to a review after the final pass, which is not necessarily the playing period, which starts when leader has faced his first card. And you cannot deny the fact that, after the final pass, it is leader's turn to play a card. :-) Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 23:19:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:27:23 +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 VAA11387 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:27:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-250.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.250]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA19532 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:27:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380D824F.41808BCA@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:50:23 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Now, I am practising for a Welsh Cup match next Sunday with a Welshman > called Paddy Murphy [!] A Welshman ? > I have now played with him twice, and it is > obvious that our styles don't match: he expects seven cards for a non- > vulnerable pre-empt, for example, and I expect five. So if the sequence > comes up in the Welsh Cup 1S 1NT X 2H or even 1S 1NT NB 2H > what is our agreement? We have had no relevant sequence nor any > relevant discussion in our two practice games. Before we discuss what > is MI or what we should rule, you tell me, since my ethics are adequate: > > [1] What is our agreement? > [2] How I should describe it to opponents > [1] if he happens to have spades, I rule that your system is transfer; if he happens to have hearts, I rule that your system is natural. If you tell the opposite, I will rule against you. [2] you should pick one or the other, using whatever method you want to choose (looking at your own cards included - although you are not obliged to inform opponents that this is how you have decided). The opponents should not be damaged through your unwillingness to agree on your system. As I said before, if the Laws had been written with the word "system" in stead of "agreement", we would not be having this discussion. We would be having a different one, of course, but that is not the problem, luckily. > >>Whatever we require of the Laws, it seems to me obvious that they > >>should simply not permit a player to act in this fashion. > > As always, I like to look at the honest people. Tell *me* how I > should behave in the given scenario. > Curse, inwardly, that you have forgotten to agree on something in such a situation, and pray for the best. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 20 23:41:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:27:20 +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 VAA11385 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:27:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-250.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.250]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA19521 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:27:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380D8096.74E9EDFE@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:43:02 +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> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Well, I am not sure I agree with this. You showed us this sequence: > > West North East South > 1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H > > and tell us we should do the same as if screens were present: but surely > the effect is totally different if the auction had been: > > West North East South > 1S (4+S) 1NT Dble > 2H > > ? Now it is _East_ who is telling North what 2H is, and we are back in > the same position as without screens. Irrelevant, David. This is a thought experiment, not a real one. > In fact, there are always going > to be some positions where screens produce inconsistent results. No, there are positions where the screen experiment does not help us. > Perhaps we need the full diamond screens where a player can see and > speak to both opponents! > A great idea, except that it provides the opponents with more than they are entitled to : two explanations and thus the extra info that the partnership is off the rails. Please remember that everything we do : have partner explain, explain ourselves behind screens, explain yourself in on-line bridge, give convention cards, etc - is just there to accomodate the ideal of full disclosure, not as an end in itself. > > I think the big problem is that we have to consider tqo different > cases. > > [1] North and South have an agreement in this case. In that case they > should be ruled against. The fact hat North does not know it is > irrelevant. > Of course. > [2] North and South do not have an agreement. Should we be ruling > against them? > If this is indeed the case, we should not, agreed. But it is my opinion that : a) it is almost impossible for a pair to have "no agreement" at all, especially when a player makes a call that clearly intends to show a particular feature of his hand. b) the director is forced, by the footnote, to rule misinformation rather than misbid. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 00:15:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:27:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA11394 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:27:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-250.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.250]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA19538 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:27:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380D8478.4D51DA4C@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:59:36 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <3.0.6.32.19991018141701.007dee20@eiu.edu><001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn><199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991019084117.006f375c@pop.cais.com> <005b01bf1a7c$80246940$27eaabc3@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > I can't speak for Herman, since I am not qualified to discuss > insurance in Belgian. For myself, I would not say either of those > things in either case. I would alert 3H (because it is not natural, > and I know this). When asked for an explanation, I would say that I do > not know what it means. If asked why I do not know, I will explain > point X above, and tell my opponents that because we have not > discussed this auction, I cannot tell them what partner is actually > intending to show. > > Will the Laws now allow me to "guess right"? Well, that depends on > whether my opponents have been damaged by my failure to disclose the > meaning of the call in accordance with L40B. It would not, for > example, be open to my RHO to claim damage for doing something > injudicious if he had both minor suit aces. But if RHO, with nothing > in the minors but plenty in spades, decided to bid 4H as an "advance > sacrifice" over 3NT, then I might consider him deserving of redress if > my partner actually had the black suits. > > There is in my mind some question about whether or not my partner is > legally permitted to bid 3H in the context in which he has just bid > it. If he is aware of point X, then L40B appears to prohibit him from > making the call, since he knows (a) that the opponents cannot be > expected to understand its meaning, and (b) that I am not going to be > able to disclose its meaning in accordance with the regulations. Does > this mean that players should only be allowed to play conventions that > (a) they can both remember and (b) they can both explain to the > opponents? Unthinkable! > > Clearly I have failed to clarify my own position. I am not, as far as > I can see, a member of the De Wael School (or DWS, as we will > henceforth most certainly not call it). I believe that it is open to a > player to tell his opponents that he does not know what his partner's > call means. If asked why he does not know, he should explain the cause > of his uncertainty, together with all relevant agreements and > experience that might be helpful. But I do not believe that this > insures him against any claim for damage or redress under the Laws. Of > course, the fact that he does not know what is happening will be UI to > his partner, and (as far as I can see) the partnership is already in > breach of L40B. But that is their fault, not mine. > > David Burn I would like to welcome David into the dWs (that looks better, doesn't it ?) because he has exactly the same opinion of the legal issues as I have. As far as I can see, he considers it MI to explain "I don't know" when it turns out that partner was intending to show something. Or at least, that he considers it possible that there shall be a MI ruling if opponents are being damaged. Why then does he not take the following step : "If I know, as a player, that I will be ruled against if I answer ""I don't know"", it is better for me to answer ""it is X"", thereby assuring that I will be ruled against in only the 50% of cases when it turns out that partner intended Y" That is the De Wael School, nothing else. Give your opponents one clear-cut and helpful answer, whatever the situation. If the answer turns out to be incosistent with our partner's intentions, take your MI ruling with a smile. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 00:16:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:16:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-he.global.net.uk (cobalt7-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11807 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:16:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from pfas05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.251] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dwX4-0006Yo-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:16:03 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:52:19 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1af9$f1c71c00$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 A Kuchenbrod To: BLML Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 12:17 PM Subject: Re: You learn something new every day > > >Anne Jones wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Stevenson >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:34 AM >> Subject: Re: You learn something new every day >> >> >Anne Jones wrote: >> > >> >>L20C2 refers to the point in time when a defended is to "play". >> >>The definition of a play is that which occurs during the play >> >>period. >> > >> > Is it? So the opening lead is never a play and each hand is composed >> >of 51 plays? >> >> Well it may be, or it may not be so. > > > >Go to the definitions: > >Play: 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, >including the first card, which is the lead. > >The opening lead is a contribution of declarer's LHO to the first >trick. How can it not be in the play? L17Duration of the Auction E. The auction period ends when all four players pass or when after three passes in rotation have followed any call the opening lead is faced. L41Commencement of Play A. After a bid, double or redouble is followed by three passes in rotation the defender on presumed declarers left makes the opening lead face down. As the TD can order the withdrawal of this card, and allow the auction to proceed in certain cirumstances, the auction is not over until this card is faced. This lead is therefore not a play. QED. However I read that DWS thinks that most of his female aquaintances are intelligent enough to know that 3 is higher than 2. I find that female beginners have great difficulty telling which card is 4th highest as opposed to 4th lowest. Similarly the instruction "E/W pairs move "up" one table often causes confusion with both sexes (esp 13 to 1:-) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 00:23:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:23:47 +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 AAA11843 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:23:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dwdu-0001SZ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:23:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:20:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: <199910191805.AA12601@gateway.tandem.com> In-Reply-To: <199910191805.AA12601@gateway.tandem.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Farley Wally wrote: >It appears my mailserver has dropped three days of BLML traffic, so >if this has been said before, I apologize. > >DWS wrote: > >> Let me give you a current English example. Players have started to >> play "Lebensohl" not just as a 2NT bid, but also as a double. You open >> 1NT, LHO bids 2S, and partner doubles: this means he has a raise to 2NT. >> >> Experience shows that there is a further definition: if he doubles >> fast he has a good spade holding: if he pauses before doubling his >> spades are poor. >> >> A certain English player disgraced himself with his behaviour after >> opponents had left such a double in with xx in the overcalled suit, >> having taken it out with QTx in the overcalled suit three hands earlier >> - right both times. Yeuch! > > >Then the obvious 'solution' is to *ban lebensohl doubles* in this >situation! Clearly, we cannot invoke the Laws and Proprieties to >ensure that the players in our games play ethically; let us remove >tempation from them, for there are some who are weak of spirit. Never >mind that we may discommode certain players who *would* behave >ethically; we have a duty to save them from their own feeble souls. > > >I repeat: the fact that a systemic call, or a method of carding, or >any of the other appurtenances of the game, *may* be used in an >improper fashion by an unethical player is not sufficient reason to >ban the method, assuming it is otherwise within the Laws. > >I am disinclined to accept what appears to be your thesis -- that >because my methods of choice might *possibly* be misused by an >unethical contestant, my wanting to use them marks me as >unethical _per se_. And I repeat, which I seem to be doing very frequently these days, that things I do not say are not things that I mean. Perhaps you could quote chapter and verse to this last sentence. I certainly never said it, or anything like. I really see little point to my posting here if people are going to read what I say, assume I mean something different, and then have a go at me for it. All I have said was that a majority of people take up conventions without considering the ethical implications. If I meant all people then I would have said all people. If I meant that people wanted to be unethical then I would have said that, and that is so far away from my general approach, namely that players are rarely intentionally unethical, that I am surprised that anyone would ever assume I think it. If I meant that people would remain ignorant of the ethical problems once they had met them then I would have said so. In fact, of course, some people do remain so [see my example]. The fact that some people do not follow their ethical responsibilities does not mean that other players do not. I dislike the modern tendency for forgetting that human beings are individuals. Whatever the majority do [say, for example, assume the second millennium contains only 999 years] does not mean that any individual does, and I never assume it nor do I wish people to infer it from anything I write. > For what period of time was the disgraced player >(or his opponents -- I'm not quite sure how to read your final >comment) banned? If he/she/they were *not* banned, I find this entire >discussion most astonishing. If there was no C&E hearing at all >(not an Appeals Committee), I am speechless. Let us get this straight: how long would you expect to be banned if your opponents cheated against you? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 00:26:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:26:15 +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 AAA11884 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:26:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03889 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:25:59 +0200 Received: from ip230.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.230), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda03886; Wed Oct 20 16:25:57 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:25:57 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <001e01bf1939$193383e0$be5208c3@swhki5i6> <380AFC91.BF612450@village.uunet.be> <=lcLOPHYl4n+lCHqJqgOapO=mBP3@bilbo.dit.dk> 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 AAA11885 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:43:15 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>Another question is how we should treat the side that received >>the incorrect explanation when we adjust. The partner of the >>player asking for the review is also guilty of not correcting the >>review, so that side is surely at least "partially at fault" when >>giving a L12C1 adjustment. Or are both sides "directly at >>fault"? >> >>If it had read "L12C2", which I believe it ought to, it seems to >>me that both sides should be treated as offenders when adjusting. > > That seems a bit vicious with a whispered and unheard mistake. Yes. The "partially at fault" side is difficult to handle using L12C2. >As far >as I am concerned, if declarer deliberately whispers so that only one >player hears it [the one who asked] then the other pair is not a fault. >Are you suggesting the partner should say "I know it is not my turn to >hear the review, but could you repeat it louder just so I can check to >see if it was correct"? L20E says that it is everybody's turn to hear the review so they can correct it. When somebody asks for a review, _all_ the other three players at the table have a duty to cooperate to ensure that a correct review is given. I would ask him to speak louder so I could hear it. But I am not without sympathy for the player who happens to not have read L20E recently and therefore does not insist on hearing the review, so perhaps you are right. I have to admit that I find this situation difficult, because one side is so very much at fault and the other side is so very slightly at fault. In practice, I might rule as you do, depending on the exact circumstances. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 00:41:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:24:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11840 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:23:14 +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 11dwdr-0006zy-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:23:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:07:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199910181608.MAA08027@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991018163920.012d4898@pop.mindspring.com> <380C633C.D1D11D1B@village.uunet.be> <003201bf1a9e$9c5786c0$8cee7ad1@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <003201bf1a9e$9c5786c0$8cee7ad1@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > Of course you can. You make 2H the call, assuming that you have >transferred, since you play it that way with most partners. However, the >silence from across the table tells you that partner is not taking the call >as artificial. You mentally review your agreements, and determine that >partner was right: in fact you do not play transfers with him. In that >case, your 2H bid was a simple misbid, and your intended meaning was not the >one that was actually covered by your agreements with this partner. You >cannot allow the UI to wake you up to your agreements, and must continue to >call as though the 2H call were a transfer. However, if the TD got to your >table, you would tell him that there was no agreement that 2H was a >transfer. Of course, this would never happen to anyone on this list in real >life. Why not? Certain people strain to be ethical, you know. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 21 00:55:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:55:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe4.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA11946 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:55:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 12221 invoked by uid 65534); 20 Oct 1999 14:54:49 -0000 Message-ID: <19991020145449.12220.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.112.47] From: "Roger Pewick" To: References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991018163007.012e186c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.19991019105343.007ac4d0@eiu.edu> <005001bf1ad2$2ebc2600$b03663c3@davidburn> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:54:25 -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 think this situation is common enough to be considered relevant: A BID means X and south has Y and bids BID with the intention of promising Y. The probable explanation being a forget. North explains BID as X. it comes out that south intended Y. I would believe that there is no presumption that redress is due, at least until there is reason to believe that BID actually means something other than X and there was damage. However, I would also believe that one is likely to think that redress is due if there was damage [or not {sic}] until shown otherwise. I offer this case from several years ago: East- Vul 1N- P*- 2H**- P* P- P* *** *= significant huddle **= transfer to spades, not alerted ***= director call by west to notify the opponents of the failure to alert the convention card was clearly marked transfers the auction was reopened East- Vul 1N- P*- 2H**- P* P- X*- P- P* P* West actually held hearts but not spades and the defenders took fewer tricks than they could have. Is east obligated to not change their call after they find out the meaning of 2H by west's explanation? Is it relevant that East held 3 spades and 2 hearts? Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 3:04 AM Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? ]> I am not sure about this. Herman's view seems to me to be that if a > player bids something, he does so in the hope that his partner will > know what it means. That hope is almost always grounded at least in > part on "special" partnership knowledge or experience, so the meaning > of the bid is almost always disclosable under L40. I would not go > quite as far as that - I think that in certain rare cases, it is open > to a player to make a bid that he knows would pass the Grattan tests, > in the hope that his partner can work it out from general bridge > knowledge and / or because he is a very fine player. But I do agree > with Herman that when a player damages his opponents by creating the Are you saying here that explaining the actual agreement [X] when partner has Y and meant Y is damage? May I point out that it i > impression that his partner may have X when his partner not only has Y > but was intending to show Y, there should be an automatic presumption > that redress is due. I don't think it's remotely fair that when > players do not know what is happening, they should be permitted - nay, > obliged, according to the Dennis - Landau School - to launch into some > lengthy rigmarole, and then be allowed to sit back and let the > opponents form their own wrong conclusions. > David Burn > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 00:59:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:59:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f28.hotmail.com [207.82.250.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA11970 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:59:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 61552 invoked by uid 0); 20 Oct 1999 14:58:29 -0000 Message-ID: <19991020145829.61551.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:58:29 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:58:29 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >The sophistication of modern >signalling methods is already entirely adequate to >circumvent any >regulation. The tempo with which an awful lot of >highly respected >international players lead, or follow suit, is >truly abysmal. The >amount of fidgeting, shuffling, taking out of >cards and putting them >back, careful selection of sevens instead of sixes >and so forth that >goes on is quite astonishing. Watch carefully next >time you're at a >European Championship or an Olympiad, if you don't >believe me. But be >prepared to feel ill. Feel ill? I assure you, I'll feel right at home. I'm delighted to hear that when my elderly ladies and gentlemen decide that they're going to compete at international level they will at least be on a level playing field. Quite how the modern day equivalent of the Squadra Azzura will cope with Mister Walker's 'Gammy Eye' trick remains to be seen. And Mrs. Kennedy's 'skim to encourage' will have Zia begging for mercy in no time at all... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 01:41:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:08:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12024 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:07:58 +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 LAA04561 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:07:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA09760 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:07:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910201507.LAA09760@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: I think partner has... X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > >> I often play at a bridge club called Blundellsands. There is zero > >> chance of my calling the TD for MI: it really would not be suitable. .... > The folks at Blundellsands do not ignore L10A, L72A1 or L72A6, and I > think it an unwarranted and offensive presumption that they do. I also > cannot imagine how such an offensive conclusion can be drawn from > anything I wrote. I am astonished that you find the conclusion offensive. That was unintentional, but clearly I have misunderstood you. Obviously I have no idea what really goes on at Blundellsands except via your posts. I still fail to see why my remarks should be offensive even if they were inaccurate. If people enjoy playing a game similar to bridge but with some rules modified, why shouldn't they do so? As I said, I have enjoyed such a pastime myself on occasion. What is offensive about speculating that such a game is played at a particular club? As to how the conclusion was drawn, please see the quoted sentence above. You don't say _why_ it would not be "suitable" to call the TD for MI, but to me the obvious inference is that it is customary to ignore the laws cited. If there is a different reason, it does not occur to me. No doubt the reason is dimwittedness; it isn't malice. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 02:14:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 02:14:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mxb.usuhs.mil ([131.158.7.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA12691 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 02:13:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis ([131.158.186.130]) by mxb.usuhs.mil; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:06:23 -0400 Message-ID: <000c01bf1b16$1786bd80$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199910181608.MAA08027@cfa183.harvard.edu><3.0.1.32.19991018163920.012d4898@pop.mindspring.com><380C633C.D1D11D1B@village.uunet.be> <003201bf1a9e$9c5786c0$8cee7ad1@hdavis> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:13:47 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 7:07 AM Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > Of course you can. You make 2H the call, assuming that you have > >transferred, since you play it that way with most partners. However, the > >silence from across the table tells you that partner is not taking the call > >as artificial. You mentally review your agreements, and determine that > >partner was right: in fact you do not play transfers with him. In that > >case, your 2H bid was a simple misbid, and your intended meaning was not the > >one that was actually covered by your agreements with this partner. You > >cannot allow the UI to wake you up to your agreements, and must continue to > >call as though the 2H call were a transfer. However, if the TD got to your > >table, you would tell him that there was no agreement that 2H was a > >transfer. Of course, this would never happen to anyone on this list in real > >life. > > Why not? Certain people strain to be ethical, you know. > My apologies for omitting the "smiley". The last sentence was intended as mild sarcasm. I was commenting on Herman's contention that you cannot make a call with intent for it to mean something, and later claim to the TD that you did not have an agreement that matched your intent (I'm generalizing from Herman's specific case here). Of course you can, and I would in truth be shocked if it had not happened to all of us at one time or another. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 02:31:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 02:31:36 +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 CAA12748 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 02:31:28 +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 11dydo-0002Xl-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:31:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:55:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: You learn something new every day References: <01bf1af9$f1c71c00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf1af9$f1c71c00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >From: John A Kuchenbrod >>Anne Jones wrote: >>> From: David Stevenson >>> >Anne Jones wrote: >>> >>L20C2 refers to the point in time when a defended is to "play". >>> >>The definition of a play is that which occurs during the play >>> >>period. >>> > Is it? So the opening lead is never a play and each hand is composed >>> >of 51 plays? >>> Well it may be, or it may not be so. >>Go to the definitions: >> >>Play: 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, >>including the first card, which is the lead. >> >>The opening lead is a contribution of declarer's LHO to the first >>trick. How can it not be in the play? >L17Duration of the Auction >E. The auction period ends when all four players pass or >when after three passes in rotation have followed any call the >opening lead is faced. >L41Commencement of Play >A. After a bid, double or redouble is followed by three passes >in rotation the defender on presumed declarers left makes the >opening lead face down. >As the TD can order the withdrawal of this card, and allow the >auction to proceed in certain cirumstances, the auction is not over >until this card is faced. >This lead is therefore not a play. QED. Hmm. I must stop giving short answers to posts. Sorry, my fault. When you lead a card it is a play - see the Definitions, "Play #1". When you make the opening lead face-down it is during the Auction Period - see L17E. It is the presumption that plays are during the Play Period that is wrong. The Opening Lead is a play: it is put face-down on the table during the Auction Period and turned over to start the Play Period. >However I read that DWS thinks that most of his female >aquaintances are intelligent enough to know that 3 is higher than 2. >I find that female beginners have great difficulty telling which card is >4th highest as opposed to 4th lowest. Similarly the instruction "E/W >pairs move "up" one table often causes confusion with both sexes >(esp 13 to 1:-) Surely. It is the suggestions where the sexes have different abilities that worry me: both sexes can be extraordinarily stupid in certain situations, or so Quango tells me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 02:38:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 02:38:18 +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 CAA12775 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 02:38:11 +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 JAA25289; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:37:31 -0700 Message-Id: <199910201637.JAA25289@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: I think partner has... In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:07:55 PDT." <199910201507.LAA09760@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:37:32 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > .... > > The folks at Blundellsands do not ignore L10A, L72A1 or L72A6, and I > > think it an unwarranted and offensive presumption that they do. I also > > cannot imagine how such an offensive conclusion can be drawn from > > anything I wrote. > > . . . I still fail to see why my remarks should be offensive even if > they were inaccurate. If people enjoy playing a game similar to > bridge but with some rules modified, why shouldn't they do so? As I > said, I have enjoyed such a pastime myself on occasion. . . . I realize this post may be a candidate for BLML Nitpick of the Year award (right up there with all the posts about the proper use of subjunctives), but I must register my objection to the choice of words here. "Similar to bridge"? Where did we get the idea that a game must follow all the Laws to be called "bridge"? I've seen this idea before, on BLML and on r.g.b, but to me it's a myth with no basis in fact. No dictionary that I know of includes "played in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge as promulgated by the World Bridge Federation" as a condition in its definition of the word "bridge". Nor, to my knowledge, has the WBF (or ACBL or EBU or anyone else) copyrighted the term "bridge" so that people may not use the term unless they sign a contract promising to obey all the WBF Laws. To me, "bridge" is defined (loosely speaking) by the basic mechanics of the auction, play, and scoring, and by the general principles of full disclosure and not passing secret signals to partners. (And perhaps other a couple other things I left out.) Now if those basic mechanics are changed, e.g. we adopt a rule that a player may trump even if he's able to follow suit, or that a player who is out of a suit must play a trump (I believe these are the rules for other games in the whist family), then I'd definitely call the game "somewhat similar to bridge" but definitely not "bridge". But to imply that everyone who plays bridge around their kitchen tables isn't really playing "bridge", but merely "something similar to bridge", because they don't handle revokes and insufficient bids and other irregularities the same way we do in a tournament, really seems like elitist snobbery. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 02:41:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 02:41:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA12792 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 02:41:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:41:11 -0700 Message-ID: <024301bf1b19$dd1c1240$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:40:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The CoP reads: ******* A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely 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. ******** It also reads: ******* Always provided that a true disclosure is made of the agreed meanings and expectations of card plays by defenders, intermittent false carding by defenders is lawful. Declarer then relies at his own risk upon his reading of the fall of the cards ******* The Laws (L40, L75) do not treat "calls or plays" differently in regard to deceptive actions or disclosure requirements, but it appears that the CoP does. Or am I mistaken? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 02:44:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:24:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11845 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:23:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dwdz-0006zy-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:23:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:32:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: You learn something new every day References: <01bf1a9f$2af6c1c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf1a9f$2af6c1c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >From: David Stevenson >>Anne Jones wrote: >>>L20C2 refers to the point in time when a defended is to "play". >>>The definition of a play is that which occurs during the play >>>period. >> Is it? So the opening lead is never a play and each hand is composed >>of 51 plays? >Well it may be, or it may not be so. L41B on immediate reading suggests > that leader does not have the right to review. Reference to L 20C2 >suggests that he does. >How does one decide. One looks to L17 to decide when the auction ends >and to the definitions to decide on what is a lead. >Like L68 which I maintained some time ago, is analagous, You must >admit that it is not easy for a TD (who does not read this list) to >interpret > the law easily at the table! Once he finds L20C2 then he has no problems. L41B does not give the opening leader the right to a review, that is true, but the wording does not say he has no right to a review. L20C2 do not conflict. I am not suggesting that the Law is written helpfully, and it would be easy to miss L20C2, but I do not see a conflict once the TD has found that 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 Oct 21 03:41:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:24:50 +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 DAA12945 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:24:39 +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 KAA02782 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:25:24 -0700 Message-ID: <001c01bf1b1f$f34fe9a0$8fc556d8@mminternet.com> From: "Phillip Mendelsohn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Older Players with Vision Problems Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:24:22 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Had the following at the club yesterday: dummy holds K-J of a side suit. Declarer plays from her hand toward dummy and LHO plays low. Declarer, who can't see beyond the tip of her own nose (if that far), asks dummy, "What are those cards in dummy?" Dummy, who also has about 20/5000 vision, replies, "the King and the Queen." Declarer says, "play one." RHO follows, and now declarer's LHO calls for the Director (or course she has the queen) and says declarer should be made to choose one of the cards actually in dummy. Law 46.B.4. may of course apply (declarer called a card not in dummy, i.e., the queen), but the timing of the defenders' Director call troubles me. Didn't RHO's play to the trick "condone" dummy's misdescription? If declarer's LHO had called the minute dummy had said "K and Q," the whole problem would have been obviated. Opinions? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 04:19:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA13241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:19:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail4.relaypoint.net (mail4.relaypoint.net [207.213.107.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA13236 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:19:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from idt.net (dsl-207-105-45-142.hollywood.relaypoint.net [207.105.45.142]) by mail4.relaypoint.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20801; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:18:56 -0700 Message-ID: <380E064B.24ACF710@idt.net> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:13:31 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phillip Mendelsohn CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Older Players with Vision Problems References: <001c01bf1b1f$f34fe9a0$8fc556d8@mminternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think you should treat the opponents to a long lecture on just WHY we play this game at all. Taking advantage in that way strikes me as the sort of thing that will kill the game if allowed to go unchecked. I don't know what the "Laws" might say about it, but I don't really care much. I might not be able to define evil, but I sure know it when I see it. Irv Phillip Mendelsohn wrote: > > Had the following at the club yesterday: dummy holds K-J of a side suit. > Declarer plays from her hand toward dummy and LHO plays low. Declarer, who > can't see beyond the tip of her own nose (if that far), asks dummy, "What > are those cards in dummy?" Dummy, who also has about 20/5000 vision, > replies, "the King and the Queen." Declarer says, "play one." RHO follows, > and now declarer's LHO calls for the Director (or course she has the queen) > and says declarer should be made to choose one of the cards actually in > dummy. Law 46.B.4. may of course apply (declarer called a card not in > dummy, i.e., the queen), but the timing of the defenders' Director call > troubles me. Didn't RHO's play to the trick "condone" dummy's > misdescription? If declarer's LHO had called the minute dummy had said "K > and Q," the whole problem would have been obviated. > > Opinions? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 04:21:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA13255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:21:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA13250 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:21:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26762; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:21:03 -0700 Message-Id: <199910201821.LAA26762@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Older Players with Vision Problems In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:24:22 PDT." <001c01bf1b1f$f34fe9a0$8fc556d8@mminternet.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:21:04 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Phillip Mendelsohn wrote: > Had the following at the club yesterday: dummy holds K-J of a side suit. > Declarer plays from her hand toward dummy and LHO plays low. Declarer, who > can't see beyond the tip of her own nose (if that far), asks dummy, "What > are those cards in dummy?" Dummy, who also has about 20/5000 vision, > replies, "the King and the Queen." Declarer says, "play one." RHO follows, > and now declarer's LHO calls for the Director (or course she has the queen) > and says declarer should be made to choose one of the cards actually in > dummy. Law 46.B.4. may of course apply (declarer called a card not in > dummy, i.e., the queen), but the timing of the defenders' Director call > troubles me. Didn't RHO's play to the trick "condone" dummy's > misdescription? If declarer's LHO had called the minute dummy had said "K > and Q," the whole problem would have been obviated. > > Opinions? My first thought was, is either of the players named Minnie? Because there's a character named Minnie who occasionally pops up in Sheinwold's column (now written by Frank Stewart) who can't tell kings from jacks, and often plays one when she means to play the other, which inevitably turns out to be the right play because it unblocks a suit or misleads an opponent or something. I don't think the Laws cover this. I couldn't find the ACBL regulations dealing with visually impaired players on their web site; these regulations give a visually impaired player the right to have the cards currently in dummy read out to them out loud, but I don't remember the exact wording. However, since they have this right, it would seem to follow that if someone reads out the cards incorrectly, it's the responsibility of the other players at the table to correct them immediately. Law 20E, which pertains to reviews of the auction, says: All players, including dummy or a player required by law to pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement... and provides that if a review is uncorrected, an artificial adjusted score should be assigned depending on who was at fault or partially at fault. I would assume, with nothing in the Laws to the contrary, that the same principle would apply when reading out dummy. So either opponent should have corrected the misinformation immediately. I don't see a need to call the director as soon as dummy says "K and Q"---just correcting the misinformation should be enough. (If LHO makes the correction, I would *not* rule that this conveys UI that LHO has the queen. It conveys only the UI that LHO does not have 20/5000 vision and can actually see the dummy.) After the actual sequence of events, I'm not sure how to rule. Both sides made errors, but the error made by the declaring side (calling out the wrong cards) was probably unavoidable. The defending side should have corrected the error right away, but it's entirely possible that they just didn't know how to handle the situation (but they should have called the TD if they weren't sure what to do). I don't think L46B4 applies because declarer didn't call for the queen---she just said "play one". My inclination is to back the play up and let declarer call a card from dummy now that she has the correct information---and stand ready to adjust if RHO changes his play and declarer is damaged as a result. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 04:48:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA13334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:48:22 +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 EAA13329 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:48:15 +1000 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com ([130.252.223.221]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id LAA21000; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA8505; 20 Oct 99 11:43:04 -0700 Date: 20 Oct 99 11:41:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199910201143.AA8505@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear David, It appears that I turned off too soon; I did not mean to imply those thoughts were *yours*; I was using the 'ubiquitous you'. I apologize for this. As to the suspension for my opponents cheating, I would expect *them* to get a minimum of thirty days. If you look again I admitted I was confused over who had done the cheating -- in no little part because I find it difficult to envision a situation in which a person cheated against does soemthing which 'disgraces himself' more than the disgrace of the cheating itself. Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 04:57:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 02:55:03 +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 CAA12836 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 02:54:55 +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 RAA26890; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:54:45 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA12737; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:54:45 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:54:44 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 RAA25160; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:54:43 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA24053; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:54:42 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:54:42 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199910201654.RAA24053@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > my partner actually had the black suits. > > > > There is in my mind some question about whether or not my partner is > > legally permitted to bid 3H in the context in which he has just bid > > it. If he is aware of point X, then L40B appears to prohibit him from > > making the call, since he knows (a) that the opponents cannot be > > expected to understand its meaning, and (b) that I am not going to be > > able to disclose its meaning in accordance with the regulations. Does > > this mean that players should only be allowed to play conventions that > > (a) they can both remember and (b) they can both explain to the Herman somes up the dW school > Why then does he not take the following step : > "If I know, as a player, that I will be ruled against if I > answer ""I don't know"", it is better for me to answer ""it > is X"", thereby assuring that I will be ruled against in > only the 50% of cases when it turns out that partner > intended Y" Because to say "it is X" is a lie and some of us would rather tell the truth (or what we know of the truth) rather than make confident statements which we do not know to be true. If I must be ruled against for saying "I don't know, it is either X or Y", when that it is all I know, then I will be ruled against 100% of the time. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 05:42:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA13466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 05:42:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA13461 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 05:42:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-34.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.34]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA32520 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:42:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002c01bf1b33$668d94e0$2284d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: You learn something new every day Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:43:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 41 B ...either defender may, at his first turn to play a card, require a review of the auction... Law 20C2 ...either defender may, at his first turn to play, require all previous calls to be restated... When you are on lead, it is your turn to play. That doesn't require some arcane debate about whether you are in the auction period, the play period, or the Jurassic period. It is your turn to play. If you don't, we are all going to be sitting there a long, long time! Besides, when else might it be your first turn to play? When you lead or follow to trick 2? That would be an absurdity! There is an obvious, clear answer, addressed in unmistakeable language in two different sections of the law that are in full agreement. WTP? Rtflb was the right answer, however "rude" it may seem. It did not seem sexist...merely an expression of surprise that a normally intelligent and articulate woman could take what seems such an obvious answer and imbue it with such a degree of wrongheaded obfuscation. I am reminded of still another Churchill anecdote (sometimes I think more accurately attributed to W.C.Fields.) At a dinner party, while in his cups, he comments to the hostess "Madam you are stupid." (Some versions say "a stupid cow" and some say "fat and stupid.") She replies "Sir, you are drunk." "Yes", says he, "but in the morning I'll be sober." In this instance I am sure neither fat nor stupid apply...the comment should be "Madam, you are wrong." "Sir you are rude." "Perhaps, but..." (More comments interspersed) From: Anne Jones >From: John (MadDog) Probst >>In article <01bf1a9f$2af6c1c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones >> writes >>>From: David Stevenson >>>>Anne Jones wrote: >>>>>L20C2 refers to the point in time when a defended is to "play". >>>>>The definition of a play is that which occurs during the play >>>>>period. >>>> Is it? So the opening lead is never a play and each hand is composed >>>>of 51 plays? >>> >>>Well it may be, or it may not be so. L41B on immediate reading suggests >>> that leader does not have the right to review. >> >>This is still nonsense. >And you are still rude. >>L41B "... Declarer or either defender may, at >>his first turn to play a card require a review of the auction". The >>first sentence gives *extra* rights. > >When I visit the dentist, in the waiting room I pick up a magazine, >I tend to read it from the back first. Is this a style TDs should develop > when reading the Law book? How about reading ALL of the relevant sections? Why do you ignore the quoted portion of 41B? >Start at the index (and FWIW mine is misprinted such that all page >refs. are shifted +1) Why are the references to the page numbers > and not to the law numbers? >Reference Auction review of.. Get to L41B. Read the second sentence > first. Insert the words "in addition" and then read the first sentence. >You have now not been tempted to go to L20 before reading the rest >of L41, unless you passed it in going to L16! >I think this makes the law easier to interpret in the way you do. >No John, it's not nonsence, its an interpretation with which you do not >agree. But if you go to Law 20, you get the same clear message. Your interpretation is totally unwarrented if you RTFLB, front to back or even sideways. I am astounded that you even argue the point, and then appear to argue elsewhere on thread that to criticise your stand in somehow sexist. That I think you wrong (an uncommon occurence) had nothing to do with your sex. It is no condemnation of the "inferior" bridge thinking of women, a canard that is far past due to be discarded. I trust I may disagree with a woman without condemning the abilities of her sex. Women are not such mental weaklings that to disagree will send them into crying jags and render them incapable of ever expressing another opinion...that is absurd chauvinistic thinking and ought to be permanently relegated to the dustbin. Women are every bit as capable of intelligent thought (and good bridge) as men; they even have a right to be wrong on occasion without throwing this obvious truth into doubt even the slightest bit. No one is going to tell me that my daughter or wife or sister is an inferior being who can't compete, think (or even be stubbornly wrong) with the best of men (and more often be right.) That would be as silly as insisting that when I am on lead it is not my turn to play. -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 05:52:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:27:32 +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 DAA12971 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:27:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA27763; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 18:27:09 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA14626; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 18:27:08 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:27:07 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 SAA25256; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 18:27:05 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA24061; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 18:27:05 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 18:27:05 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199910201727.SAA24061@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: a delicate moment X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The autumn congress at Bournemouth had its highs and lows. This was (thankfully) ultimately completely harmless. This incident involves a word (far) stronger than used by Americans who lead the wrong card from dummy --- please bear that in mind if you continue reading. Multiple teams, three board rounds, at table on the edge of the playing area. The TD sits at a chair nearby, waiting for calls. North has a bad cough and has been having coughing fits regularly throughout the session. A number of female East/Wests have offered him cough sweets but he has refused (politely). A mixed pair move to the table. During the round North has another bout of coughing, the lady (West) offers North a cough sweet from her handbag and North says (mildly aggressively) "I don't want a fucking sweet". West goes stiff and looks shocked, the TD thinks (1) "surely, he did't say that", (2) "I don't want to be here", (3) "I'm going to have to deal with this", and stands up. Meanwhile, the frosty silence at the table is broken by the East, who says `he said "sucking"'. East looks relieved, and no longer shocked, play continues and the TD sits down, equally relieved. The whole incident took a few seconds, but in those few seconds North was on the brink of a serious Law 91 ruling. At the end of the round, the incident is aluded to and it is clear that North has no idea what he said. Without East working out what had happened, it would have taken a long time (if ever) for North to establish his innocence: West, South and the TD were all convinced of what they heard. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 06:04:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 06:04:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA13542 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 06:04:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:04:24 -0700 Message-ID: <028f01bf1b36$3f4f2a80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:01:47 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: > Marvin French writes: > > >The CoP reads: > > > >******* > >A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its > >psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, > >although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a > >psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent > >to the psychic have been entirely 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. > >******** > >It also reads: > > > >******* > >Always provided that a true disclosure is made of the agreed > > meanings and expectations of card plays by defenders, > >intermittent false carding by defenders is lawful. Declarer then > >relies at his own risk upon his reading of the fall of the cards > >******* > > >The Laws (L40, L75) do not treat "calls or plays" differently in > >regard to deceptive actions or disclosure requirements, but it > >appears that the CoP does. Or am I mistaken? > > The difference is a matter of general bridge knowledge. Falsecarding > is a matter of general bridge knowledge; it is a necessary part of the > expect game, and all players use it. When you play with a new partner > and declarer leads to dummy's AJT96 and partner plays the king, you > know that he might have the queen, and will not count points on the > assumption that he doesn't; neither will declarer. Weak argument, IMO, since there are plenty of falsecards that would be suspected, even expected, by partner, but not by most opponents. > The play analogy is > a deviation from agreement; if you play with a new partner, not playing > Flannery, and the auction starts 1H-1NT(forcing)-2C, you know he > might be 4-5-2-2 even though the sequence "shows" three clubs. If the heart suit is strong, most players hesitate and then bid 2H. > > In contrast, psyching is not a matter of general bridge knowledge. > Many regular partnerships never psyche. If your partnership has an > implicit agreement to psyche, the opponents need to know, even if > it happens that on this hand your own action was consistent with > partner not psyching. In that case, can't the convention card or a pre-Alert provide this information? "We [often] [occasionally] [never] psych." If that is all the CoP is saying, fine. But I think the CoP implies that every time partner makes a bid that could be a psych in the given situation, the opponents must be informed of this fact. 73D2: 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). If "the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal," how is the deception protected? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 06:43:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 06:43:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA13648 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 06:43:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:42:57 -0700 Message-ID: <02ca01bf1b3b$a1c7a7a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:39:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David L. Grabiner wrote: > > Marvin French writes: > > >The CoP reads, under Score adjustment:: > > > >***** > >If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by > >irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the > >adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The > >offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have > >been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. A revoke by > >the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score > >but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without > >regard to the revoke. > >****** > > >Let me get this straight. The OS reaches a 3NT game through misuse of > >UI. Bad breaks would normally result in the game's defeat, -50, but the > >NOS revokes to let declarer makes his game, +400. > > >When the TD/AC adjusts, who gets what? > > The NOS do not receive redress for self-inflicted damage. If they would > have been -120 against 2NT without the UI, they get the table result of > -400. Agreed, except that they would have been -150 against 2NT, unless the revoke was somehow an effect of the infraction. If only an overtrick was involved, and 3NT could not be defeated, then they get -180, and the OS +180? I should have included this possibility in the original message. > If they would have been +100 against 4H without the UI, this seems > to indicate that they should receive redress for the difference between > +100 and +50 only; their score should be -400, plus the IMP difference > between +100 and +50. (I have never seen such a ruling, but that's what > the rule appears to say.) Very interesting, but I think they get +100, even if L12C3 is in effect. Not sure what the rule says, which accounts for my original post. > The OS receive the score they would have had without the action suggested > by UI, +120 or -100 in the examples above. Not quite according to L12C2. The OS receives "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable," period, no qualification. I thought the consensus was that if the infraction did not affect the play of the cards, then the play stands, so +150 in the first example > > >And shouldn't that be "a revoke or other infraction by the innocent > >side"? > > Actually, it should probably say, "For example, a revoke..." The situation > doesn't need to be an infraction at all, just an irrational action. For > example, if West set up the thirteenth club but thought that declarer still > had one and didn't cash the trick, he would lose his right to an adjustment. > Ah, so a revoke constitutes an "irrational" action I agree, but seem to remember that Grattan had a contrary opinion. And what about other infractions that result in self-inflicted damage? Are they all irrational, hence grounds for annulment of redress? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 06:44:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA13511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 05:58:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA13500 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 05:58:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.16] (math-16.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.16]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA22777 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:57:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:58:02 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French writes: >The CoP reads, under Score adjustment:: > >***** >If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by >irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the >adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The >offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have >been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. A revoke by >the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score >but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without >regard to the revoke. >****** >Let me get this straight. The OS reaches a 3NT game through misuse of >UI. Bad breaks would normally result in the game's defeat, -50, but the >NOS revokes to let declarer makes his game, +400. >When the TD/AC adjusts, who gets what? The NOS do not receive redress for self-inflicted damage. If they would have been -120 against 2NT without the UI, they get the table result of -400. If they would have been +100 against 4H without the UI, this seems to indicate that they should receive redress for the difference between +100 and +50 only; their score should be -400, plus the IMP differenve between +100 and +50. (I have never seen such a ruling, but that's what the rule appears to say.) The OS receive the score they would have had without the action suggested by UI, +120 or -100 in the examples above. >And shouldn't that be "a revoke or other infraction by the innocent >side"? Actually, it should probably say, "For example, a revoke..." The situation doesn't need to be an infraction at all, just an irrational action. For example, if West set up the thirteenth club but thought that declarer still had one and didn't cash the trick, he would lose his right to an adjustment. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 07:03:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:24:01 +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 AAA11846 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:23:43 +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 11dwdy-00070I-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:23:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:29:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: <000a01bf1a9b$d2f52f00$1c5208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <000a01bf1a9b$d2f52f00$1c5208c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >>On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:15:06 +0100, DWS wrote: >>> Not at all. When you wish to play an even card from 753 or an odd >>>card from 642 there is no card that you can play that gives the correct >>>signal and you may easily hesitate while wondering what to do about it. >+=+ I am just a teeny weeny mite SCEPTICAL >about any player who has discussed his >methods, or who has played them for a while, >when he comes along to a committee and >says that he took time to work out what >card he should play in a situation that can >be foreseen, or which he has experienced >previously. I like him to look slightly >shamefaced as he says it. Wen I read comments like this one, and others in other threads, I sometimes wonder whether we are talking about the same people. I have the feeling that my most general remarks on this list are describing the average player: that other people's general remarks are describing experienced players. If there is a discussion about whether to allow such signals in the EBU I would expect it to centre around whether average club players up to poor tournament players have ethical difficulties. These players often do not discuss detail, and quite often do not learn from their experience. **OF COURSE** I would not expect a good experienced player not to sort their problems out in this area. If you were asked to chair an Appeal at Blundellsands Bridge Club, where they have been unfairly accused of not following the rules by two members of this list, and if one of the players there had hesitated with 642 having been persuaded by her partner to play odd-even signals, do you really believe she would have any reason to look shame-faced when she explains to you that she has no idea what to do when she has no odd card? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 07:11:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:11:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13732 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:10:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.16] (math-16.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.16]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA13528 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:10:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:11:22 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This was originally sent to Marvin French personally because a previos letter was also personal; this part of the discussion should be on BLML. Marvin French writes: >In that case, can't the convention card or a pre-Alert provide this >information? >"We [often] [occasionally] [never] psych." If that is all the CoP is >saying, fine. >But I think the CoP implies that every time partner makes a bid that could be >a psych in the given situation, the opponents must be informed of this fact. I don't know what the CoP is trying to say, but it would seem that they are dealing with psyches in situations in which there is a partnership expectation of a psyche. "We occasionally psyche" is an incomplete statement if there is some further understanding of when the psyches are made. >73D2: 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). >If "the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely >normal," >how is the deception protected? The damage isn't done by deception, but by the undisclosed illegal agreement. Similarly, if a player uses a convention not on the convention card, he has committed an infraction even if partner's response is the same as it would be to the convention on the card. David. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 07:21:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:21:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13757 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:20:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:20:44 -0700 Message-ID: <02fc01bf1b40$e82a33c0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199910201727.SAA24061@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: a delicate moment Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:16:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > North has a bad cough and has been having coughing fits regularly > throughout the session. A number of female East/Wests have offered > him cough sweets but he has refused (politely). A mixed pair move > to the table. During the round North has another bout of coughing, > the lady (West) offers North a cough sweet from her handbag and > North says (mildly aggressively) "I don't want a fucking sweet". > > West goes stiff and looks shocked, the TD thinks > (1) "surely, he didn't say that", > (2) "I don't want to be here", > (3) "I'm going to have to deal with this", > and stands up. > > Meanwhile, the frosty silence at the table is broken by the East, > who says `he said "sucking"'. East looks relieved, and no longer > shocked, play continues and the TD sits down, equally relieved. > The whole incident took a few seconds, but in those few seconds > North was on the brink of a serious Law 91 ruling. > > At the end of the round, the incident is alluded to and it is clear > that North has no idea what he said. Without East working out > what had happened, it would have taken a long time (if ever) for > North to establish his innocence: West, South and the TD were > all convinced of what they heard. > Evidently East is a great guy: Intelligent, quick-thinking, compassionate, and a good sport. The game needs more of his kind. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 07:41:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA13510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 05:58:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA13499 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 05:58:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.16] (math-16.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.16]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA22849 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:57:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 15:58:26 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French writes: >The CoP reads: > >******* >A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its >psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although >the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the >given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have >been entirely 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. >******** >It also reads: > >******* >Always provided that a true disclosure is made of the agreed meanings >and expectations of card plays by defenders, intermittent false carding >by defenders is lawful. Declarer then relies at his own risk upon his >reading of the fall of the cards >******* >The Laws (L40, L75) do not treat "calls or plays" differently in regard >to deceptive actions or disclosure requirements, but it appears that the >CoP does. Or am I mistaken? The difference is a matter of general bridge knowledge. Falsecarding is a matter of general bridge knowledge; it is a necessary part of the expect game, and all players use it. When you play with a new partner and declarer leads to dummy's AJT96 and partner plays the king, you know that he might have the queen, and will not count points on the assumption that he doesn't; neither will declarer. The play analogy is a deviation from agreement; if you play with a new partner, not playing Flannery, and the auction starts 1H-1NT(forcing)-2C, you know he might be 4-5-2-2 even though the sequence "shows" three clubs. In contrast, psyching is not a matter of general bridge knowledge. Many regular partnerships never psyche. If your partnership has an implicit agreement to psyche, the opponents need to know, even if it happens that on this hand your own action was consistent with partner not psyching. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 07:51:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:51:37 +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 HAA13823 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:51:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-254-159.s159.tnt1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.254.159]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA08877 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:55:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008201bf1b45$179e31c0$9ffe7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991018163007.012e186c@pop.mindspring.com> <000b01bf19ee$e34c4300$b139ac3e@davidburn> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:50:12 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 1:00 AM Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? > > There is no real question that South was "up to" anything. South was > bidding hearts to show hearts. In some conditions (screens), West > would know this; why should he not know it in all conditions? > Perhaps because in those situations where the actual agreement between N/S is transfers, the knowledge that the S call shows hearts is MI regardless of his actual holding? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 08:25:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:27:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [208.27.12.59] ([208.27.12.59]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA12978 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:27:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from EHCMAIL by [208.27.12.59] via smtpd (for octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) with SMTP; 20 Oct 1999 17:33:59 UT Received: from ehcfw.ehc.edu ([172.16.224.2]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id 49V822R0; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:28:50 -0400 Message-ID: <380DFC37.B151319@ehc.edu> Received: from MATH-05 by ehcfw.ehc.edu via smtpd (for EHCMAIL [172.16.224.8]) with SMTP; 20 Oct 1999 17:33:52 UT Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:30:31 -0400 From: "John A. Kuchenbrod" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Jones CC: BLML Subject: Re: You learn something new every day References: <01bf1af9$f1c71c00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This will teach me to rush with a reply. Anne Jones wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: John A Kuchenbrod > To: BLML > Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 12:17 PM > Subject: Re: You learn something new every day > > > > > > >Anne Jones wrote: > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: David Stevenson > >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >> Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:34 AM > >> Subject: Re: You learn something new every day > >> > >> >Anne Jones wrote: > >> > > >> >>L20C2 refers to the point in time when a defended is to "play". > >> >>The definition of a play is that which occurs during the play > >> >>period. > >> > > >> > Is it? So the opening lead is never a play and each hand is composed > >> >of 51 plays? > >> > >> Well it may be, or it may not be so. > > > > > > > >Go to the definitions: > > > >Play: 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, > >including the first card, which is the lead. > > > >The opening lead is a contribution of declarer's LHO to the first > >trick. How can it not be in the play? > > L17Duration of the Auction > E. The auction period ends when all four players pass or > when after three passes in rotation have followed any call the > opening lead is faced. > L41Commencement of Play > A. After a bid, double or redouble is followed by three passes > in rotation the defender on presumed declarers left makes the > opening lead face down. > As the TD can order the withdrawal of this card, and allow the > auction to proceed in certain cirumstances, the auction is not over > until this card is faced. > This lead is therefore not a play. QED. I agree with the statement "This lead is therefore not in the play." Once play begins, the lead is the contribution to the first trick and becomes in play. The action of the lead is not necessary a play, but the revelation of the card brings a beginning to the play period and introduces it into play. I should have asked "how can the opening lead not be a play." It is clear that the lead is not in the play but rather brings on the play. John who should make sure to read the definition of auction before posting at 6 in the morning.... p.s. if there is a delay in my posting, it is because my region is recovering from a sliced fiber optic line. I'm noticing a longer than usual delay in the reception of BLML and other messages. The line was down for 12 prime-time hours--what a mess. -- | Dr. John Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu | lazarus.ehc.edu/~jkuchen | From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 08:40:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:05:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-he.global.net.uk (cobalt7-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12002 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:05:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from pdbs11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.220] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11dxIp-0002o6-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:05:23 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:09:31 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1b0d$1c8890a0$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: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:58 PM Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> Now, I am practising for a Welsh Cup match next Sunday with a Welshman >> called Paddy Murphy [!] > >A Welshman ? > >> I have now played with him twice, and it is >> obvious that our styles don't match: he expects seven cards for a non- >> vulnerable pre-empt, for example, and I expect five. So if the sequence >> comes up in the Welsh Cup 1S 1NT X 2H or even 1S 1NT NB 2H >> what is our agreement? We have had no relevant sequence nor any >> relevant discussion in our two practice games. Before we discuss what >> is MI or what we should rule, you tell me, since my ethics are adequate: >> >> [1] What is our agreement? >> [2] How I should describe it to opponents >> > >[1] if he happens to have spades, I rule that your system is >transfer; if he happens to have hearts, I rule that your >system is natural. >If you tell the opposite, I will rule against you. I am sure this is not the right thing to do. David should alert the bid, and if asked he should say "This is undiscussed. We have absolutely no agreement. I alert the bid because there are several possible meanings, some of which are alertable" Opps are now in the same position as David in having to guess, soley from the cards they can see in their own hands. > >[2] you should pick one or the other, using whatever method >you want to choose (looking at your own cards included - >although you are not obliged to inform opponents that this >is how you have decided). So you suggest that David guesses that one option is the correct one and says so. By the time it is Davids turn to bid he may have AI from opponent that causes him to change his mind. Do you think he should be tied to acting on his first guess? > >The opponents should not be damaged through your >unwillingness to agree on your system. We'll just muck thro' and as we're better guessers than our opps are likely to be, we will survive and prosper, is just not good enough. Players should be expected to have a discussed system and I am happy to penalise those who treat their opps with contempt. However as far as the table is concerned, undiscussed is _undiscussed_. > >As I said before, if the Laws had been written with the word >"system" in stead of "agreement", we would not be having >this discussion. >We would be having a different one, of course, but that is >not the problem, luckily. > >> >>Whatever we require of the Laws, it seems to me obvious that they >> >>should simply not permit a player to act in this fashion. >> >> As always, I like to look at the honest people. Tell *me* how I >> should behave in the given scenario. Spend a few hours formulating agreements, and then you'll need less of the luck that I wish you for Sunday. >> > >Curse, inwardly, that you have forgotten to agree on >something in such a situation, and pray for the best. But who does God pray to? :-) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 10:08:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:08:14 +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 KAA14078 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:08:05 +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 11e5le-000G7M-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:07:51 +0000 Message-ID: <$SkkgGA7$eD4EwH4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:38:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: I think partner has... References: <199910201507.LAA09760@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910201507.LAA09760@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> >> I often play at a bridge club called Blundellsands. There is zero >> >> chance of my calling the TD for MI: it really would not be suitable. >.... >> The folks at Blundellsands do not ignore L10A, L72A1 or L72A6, and I >> think it an unwarranted and offensive presumption that they do. I also >> cannot imagine how such an offensive conclusion can be drawn from >> anything I wrote. > >I am astonished that you find the conclusion offensive. That was >unintentional, but clearly I have misunderstood you. Obviously I have >no idea what really goes on at Blundellsands except via your posts. I >still fail to see why my remarks should be offensive even if they were >inaccurate. If people enjoy playing a game similar to bridge but with >some rules modified, why shouldn't they do so? As I said, I have >enjoyed such a pastime myself on occasion. What is offensive about >speculating that such a game is played at a particular club? > >As to how the conclusion was drawn, please see the quoted sentence >above. You don't say _why_ it would not be "suitable" to call the TD >for MI, but to me the obvious inference is that it is customary to >ignore the laws cited. If there is a different reason, it does not >occur to me. No doubt the reason is dimwittedness; it isn't malice. Well, I suppose if I have to explain. I am a player on the fringes of international selection. Of the people who play regularly in my County I am one of the two best. I am known as very highly ranked TD. I am an active Professional player, the only one known to them. For me to ask for rulings on judgement matters in a club with a mediocre TD is not suitable. But that does not apply to anyone else. Everyone else can call for the TD with no problems, but it would not be suitable for me to do so. I do not think that because of my personal ethics you should come to conclusions about other players. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 21 10:39:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:39:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14134 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:39:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.235.230] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11e6G5-0003dW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:39:09 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bf1b5c$31d75500$e6ebabc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991018163007.012e186c@pop.mindspring.com> <000b01bf19ee$e34c4300$b139ac3e@davidburn> <008201bf1b45$179e31c0$9ffe7ad1@hdavis> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:35:36 +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 Hirsch wrote: [DB] > > There is no real question that South was "up to" anything. South was > > bidding hearts to show hearts. In some conditions (screens), West > > would know this; why should he not know it in all conditions? > > [HD} > Perhaps because in those situations where the actual agreement between N/S > is transfers, the knowledge that the S call shows hearts is MI regardless of > his actual holding? Quite so. I am not sure of the extent to which I agree with Herman's view that you are not entitled to know that your opponents are in the middle of a misunderstanding. Insofar as I have thought the position through, I am sure that you are entitled to know the extent to which uncertainty exists in the minds of *both* your opponents, not just one of them. If screens had been in use (and, pace DWS, if they had been in the normal position so that South and West were screenmates), I believe that the actual South would have explained to the actual West that "he [North] might think that 2H shows spades". If West were to persist by asking South: "Well, does it actually show spades, then?" South would in my view be entitled to say, "I do not know". I believe that this is as close an approximation to "ideal" conditions as can in practice be achieved (given that NS both knew that they did not know what their "system" actually was, which is of course not ideal). But, in the words of one of England's finest poets (who happened to be a Frenchman): The question's very much too wide, And much too round, and much too hollow, And learned men on either side Use arguments I cannot follow. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 10:49:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:49:18 +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 KAA14176 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:49:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.235.230] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11e6Pd-0005rn-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:49:02 +0100 Message-ID: <001101bf1b5d$92ebd220$e6ebabc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:45:28 +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 David Grabiner wrote: > The difference is a matter of general bridge knowledge. Falsecarding is a > matter of general bridge knowledge; it is a necessary part of the expect > game, and all players use it. The "expect game"? I had not come across this before, but it strikes me as a splendid definition of what we all play. Only this evening, for example, I had occasion to ask why partner had doubled something, and she replied that she did not expect it to make. Sadly, this turned out to be the "expect game" equivalent of a negative double. > When you play with a new partner and > declarer leads to dummy's AJT96 and partner plays the king, you know that > he might have the queen, and will not count points on the assumption that > he doesn't; neither will declarer. The tenth circle of Hell is reserved for partners who falsecard with the king in that kind of position. Declarer is going to repeat the finesse anyway, and winning the queen will not stop him from doing that. But as a defender I need to know how many tricks declarer has got, and if partner wins the king I will assume that declarer has the rest of the suit to cash. At least, that is what I will "expect". David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 11:01:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:01:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14262 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:00:59 +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 11e6b0-000M47-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:00:46 +0000 Message-ID: <2p4WuJAL1lD4Ew1v@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:24:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <01bf1b0d$1c8890a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf1b0d$1c8890a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Players should be expected to have a discussed >system Perhaps someone could give me the Law reference for this. > and I am happy to penalise those who treat their opps >with contempt. Are you suggesting that the 90% of bridge players who fall below this ideal level are treating opponents with contempt? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 21 11:41:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:01:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14258 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:00:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11e6ax-000M3w-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:00:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:42:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: <199910201143.AA8505@gateway.tandem.com> In-Reply-To: <199910201143.AA8505@gateway.tandem.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wally wrote: > It appears that I turned off too soon; I did not mean to >imply those thoughts were *yours*; I was using the 'ubiquitous you'. I >apologize for this. > > As to the suspension for my opponents cheating, I would expect *them* >to get a minimum of thirty days. If you look again I admitted I was >confused over who had done the cheating -- in no little part because I >find it difficult to envision a situation in which a person cheated >against does soemthing which 'disgraces himself' more than the disgrace >of the cheating itself. Ok, having got that out of the way, we are back to the ethical problems. Now, when I used the term cheating I was making a point but I do not really believe it in the quoted case. The problem with 1NT 2S X Lebensohl = raise to 2NT is that people do not consider the ethical imputations. Now, when my friend got very upset over his opponents' actions, they had used the sequence twice, once with good spades, left in on xx, once with bad spades, taken out on Qxx. Do you think that pair is doing anything wrong? Of course they may be. But it is time that people on this list realised that they very well may not be. You must not assume the worst of people, and they may just be a pair that do not understand the ethical ramifications. Use of UI is an ugly term because people who hear it assume that it means deliberate use of UI: but it is an accurate term so long as people realise it means nothing of the sort. In the quoted cases, one player may have given his partner UI by the slowness of the double [or other expressions of doubt] without either player realising it. Then the partner may have used the UI without realising it, persuading himself on both occasions that he is making "the right call". Without further evidence there is no reason to suppose that players have done anything worse than not realised the ethical problems. Players often don't. And so we come full circle to Roman signals. In my view they lead to ethical problems, because players will not allow for or discuss difficult positions, and often will not discuss them even when they have turned up. Despite the superior stance taken by certain members of this list it is my view that over 90% of people reading BLML have played at some time in the last six months with a partner with whom they have not had exhaustive discussions in detail of all likely positions. They may be new partners: they may be pickup partners: they may be players of the KISS school who do not discuss in depth. If you are playing with such a partner are you sure you have considered each and every convention and agreement you have agreed to play to make sure there are no associated ethical problems? No, I did not think so. ------------------------ To save me having *another* argument, this means that I can see the point of the ACBL and EBU bans, and they do have reason. However, I am not suggesting I agree with them or that the arguments are convincing enough and I would prefer not to be mis-quoted as saying so. Nor the reverse, either. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 12:15:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA15116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:15:42 +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 MAA15101 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:15:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.220] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11e7l6-000AP4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:15:16 +0100 Message-ID: <00d701bf1b6a$1881b420$dc5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 02:39:22 +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: 20 October 1999 18:18 Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne >The CoP reads: > >******* >A partnership may not > ............ \x/ .............. >It also reads: > >******* >Always provided that a true disclosure is made of the agreed meanings >and expectations of card plays by defenders, intermittent false carding >by defenders is lawful. Declarer then relies at his own risk upon his >reading of the fall of the cards >******* > >The Laws (L40, L75) do not treat "calls or plays" differently in regard >to deceptive actions or disclosure requirements, but it appears that the >CoP does. Or am I mistaken? > +=+ Just a couple of points to consider: (a) "agreed meanings and expectations": 'meaning' and 'expectation' are clearly two different things. The reference to expectations invites comparison, I think, with statements about habit and anticipation elsewhere in the CoP. 'Play of the King denies the Queen, but partnership experience leads me to expect that from KQ in this situation partner will almost always play K.' (b) "intermittent": occurring at intervals, not continuous. So, something less than 'habitual'. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 12:15:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA15118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:15:42 +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 MAA15103 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:15:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.220] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11e7l7-000AP4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:15:18 +0100 Message-ID: <00d801bf1b6a$1932b4a0$dc5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:14:13 +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: 20 October 1999 22:42 Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb > > If you were asked to chair an Appeal at Blundellsands Bridge Club, >where they have been unfairly accused of not following the rules by two >members of this list, and if one of the players there had hesitated with >642 having been persuaded by her partner to play odd-even signals, do >you really believe she would have any reason to look shame-faced when >she explains to you that she has no idea what to do when she has no odd >card? > +=+ Not the first time. After that she (?) would either have refused to continue with the method or would know what to do about it. Especially as I would have very gently pointed out the need. (And on a second occasion my *manner* in committee would continue to be as kindly as ever, even if the lady did not appear as embarrassed as in fact at the Blundellsands Bridge Club she would be.) ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 14:45:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 13:24:03 +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 NAA22104 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 13:23:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.35] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11e8og-000BK8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:23:02 +0100 Message-ID: <002701bf1b73$8fe1eb80$235108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: I think partner has... Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:19:55 +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: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 21 October 1999 01:56 Subject: Re: I think partner has... >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: David Stevenson >>> >> I often play at a bridge club called Blundellsands. There is zero >>> >> chance of my calling the TD for MI: it really would not be suitable. >>.... ....................... \x/ ................... > Well, I suppose if I have to explain. I am a player on the fringes of >international selection. Of the people who play regularly in my County >I am one of the two best. I am known as very highly ranked TD. I am an >active Professional player, the only one known to them. For me to ask >for rulings on judgement matters in a club with a mediocre TD is not >suitable. > > But that does not apply to anyone else. Everyone else can call for >the TD with no problems, but it would not be suitable for me to do so. >I do not think that because of my personal ethics you should come to >conclusions about other players. > +=+ David's ethics are impeccable by any standard. The Blundellsands club was one of those quiet little havens of bridge where the game is enjoyed at an unsophisticated level - with advanced methods not one of life's expectations. I have not been there for a while but I hope it continues to be a place to play that kind of game. The TD there might just feel it a trifle gratuitous to be labelled worldwide as mediocre; he/she very likely has no pretensions to rank with David, and is probably doing a pretty fair unrewarded job in a style the club finds comfortable. It would reflect poorly on David were he suddenly to change into the kind of bigger fish that swims into shallow waters and then does a lot of splashing and flapping about. ~G~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 15:38:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA02230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:38:59 +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 PAA02225 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:38:48 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id GAA08211 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 06:38:06 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 06:38 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb 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: <1dwMOOhjFOMz9VMBpm1ccIUOu6qe@4ax.com> Pam wrote: > > Why is it so much more obvious that the right card from 32 playing high > encourage is the 3, than the 4 from 42 playing odd encourage! Clearly > all > O/E OR enc/disc players will discuss which card to play in these > situations after the first time it happens. > > > > > > It is a perfectly reasonable regulation with a logical basis. > > Must be some kind of male logic that says either pretending a 3 is high > is normal whereas pretending a 4 is odd is impossible or that players > will discuss alternatives to enc/disc but never to O/E. > The same kind of male logic that tells me "I am not allowed to play odd/even signals but I am allowed to play that for signalling purposes we rank our spot cards 35798642". The latter agreement is unambiguous, easy to remember and would cause no more MI than HiLo. Ie it is all right to play OE signals if I have discussed them properly but not if I haven't (I really don't mind that regulation). > Pam > (No cats, no dogs, 1 rat and 60 odd fish) > What's odd about the fish? Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 18:36:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA02471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:36:15 +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 SAA02466 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:36:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.227] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11eDhA-000Hkq-00; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:35:37 +0100 Message-ID: <000201bf1b9f$3ad12bc0$e35108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb: pots and kettles. Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:30:23 +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: 21 October 1999 03:24 Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb > Despite the superior stance taken by certain members of this >list it is my view > +=+ "O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, And foolish notion." +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 20:07:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 20:07:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA02580 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 20:06:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-254.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.254]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11130 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:06:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380DB237.76683547@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:14:47 +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: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu><94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com><3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu><37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be><37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr><37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be><002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis><3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu><3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com><3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991017234701.012ce978@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991018163007.012e186c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.19991019105343.007ac4d0@eiu.edu> <005001bf1ad2$2ebc2600$b03663c3@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In his inimitable style, David gave a perfect summary : David Burn wrote: > > > I am not sure about this. Herman's view seems to me to be that if a > player bids something, he does so in the hope that his partner will > know what it means. That hope is almost always grounded at least in > part on "special" partnership knowledge or experience, so the meaning > of the bid is almost always disclosable under L40. Completely correct summary of my position. > I would not go > quite as far as that Since you wrote "almost" above, it is difficult to see how you can go "not quite as far", but granted. > - I think that in certain rare cases, it is open > to a player to make a bid that he knows would pass the Grattan tests, > in the hope that his partner can work it out from general bridge > knowledge and / or because he is a very fine player. I have always said that we are speaking in general here, and that there are cases possible where there really is "no agreement". The partner from Outer Mongolia (actually, Inner Mongolia seems even more remote) springs to mind. > But I do agree > with Herman that when a player damages his opponents by creating the > impression that his partner may have X when his partner not only has Y > but was intending to show Y, there should be an automatic presumption > that redress is due. I don't think it's remotely fair that when > players do not know what is happening, they should be permitted - nay, > obliged, according to the Dennis - Landau School - to launch into some > lengthy rigmarole, and then be allowed to sit back and let the > opponents form their own wrong conclusions. > Well said. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 20:07:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 20:07:07 +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 UAA02579 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 20:06:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-254.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.254]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11120 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:06:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380DB0A8.B5C31086@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:08:08 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <3.0.6.32.19991018141701.007dee20@eiu.edu> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991019084117.006f375c@pop.cais.com> <380C8F36.E12BE5F@village.uunet.be> <380D8DD0.F468808A@meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > > > In either case, opponents are entitled to know this meaning, > > and the manner by which you find out the meaning does not > > matter. > > Very interesting a reading of L40b indeed! but let's go on: > > i am playing against you and you start a slam-bidding sequence; at some > time you bid Blackwood and I ask you for the "meaning" of your partner's > answer. You tell me 1 or 4 aces but I am not satisfied: What a shame to > have only such uncertain agreements! Try to tell me more; as you have 3 > aces, you will tell me your partner has got one ace, but don't think I > will be happy. What a shame to have confusing agreements which only mean > one card or another, ... or a fourth one, tell me which ace your partner > owns. And finally, to spare time, as your partner has made bids based on > partnership agreements, tell me please all that you know about his hand > whatever may be the way by which you know it, and i would be especially > interested to know precisely the cards you are sure your partner does > not own. > I am quite certain that everyone, including you, Jean Pierre, realises that there is a difference between what I wrote and what you are suggesting. The meaning of the Blackwood answer is "1 or 4 aces". We know this, and we can even check it on paper. The meaning of the call of 2He on a hand that holds 6 spades is NOT "hearts or spades". The meaning is "spades". The meaning is not "AKJ732 of Spades", perhaps not even "6 spades". The meaning is "a hand better suited for play in spades than anything else". That meaning has to be disclosed to opponents. In my example, you look in your hand, see 1 spade and 5 hearts and deduce that the meaning is "spades" not "hearts". In your example, you know that the meaning is "1 or 4 aces". The fact that you hold 2 aces allows you to deduce that partner has 1 ace, but that does not alter the meaning of his call. Both these examples are theoretical ones and I would not like to go on and on about them. I believe the difference between them is clear. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 20:07:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 20:07:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA02582 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 20:07:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-254.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.254]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11143 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:06:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380DB2FC.D776550D@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:18:04 +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: Nearest left thumb References: <$askiUAa7GD4EwHF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <1dwMOOhjFOMz9VMBpm1ccIUOu6qe@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Some of us see other cards that are played. If a 3 is played and a 2 > is missing there is always a chance that the 3 was high. Furthermore, > it is often the case that a signal need not be understood until two > cards are played, and if a 3 is followed by a 2 then it was clearly high > [assuming you are playing a simple high = encourage rather than some > more complex scenario]. > Well, the same is true in any system. If a 5 is played, and the 3 is missing, while the 246 are visible, it is possible that it was not positive, and if the 3 follows, this is also an indication that the first was not a true ON. I play a complex system with some partners, in which 234 of spades ask for clubs, 567 of spades ask spades, and 8910 ask hearts (all 234 ask for same colour - 8910 for same rank) Presumably that system would be outlawed in the ACBL ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 21:35:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 21:35:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02762 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 21:34:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from peds09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.238] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11eGUR-0005VB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:34:39 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: I think partner has... Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:16:43 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1bad$5f973360$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 > Well, I suppose if I have to explain. I am a player on the fringes of >international selection. Of the people who play regularly in my County >I am one of the two best. I am known as very highly ranked TD. I am an >active Professional player, the only one known to them. For me to ask >for rulings on judgement matters in a club with a mediocre TD is not >suitable. > To the EBU Selection Committee........Whose CV is this? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 23:21:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 23:21:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA03025 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 23:21:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-80.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.80]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05686 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:20:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380EF171.D162BB2A@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:56:49 +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: <3.0.6.32.19991018141701.007dee20@eiu.edu> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991019084117.006f375c@pop.cais.com> <380C8F36.E12BE5F@village.uunet.be> <000d01bf1af8$30606ae0$85f5abc3@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > (I am going up in the World - or is it you, David ?) > > It's all relative, Herman. You and I are in the same place. The world > is just going down. > > > > > I'm sure David will agree, and Grant-Eric-Mike will not. > > Up to a point, Lord Copper. In the scenario as originally described by > Eric, partner has bid 3H after (1H) Pass (2H), and I know that he is > trying to show either a solid minor or both black suits, but I do not > know which (and partner knows that I do not know which). Now, if I had > both minor suit kings, so that I knew he had the black suits, would I > tell the opponents this? I doubt it, for to do so would pass UI to > partner - he would be able to deduce, from the fact that I was certain > he had the black suits, that I had a high card in both minors. Of > course, if either of my opponents knew that we were playing Kudgill > Standard, then they could also make this deduction, and I would not > feel obliged to allow them to do so. In this case, I would tell the > opponents that I did not know what 3H meant, since that is in fact our > "agreement" per the "facts" as stated by Eric. We are, in effect, > playing that 3H shows "either the blacks or a solid minor, and partner > is supposed to guess which if he does not know". Of course, this would > be possible only if that were a licensed meaning for 3H under the > regulations of the Kudgill Club. > I agree with you and I concur that it is an exception to an (over-) generalisation. > However, if partner were an idiot who could not deduce anything from > anything, or if I knew him to be a scrupulously ethical player who > would know that I was giving him UI and who would not use it, then I > suppose I might just tell the opponents he had the black suits. At > least we could get on with the game that way, and at least the four > players at the table might be able to produce a result, instead of > letting some ham-fisted committee produce one for us. > > But that is not what happens in real life. If, say, I were to be > playing with a strange but expert partner, and LHO were to open 2H > (weak), and partner were to overcall a wholly undiscussed 3H, I would > alert 3H and explain that I did not know what it meant. If pressed, I > would perhaps say that whilst my partner and I had failed to assign > any explicit meaning to 3H, many experts played 3H as requesting a > stopper for 3NT, many others played it as Michaels, while some might > use it on a very strong distributional hand that did not want partner > to pass a takeout double. (I would not say any of this if my opponents > were also experts who knew it anyway; it would not help them.) To that > extent, I am with the Grants and Erics and Michaels of the world (I > suppose). > With a strange but expert partner "no agreement" would be correct, as long as you would mean "no agreements apart from basic principles which I am convinced you know too", and provided you would indeed explain those basic principles if they happen not to know them. > Where I differ from them is in the assumption that once I have acted > thus, no claim of damage for damage can be made against our > partnership. If 3H turns out to have been Michaels, and my RHO can > make a convincing case that he would have bid if he'd known for sure > that 3H was Michaels, but did not bid because he was afraid it might > be a strong three-suited takeout, then I believe he would be entitled > to redress if his side was damaged because he did not bid. As I see > it, L40 does not permit my partner to bid 3H knowing that I will not > be able to tell the opponents which of the various meanings I might > ascribe to it actually conforms to his hand. Or, if it does so permit, > then it guarantees the opponents redress from any damage that might > occur. > > David Burn -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 23:21:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 23:21:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA03026 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 23:21:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-80.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.80]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05701 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:20:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380EF2E2.9574ECE7@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 13:02:58 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199910201654.RAA24053@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > Why then does he not take the following step : > > "If I know, as a player, that I will be ruled against if I > > answer ""I don't know"", it is better for me to answer ""it > > is X"", thereby assuring that I will be ruled against in > > only the 50% of cases when it turns out that partner > > intended Y" > > Because to say "it is X" is a lie and some of us would rather > tell the truth (or what we know of the truth) rather than make > confident statements which we do not know to be true. If I must > be ruled against for saying "I don't know, it is either X or Y", > when that it is all I know, then I will be ruled against 100% > of the time. > Common fallacy, Robin. You are not obliged to tell the truth, you are obliged to disclose your agreements (yes, I am using the Law word - I mean "system"). You are not obliged to say that you are not certain. Therefor "it is X" is a correct response, even if you are not certain. Besides, how do you know it is a lie ? You must be at least 50.1% certain that you are telling the truth when you say "it is X", aren't you ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 23:21:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 23:21:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA03027 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 23:21:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-80.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.80]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05710 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:21:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380EF612.DEB9E2DD@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 13:16:34 +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: The costliest mistake Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Not a difficult ruling, but a funny story. A player picks up seven spades from AJ and a void in clubs. He bids to the five level in spades and gets doubled. Opponents cash two tricks and then lead a club. My player ruffs, and cashes the Ace of Spades, intending to claim on the next round for a nice +850. Director ! What ? You just ruffed a club and now you lead a club ! That Ace of spades was in fact the ace of clubs. Result, after revoke ruling : four down, -1100. The title of this post could also have been 'The cheepest pair of glasses". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 21 23:25:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 23:25:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA03085 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 23:25:27 +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 JAA15833 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:26:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991021092701.006fe44c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:27:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:58 PM 10/20/99 -0500, David wrote: >Marvin French writes: > >>Let me get this straight. The OS reaches a 3NT game through misuse of >>UI. Bad breaks would normally result in the game's defeat, -50, but the >>NOS revokes to let declarer makes his game, +400. >> >>When the TD/AC adjusts, who gets what? > >The NOS do not receive redress for self-inflicted damage. If they would >have been -120 against 2NT without the UI, they get the table result of >-400. I've made this point before, but I think it's important enough to repeat myself. As a result of the NOS's revoke, they took four tricks rather than five. The OS had nothing to do with the fact that the NOS revoked. The NOS's failure to get a fifth defensive trick is indeed self-inflicted damage. The fact that taking four tricks rather than five cost them 450 points rather than 30 points is not something the NOS could have done anything about. It is not self-inflicted. It is a direct consequence of the OS's infraction. When we determine the adjusted score, we require the NOS to "keep" any self-inflicted damage; we adjust only for any damage that resulted directly from the OS's infraction. The NOS should receive -150. Whether the OS should receive +120 or +150 is a point we have debated without coming to a consensus. My interpretation of "at all probable" (L12C2) suggests that they should get +150, but I concede that that is arguable either way. I see no logical argument for anyone receiving the score for 3NT=, a result that could not possibly have occurred absent the OS's infraction. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 01:13:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 01:13:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03453 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 01:13:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-75.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.75]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA04219; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002801bf1bd6$e9b70420$4b84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:14:01 -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 -----Original Message----- From: David Burn >Clearly I have failed to clarify my own position. I am not, as far as >I can see, a member of the De Wael School (or DWS, as we will >henceforth most certainly not call it). EDW? -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 02:01:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 02:01:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA03715 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 02:01:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12464; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:00:41 -0700 Message-Id: <199910211600.JAA12464@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:18:04 PDT." <380DB2FC.D776550D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:00:40 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > Some of us see other cards that are played. If a 3 is played and a 2 > > is missing there is always a chance that the 3 was high. Furthermore, > > it is often the case that a signal need not be understood until two > > cards are played, and if a 3 is followed by a 2 then it was clearly high > > [assuming you are playing a simple high = encourage rather than some > > more complex scenario]. > > > > Well, the same is true in any system. If a 5 is played, and > the 3 is missing, while the 246 are visible, it is possible > that it was not positive, and if the 3 follows, this is also > an indication that the first was not a true ON. > > I play a complex system with some partners, in which 234 of > spades ask for clubs, 567 of spades ask spades, and 8910 ask > hearts > (all 234 ask for same colour - 8910 for same rank) > > Presumably that system would be outlawed in the ACBL ? Actually, I'm not entirely sure whether it would be outlawed. The ACBL prohibits, except for the first discard: (1) dual-message carding strategies, (2) ordering other than right-side-up or upside-down. (Thus, a system where the cards are ranked 35798642, from more encouraging to less encouraging, is prohibited---only the orders 98765432 and 23456789 are allowed.) It could be argued that your system is a dual-message carding system since the 234 and 8910 are both "discouraging in spades" and "suit-preference". I don't know whether this is correct. It could also be argued that it violates the ordering restriction, since your ordering strategy makes the middle cards the most encouraging, which is neither right-side-up nor upside-down. You could get around this restriction by making 234 of spades ask for spades, 567 ask for clubs, 8910 ask for hearts---now the high cards are the encouraging ones, so the ordering prohibition isn't violated. So I suspect this signalling system *would* be illegal in the ACBL, but others might view it differently. The convention charts don't define their terms well enough for me to be 100% confident of the answer. However, it appears to me that this system has ethical pitfalls at least as bad as those attributed to odd/even signalling. Suppose you want to ask for clubs but have no card lower than a 5. Have you discussed exactly what to do in this situation? If you're not sure, you will find yourself thinking: Since I lack a low spot, should I play the lowest one I can and hope partner reads it as an attempt to make a club suit-preference signal? Or since I don't want spades continued, would it be better to play the higher spot to make sure partner gets the message that I don't like spades, and hope he figures out to shift to clubs and not hearts? If you've thoroughly discussed this type of situation, you will know what the correct signal is; but if not, you might hitch a little bit. Plus, since your system divides the cards into three groups (instead of just 2, as odd/even signalling does), there will be many more situations that have to be discussed. Specifically, there are six possible cases (instead of just one) where you're out of cards in one or two of the three groups, and that means a lot more cases where you have to discuss what to do when you're out of cards in the group you want to be able to signal with. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 04:18:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 04:18:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA04065 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 04:18:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-75.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.75]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA18896; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:18:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005b01bf1bf0$d5e63c80$4b84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:19:35 -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 for those of us who are Christians it is necessary to tell the truth. There are standards that transcend the laws of bridge. Lying and cheating are just not acceptable...regardless of what the FLB may say on the subject. There is a "good book" that overrules. (This applies equally for many of other religions or beliefs who aspire to similar standards...I by no means wish to exclude such "fellow travelers".) -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael >Robin Barker wrote: >> Because to say "it is X" is a lie and some of us would rather >> tell the truth (or what we know of the truth) rather than make >> confident statements which we do not know to be true. If I must >> be ruled against for saying "I don't know, it is either X or Y", >> when that it is all I know, then I will be ruled against 100% >> of the time. >> > >Common fallacy, Robin. > >You are not obliged to tell the truth, you are obliged to >disclose your agreements (yes, I am using the Law word - I >mean "system"). > >You are not obliged to say that you are not certain. > >Therefor "it is X" is a correct response, even if you are >not certain. >Besides, how do you know it is a lie ? You must be at least >50.1% certain that you are telling the truth when you say >"it is X", aren't you ? > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 04:36:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 04:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA04121 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 04:36:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:35:54 -0700 Message-ID: <034f01bf1bf2$ff340ca0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991021092701.006fe44c@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:35:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > >Marvin French writes: > > > >>Let me get this straight. The OS reaches a 3NT game through misuse of > >>UI. Bad breaks would normally result in the game's defeat, -50, but the > >>NOS revokes to let declarer makes his game, +400. > >> > >>When the TD/AC adjusts, who gets what? > > > > I've made this point before, but I think it's important enough to repeat > myself. > > As a result of the NOS's revoke, they took four tricks rather than five. > The OS had nothing to do with the fact that the NOS revoked. The NOS's > failure to get a fifth defensive trick is indeed self-inflicted damage. > > The fact that taking four tricks rather than five cost them 450 points > rather than 30 points is not something the NOS could have done anything > about. It is not self-inflicted. It is a direct consequence of the OS's > infraction. > > When we determine the adjusted score, we require the NOS to "keep" any > self-inflicted damage; we adjust only for any damage that resulted directly > from the OS's infraction. > > The NOS should receive -150. > > Whether the OS should receive +120 or +150 is a point we have debated > without coming to a consensus. My interpretation of "at all probable" > (L12C2) suggests that they should get +150, but I concede that that is > arguable either way. I see no logical argument for anyone receiving the > score for 3NT=, a result that could not possibly have occurred absent the > OS's infraction. > The argument is this: L12C2 is applied to the NOS only to redress direct damage caused by an infraction. The NOS had a fine result coming to them as a result of the UI misuse, namely +50. They threw this fine result away by revoking. The infraction did them no direct damage, they shot themselves in the foot. Result stands for them, -400, +150 for the OS. I believe this accords with Lille Interpretation #3 and the Lausanne CoP. Had the infraction done irreparable direct damage (3NT cold, the revoke only leading to -430), then -180 for the NOS, +180 for the OS. As I remember, the near-consensus was that you do not change the actual play of the cards (assuming the contract is in the same denomination, of course) unless the infraction had a possible (speaking bridgewise) effect on the play. Absent any such effect, the OS gets the benefit of a penalty suffered by the NOS when a score is assigned. Will someone involved with the WBF LC please either agree with this policy or correct me? Let's settle the matter once and for all. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 05:13:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 05:13:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04192 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 05:13:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-6-16.access.net.il [213.8.6.16] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA18876; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 21:12:50 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <380F65BC.5F170ED4@zahav.net.il> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 21:13:00 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: <199910201143.AA8505@gateway.tandem.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Wally wrote: > > > It appears that I turned off too soon; I did not mean to > >imply those thoughts were *yours*; I was using the 'ubiquitous you'. I > >apologize for this. > > ...... > And so we come full circle to Roman signals. In my view they lead to > ethical problems, because players will not allow for or discuss > difficult positions, and often will not discuss them even when they have > turned up. Despite the superior stance taken by certain members of this > list it is my view that over 90% of people reading BLML have played at > some time in the last six months with a partner with whom they have not > had exhaustive discussions in detail of all likely positions. They may > be new partners: they may be pickup partners: they may be players of the > KISS school who do not discuss in depth. If you are playing with such a > partner are you sure you have considered each and every convention and > agreement you have agreed to play to make sure there are no associated > ethical problems? Even when I KISS someone , and decide to play Roman signals , which is a very unusual part of this KISS , there can be an infraction the first time he meets the problem of 6-4-2..... I managed a lot of club tourneys and I was summoned very very seldom for such a break of tempo... It happened many times when players decided to play Ghestem , Coppenhagen , Landy and....all the other bloody 2 suited convention , and they forgot what suits it shows....... I trust mr. Blaiss ans mr. Cohen and mr. Schoder that it arose many times in the NABC clubs.......and that was the reason it was banned ; my opinion is it shoudn't , but I am not a member of their LC. I didn't get any answer how is that allowed in the Vander...Krehtz and related contests... Dany > > No, I did not think so. > > ------------------------ > > To save me having *another* argument, this means that I can see the > point of the ACBL and EBU bans, and they do have reason. However, I am > not suggesting I agree with them or that the arguments are convincing > enough and I would prefer not to be mis-quoted as saying so. Nor the > reverse, either. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 05:16:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 05:16:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04209 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 05:16:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5 [134.117.136.25]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.1a/8.9.1/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id PAA20809 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:16:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id PAA21404; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:16:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:16:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199910211916.PAA21404@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: A Very Important Ruling Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ok, so I'm being a little sarcastic. Brd 1 Dlr: N NSV S KT83 N E S W H A5 1C(1) P 1H(2) P D AJ62 P P C J73 S A97 S J652 (1) alerted, explained only as H T832 H K7 "could be short" D KT75 D 943 (2) less than 10 points, C 98 C KQ65 non-forcing, not alerted S Q4 N/S are playing a system where opening H QJ964 result: you need a five card suit to lead: D5 D Q8 +140NS open 1D, 1H or 1S. 1C is marked C AT42 as forcing, 13-15 if balanced, could be short. 1H was not alerted, the opponents did not ask. After the dummy was put down, the director was called. West complained that South had not given a complete explanation of 1C, that North had a hand different from what he had expected (longer diamonds than clubs, and not a psych/misbid) and that he might have made a different lead had he been properly informed. Before you ask, who are these young whippersnapper scientist/ terrorists, forgetting to alert 1H, ect... NS are two nice LOMs in their late seventies, with a grand total of maybe 60 mps between them accumulated during their 30 year career playing together. 1C "could be short", stayman and blackwood are their only conventions. Their "system" is almost strictly natural; indeed, one of the players seems to have a hate on for anything conventional. They are nice, but very weak, social players. On the other hand, West has 3600mps, East, 3900mps. After the hand was over, EW found out that 1H was non-forcing. E said that had they been aware that 1H was NF, they might have taken a call; West said that had he been given a proper explanation of 1C, he would never have led a diamond (please note the change from "might"). I realize that I may have coloured EW in somewhat less than pristine white; NS, lovable as they might well be, still failed to alert; EW, therefore, still deserve their day in court: as director, how would you rule: result stands, +140 NS, or adjust, +110 NS? Thanks! Tony (aka ac342) ps. I suppose you're wondering what W thought he would lead instead of the D5; the director (ok, ok, you forced it out of me--I was the director) actively decided not to bother asking. West had already seen the dummy; how could his responce not be tainted by this information? pps. in case this helps: +140NS was averagish; +110NS would gain EW exactly .5 matchpoints (a tie with one other +110NS), a small gain, but enough to tie section 1/2, rather than a clear 2nd, in a club game (worth at least an additional .20mps!). :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 05:46:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 04:53:49 +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 EAA04156 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 04:53:32 +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 LAA24320 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA29497; 21 Oct 99 11:48:19 -0700 Date: 21 Oct 99 11:46:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199910211148.AA29497@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Ok, having got that out of the way, we are back to the ethical > problems. Now, when I used the term cheating I was making a point but > I do not really believe it in the quoted case. > > The problem with 1NT 2S X Lebensohl = raise to 2NT is that > people do not consider the ethical imputations. Now, when my friend > got very upset over his opponents' actions, they had used the sequence > twice, once with good spades, left in on xx, once with bad spades, > taken out on Qxx. Do you think that pair is doing anything wrong? > > Of course they may be. But it is time that people on this list > realised that they very well may not be. You must not assume the > worst of people, and they may just be a pair that do not understand > the ethical ramifications. Use of UI is an ugly term because people > who hear it assume that it means deliberate use of UI: but it is an > accurate term so long as people realise it means nothing of the sort. > > In the quoted cases, one player may have given his partner UI by the > slowness of the double [or other expressions of doubt] without either > player realising it. Then the partner may have used the UI without > realising it, persuading himself on both occasions that he is making > "the right call". Without further evidence there is no reason to > suppose that players have done anything worse than not realised the > ethical problems. Players often don't. This brings us to the heart of the problem with EDW (thanks for the acronym, Craig!). If I understand the dialogue between HdW, DALB, and some others, Herman's position (*greatly* simplified for the purposes of this argument) is that if a player bids hearts meaning spades, then that meaning is necessarily a part of their system. Moving the argument to this case, that suggests that a player who hesitates before doubling because he has poorish spades in his raise to 2NT, or who happily doubles quickly to show a raise to 2NT with good spades has done so *because it is part of his imputed system*. I am quite willing to accept DWS's suggestion that the pair in question were not cheating; it is clear (to me) that there was improper communication, but I would be far from willing to suggest that this was 'pre-arranged'. Yet, as I understand the EDW, *everything* is assumed to be pre-arranged -- if I am asked to fill in to avoid a half-table, and sit down with an unknown partner, every bid I make is assumed by the EDW to be on the basis of a consistent partnership understanding. There is no room for 'unarranged', spontaneous flights of fancy -- it is assumed that there is agreement where in fact there was none. I am unwilling to apply the EDW logic in DWS' case. If I apply it at all, where should I draw the line? -- Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 05:50:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 05:50:01 +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 FAA04304 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 05:49:51 +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 MAA16114; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:49:12 -0700 Message-Id: <199910211949.MAA16114@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A Very Important Ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:16:18 PDT." <199910211916.PAA21404@freenet5.carleton.ca> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:49:12 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: > Ok, so I'm being a little sarcastic. > > Brd 1 > Dlr: N > NSV S KT83 N E S W > H A5 1C(1) P 1H(2) P > D AJ62 P P > C J73 > S A97 S J652 (1) alerted, explained only as > H T832 H K7 "could be short" > D KT75 D 943 (2) less than 10 points, > C 98 C KQ65 non-forcing, not alerted > S Q4 N/S are playing a system where > opening H QJ964 result: you need a five card suit to > lead: D5 D Q8 +140NS open 1D, 1H or 1S. 1C is marked > C AT42 as forcing, 13-15 if balanced, > could be short. > 1H was not alerted, the opponents did not ask. After the dummy > was put down, the director was called. West complained that South > had not given a complete explanation of 1C, that North had a hand > different from what he had expected (longer diamonds than clubs, > and not a psych/misbid) and that he might have made a different > lead had he been properly informed. > Before you ask, who are these young whippersnapper scientist/ > terrorists, forgetting to alert 1H, ect... > NS are two nice LOMs in their late seventies, with a grand total > of maybe 60 mps between them accumulated during their 30 year > career playing together. 1C "could be short", stayman and blackwood > are their only conventions. Their "system" is almost strictly > natural; indeed, one of the players seems to have a hate on for > anything conventional. They are nice, but very weak, social players. > On the other hand, West has 3600mps, East, 3900mps. After the hand > was over, EW found out that 1H was non-forcing. E said that had they > been aware that 1H was NF, they might have taken a call; West said > that had he been given a proper explanation of 1C, he would never > have led a diamond (please note the change from "might"). > I realize that I may have coloured EW in somewhat less than pristine > white; NS, lovable as they might well be, still failed to alert; EW, > therefore, still deserve their day in court: as director, > how would you rule: result stands, +140 NS, or adjust, +110 NS? > Thanks! > Tony (aka ac342) It's clear to me that N-S committed an infraction, and that E-W, who asked a question about 1C and didn't get a complete answer, and who had no reason to think they needed to protect themselves by asking a question about 1H, are owed an adjustment if there was actually damage. (Even if 1D was marked as 5+ on N-S's convention card---E-W wouldn't have had a reason to look for this since 1D wasn't bid.) The damage question isn't clear. First, it appears that any other lead but a club would have led to +140. A heart lead would stop declarer from taking the play to lose two heart tricks (leading the queen of hearts from hand for a finesse). A spade lead would give declarer an extra spade trick the same way the diamond lead gave declarer a trick there. Next, if I had been given the correct information that 1C could sometimes conceal a longer diamond suit, I don't think that would have steered me away from a diamond lead and toward a club lead. Maybe it would have---I don't know. My experience is that "could-be-short" 1C bids are natural a lot of the time, and leading a club on the hope that the bidder really doesn't have clubs is a losing strategy. It's hard to tell what the "at all probably" and "likely" results would have been without knowing how the actual play went, since that would give us clues as to what would probably have happened. If I had to rule on just the information presented, without knowing the players or being able to ask them questions or knowing how the play went, I'd assign a split score +110/-140. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 06:16:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 06:16:50 +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 GAA04367 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 06:16:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.238.167] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11eOdT-0001OR-00; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 21:16:31 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01bf1c00$9384e0c0$a7eeabc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Craig Senior" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <005b01bf1bf0$d5e63c80$4b84d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 21:12:16 +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 Craig wrote: > Herman for those of us who are Christians it is necessary to tell the truth. > There are standards that transcend the laws of bridge. Lying and cheating > are just not acceptable...regardless of what the FLB may say on the subject. > There is a "good book" that overrules. (This applies equally for many of > other religions or beliefs who aspire to similar standards...I by no means > wish to exclude such "fellow travelers".) Well, we can add to the hierarchy mentioned in another thread easily enough. There are Tournament Directors, the Director In Charge, the Chief Tournament Director - and the Great Omnipotent Director. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 10:28:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:28:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04962 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:28:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from p4es09a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.121.79] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11eSYj-0006GW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 17:27:53 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A Very Important Ruling Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 01:34:29 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1c25$33a85220$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: A. L. Edwards To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 8:36 PM Subject: A Very Important Ruling >Ok, so I'm being a little sarcastic. > >Brd 1 >Dlr: N >NSV S KT83 N E S W > H A5 1C(1) P 1H(2) P > D AJ62 P P > C J73 > S A97 S J652 (1) alerted, explained only as > H T832 H K7 "could be short" > D KT75 D 943 (2) less than 10 points, > C 98 C KQ65 non-forcing, not alerted > S Q4 N/S are playing a system where > opening H QJ964 result: you need a five card suit to > lead: D5 D Q8 +140NS open 1D, 1H or 1S. 1C is marked > C AT42 as forcing, 13-15 if balanced, > could be short. > 1H was not alerted, the opponents did not ask. After the dummy > was put down, the director was called. West complained that South > had not given a complete explanation of 1C, that North had a hand > different from what he had expected (longer diamonds than clubs, > and not a psych/misbid) and that he might have made a different > lead had he been properly informed. > Before you ask, who are these young whippersnapper scientist/ >terrorists, forgetting to alert 1H, ect... >NS are two nice LOMs in their late seventies, with a grand total >of maybe 60 mps between them accumulated during their 30 year >career playing together. 1C "could be short", stayman and blackwood >are their only conventions. Their "system" is almost strictly >natural; indeed, one of the players seems to have a hate on for >anything conventional. They are nice, but very weak, social players. > On the other hand, West has 3600mps, East, 3900mps. After the hand >was over, EW found out that 1H was non-forcing. E said that had they >been aware that 1H was NF, they might have taken a call; West said >that had he been given a proper explanation of 1C, he would never >have led a diamond (please note the change from "might"). >I realize that I may have coloured EW in somewhat less than pristine >white; NS, lovable as they might well be, still failed to alert; EW, >therefore, still deserve their day in court: as director, >how would you rule: result stands, +140 NS, or adjust, +110 NS? >Thanks! > Tony (aka ac342) While the explanation of the 1C style was scanty, I noted that "1C is marked as forcing, 13-15 if balanced,could be short." This indicates that there was a reasonably well completed CC. East said that had they known that 1H was NF forcing they might have bid. East had good reason to believe it was NF, it had been passed round to him. He could have asked without damage to his side. E/W would be unlucky to find S with 11pts. Surely East expected West to be stronger than he was. I think this pair were looking for two bites of the cherry. Even after passing if his partner before leading had asked, East could have asked the TD to reopen the auction L21B1 had he wished to do so. It is, looking at the hands inconceivable that W would wish to bid, but E could balance with a dbl, and W might chose to play in 1NT(probably doubled) and if he was lucky might make 6 tricks. It is true that N/S misinformed by a failure to alert 1H as NF, but I would not award redress for damage to E/W.With this particular N/S I would probably warn about the sins of failure to alert, but I could fine if I thought it right to do so. Result stands. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 12:39:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:39:10 +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 MAA05192 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:39:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegii.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.82]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAB22211 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:38:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991021223631.012ef580@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:36:31 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A Very Important Ruling In-Reply-To: <199910211916.PAA21404@freenet5.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:16 PM 10/21/99 -0400, Tony wrote: >I realize that I may have coloured EW in somewhat less than pristine >white; NS, lovable as they might well be, still failed to alert; EW, >therefore, still deserve their day in court: as director, >how would you rule: result stands, +140 NS, or adjust, +110 NS? >Thanks! > Tony (aka ac342) > >ps. I suppose you're wondering what W thought he would lead instead > of the D5; the director (ok, ok, you forced it out of me--I was the > director) actively decided not to bother asking. West had already > seen the dummy; how could his responce not be tainted by this > information? >pps. in case this helps: +140NS was averagish; +110NS would gain > EW exactly .5 matchpoints (a tie with one other +110NS), a small > gain, but enough to tie section 1/2, rather than a clear 2nd, > in a club game (worth at least an additional .20mps!). :-) Was there an infraction? Yes, I consider the failure to alert the 1H call to be a clear infraction. This is a very unusual treatment, and one which the opponents would not expect to face. Arguably, it was the second infraction, although the case that the explanation of the 1C call was inadequate is fairly borderline. Were the opponents damaged by the failure to alert the 1H bid? Indirectly, perhaps. Had the bid been properly alerted and explained, then East might have been more likely to balance. As it was, E might well have concluded that the pass of the "forcing" response was too great a gift to pass up. An interesting problem: are EW entitled to redress if they (wrongly) infer from the failure to alert that the opponents have erred? I don't think so, but I'm open to argument on the point. If we decide that the explanation of the 1C bid was an infraction (I'm inclined not to), then we must raise the issue of damages from that MI as well. Here, the damage seems highly questionable. In fact, the North holding is not inconsistent with the explanation "could be short", which certainly suggests the possibility of better/longer diamonds than clubs. Why on earth would the more complete explanation have suggested an alternative opening lead? That West insists he would have done something else is irrelevant unless he can offer a plausible alternative and accompany it with some rationale for why the alternative would have been more attractive. From a bridge standpoint, I don't see what scenario he might offer. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 12:45:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:45:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot0-63.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-63.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA05219 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:45:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-63.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA29902 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:44:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:44:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It's been more than a few years, but I still remember learning about signalling during lunchtime bridge at work. A coworker said something like, "Play a big card if you like my lead". My next question was "What if I don't have a big card?". I hadn't been playing bridge very long and this seemed an obvious question. I find it most improbable that a pair would agree on odd/even signals without discussing what to do without the "right" card. Even if they failed to discuss this point it seems unconceivable that such a discussion would not take place after the first time someone was stuck. If you factor in the fact that they're using anything but "Standard signals", the chance of this last has to be about nil. This last paragraph is the point I should have made in my first post. Odd/even signalling should never cause additional UI issues with the possible exception of their first use. Pam apparently appreciates the fact a 3 is not really high and that a 4 is not really odd. David appreciates the fact that a 3 could be intended as high if the next card is a 2; it seems *odd* ;-) that he does not appreciate the fact that a 7 could be intended as even if the next card is a 3. I don't believe gender has anything to do with it! I suppose I should temper all this with the fact that I've never played odd/even (they're illegal here, remember!) nor played against anyone who has. Since most folks get a chance to signal on half the hands they play, it just doesn't seem logical that any reasonably simple method would cause a problem after a few hands. Bruce bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au wrote: : Pam wrote: :>On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:15:06 +0100, DWS wrote: :>> :>> Not at all. When you wish to play an even card from 753 or an odd :>>card from 642 there is no card that you can play that gives the correct :>>signal and you may easily hesitate while wondering what to do about it. :>>When you wish to play a high card from 32 or a low card from 98 there is :>>a clear and obvious card to play and there is no reason to hesitate. :>> :>> Whether or not the regulation is correct is a different question, but :>>there is no doubt that a method that means you may not have a card to :>>play will lead to problems that a method that always gives you a card to :>>play will not. :> :>I'm sorry but I cannot see this. If you play high encourage and low :>discourage you may well not have a card to play so you do the best you :>can (from 32 encourage with the 3 and discourage with the 2). When :>playing odd to encourage and even to discourage, from 42 you may not have :>the right card to play so you do your best (4 to encourage, 2 to :>discourage). Why different? The 3 isn't an encouraging card in the first :>case and the 4 isn't an encouraging card in the second! : Some of us see other cards that are played. If a 3 is played and a 2 : is missing there is always a chance that the 3 was high. Furthermore, : it is often the case that a signal need not be understood until two : cards are played, and if a 3 is followed by a 2 then it was clearly high : [assuming you are playing a simple high = encourage rather than some : more complex scenario]. :>Why is it so much more obvious that the right card from 32 playing high :>encourage is the 3, than the 4 from 42 playing odd encourage! Clearly all :>O/E OR enc/disc players will discuss which card to play in these :>situations after the first time it happens. : That's not the point: I am not saying that I would ban these signals : necessarily, and I am sure there are solutions. The point is that : without further discussion, there is always a high card: there is not : always an odd card. High is relative: odd is absolute. :>> It is a perfectly reasonable regulation with a logical basis. :>Must be some kind of male logic that says either pretending a 3 is high :>is normal whereas pretending a 4 is odd is impossible or that players :>will discuss alternatives to enc/disc but never to O/E. : I am surprised that you suggest females cannot tell that 3s are higher : than 2s. Most of the females of my acquaintance are intelligent enough : to realise that. :>I think I'll just stick to distributional. : -- : David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ : Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 22 12:52:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:52:36 +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 MAA05238 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:52:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegii.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.82]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA23932 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991021224939.012f1868@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:49:39 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Illegal redouble? In-Reply-To: <380EEF65.CBC142F0@omicron.comarch.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:48 PM 10/21/99 +0200, Konrad 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. > The TD got it right. NS should have called the director, but it would have made no practical difference. Either they would have won 13 tricks on a non-club lead, or been adjusted to 13 tricks after the club lead. Why should there be a split score? NS did nothing illegal, and it is perfectly legitimate (if a trifle unsporting) for them to try and make the best score possible by exploiting the opponents' error (UI). After all, they took at least a slight risk. West _might_ have held a hand from which a club was the only logical choice, in which case the redouble would have cost hugely compared to the runout to 7nt. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 16:02:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:02:37 +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 QAA05526 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:02:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa572406 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 15:58:51 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-221-104.tmns.net.au ([139.134.221.104]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Conscious-MailRouter V2.5 3/362333); 22 Oct 1999 15:58:51 Message-ID: <030201bf1ce1$6d494180$68dd868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: A Very Important Ruling Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:01:50 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Dennis wrote: >Was there an infraction? Yes, I consider the failure to alert the 1H call >to be a clear infraction. This is a very unusual treatment, and one which >the opponents would not expect to face. Is that how one determines if 1H is alertable? I would have thought it depends on the Alerting Regulations which apply. As Tony Edwards' email address seems to be Canadian, I guess the ACBL Alert Procedure applies. If so, Part VI specifically states that this particular 1H response to 1C is alertable. I don't think there was damage. On a club lead, nine tricks are almost certain to eventuate (just play all thirteen tricks, if you don't believe me). Heart and spade leads do as much damage as a diamond lead. I think it's curious that an East with so many masterpoints (surely he couldn't have obtained all of them simply by terrorising the opponents?) didn't double 1H anyway. Perhaps he thought RHO had fallen asleep and inadvertently passed. I'm being a bit unfair to East here; it's West who emerges from the story as the sort of player from whom we should protect new players. Here's an unusual, not-quite-fair idea for a possible suspension for repeated offenders; such players may play duplicate but pairs with less than x masterpoints may choose to accept 50% scores and wander off for a coffee break rather than have to play against such a player. Do the Laws permit a C & E hearing to make such a decision? Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 16:42:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:42:57 +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 QAA05560 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:42:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.165] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11eYPM-000DUb-00; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 07:42:36 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01bf1c58$9b4edd80$a55208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Craig Senior" , "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 22:55:34 +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 Burn ; Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: 21 October 1999 16:40 Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Burn > >>Clearly I have failed to clarify my own position. I am not, as far as >>I can see, a member of the De Wael School (or DWS, as we will >>henceforth most certainly not call it). > > EDW? > >-- >Craig Senior > +=+ Hall De Wael. +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 17:36:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:36:12 +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 RAA05648 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:36:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.163] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11eZEw-000Eoi-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:35:54 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01bf1c60$0daf65a0$a55208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 07:52:18 +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 Mailing List Date: 22 October 1999 04:34 Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb > > >I find it most improbable that a pair would agree on odd/even signals >without discussing what to do without the "right" card. Even if they >failed to discuss this point it seems unconceivable that such a >discussion would not take place after the first time someone was stuck. >If you factor in the fact that they're using anything but "Standard >signals", the chance of this last has to be about nil. > +=+ This is the core message that should go out. It applies even for adventurous ladies at the Blundellsands Bridge Club. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 17:36:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:36:13 +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 RAA05649 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:36:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.163] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11eZEx-000Eoi-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:35:55 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01bf1c60$0e573e60$a55208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:24:49 +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: 21 October 1999 19:57 Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >Marvin French writes: >> > >> >>Let me get this straight. The OS reaches a 3NT game through misuse of >> >>UI. Bad breaks would normally result in the game's defeat, -50, but the >> >>NOS revokes to let declarer makes his game, +400. >> >> >> >>When the TD/AC adjusts, who gets what? >> > >Will someone involved with the WBF LC please either agree with this policy >or correct me? Let's settle the matter once and for all. > +=+ I think a member of the WBFLC can only express a personal view. The WBFLC has discussed what the principle should be and has published this in its CoP; the second stage is the application of it to cases, and that is an Appeal Committee function, so I would say we await approval of some examples of the Laws and CoP in action before the WBF can be said to have led on the question currently in debate between Marvin and Eric. In any case, if the WBFLC is to say anything on the subject as a body, that can only be agreed at its next meetings. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 17:52:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:52:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com [139.134.5.173]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA05719 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:52:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id wa569812 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:49:07 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-221-185.tmns.net.au ([139.134.221.185]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Retiring-MailRouter V2.5 13/330098); 22 Oct 1999 17:49:06 Message-ID: <049201bf1cf0$d59c9200$68dd868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:51:27 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Moore wrote: >I find it most improbable that a pair would agree on odd/even signals >without discussing what to do without the "right" card. Even if they >failed to discuss this point it seems unconceivable that such a >discussion would not take place after the first time someone was stuck. >If you factor in the fact that they're using anything but "Standard >signals", the chance of this last has to be about nil. > >This last paragraph is the point I should have made in my first post. >Odd/even signalling should never cause additional UI issues with the >possible exception of their first use. >I suppose I should temper all this with the fact that I've never >played odd/even (they're illegal here, remember!) nor played against >anyone who has. Since most folks get a chance to signal on half the >hands they play, it just doesn't seem logical that any reasonably >simple method would cause a problem after a few hands. > I played odd/even signals for several years in the 1980s. I agree with DWS on the issue of wehether it's OK to ban them. One reason I gave up playing O/E signals is that I found it tough to play in tempo when I had the wrong cards. Especially tough when different people played different versions of O/E signals, which is an undeniable fact. However, playing natural signals, I personally had no problem playing in tempo. This thread began when Anne asked if it's OK to describe your card play arrangements (or more specifically, your leads) as "random". Anne felt that random leads should not be legal. Like Roger and Adam, I think they most definitely should be allowed. Not necessarily in a long term partnership, but allowed in general. To give two examples: (WARNING: long winded stuff follows) A few years ago I was partnering someone who'd never played bridge before, in a serious Red Masterpoint event full of good players with a spattering of internationals. At first Brad's and my signals were, perforce, random and explained as such. After we'd wonour first three matches, someone explained "fourth best leads" to Brad. At Brad's request, I added them to our system card, which was, I admit, scantily completed. My excuse is that it's difficult to fill in the card properly when your entire bidding agreements comprise me saying: "Brad, if you can't work out what to bid, then bid the same suit as me but with the number in your bid being one higher than mine if you have a few aces and kings, otherwise pass. But whatever you do, do it quickly." BTW, we lost our fifth match and dropped out of the prizemoney positions because Brad didn't know that you were allowed to ruff. This true story shows that not all duplicate bridge players are the same as each other. I'm not sure that I would have risked such a partnership had I been on American soil. My second example is my annual Congress with my mother, well away from the big smoke of Sydney. After two sessions of lots of "discards of twos of her strong suits" by my mother this year, I ventured to ask what our signals were. "We throw away whatever we don't want", my Mum replied, "nobody ever looks at the little cards anyway these days". Many years earlier she had taught me bridge, with high cards being encouraging. My point is that this year we were a partnership happily playing bridge, coming 4th out of 40, yet I had had no idea that all our signals were meaningless (lucky noone asked). Her words meant exactly what she had said. Some of you might think Mum implied that "we discard the suit we don't want led" but that's not what she said and not what she meant. Mum simply meant that we throw away a card if we don't want it in our hand any more, i.e. if it's occupying space in our hand that could be more gainly occuped by one of the other cards. The card played must not convey any meaning to partner. David Burn may be interested to know that the even tempo with which my mother led or followed suit was truly exemplary, unlike some internationals. Please note that my mother does not have Alzheimers or any memory problems; it's just that after decades of bridge she and her friends have decided that bridge is a better game if you eliminate the unnecessary complexity of signalling agreements. No doubt some of you BLMLers share her sentiments to some degree; otherwise you'd all be playing encrypted signals and hand pattern signals, or at the very least lobbying to be allowed to play them. BTW, I don't think David Burn's hierarchy of TDs, with the Omnipotent TD at the top, applies when you're playing bridge with your mother. The TD at the Congress was a top WBF TD (Richard Grenside) but he knew that for one day I had higher guidance to follow. And there are players out there with Alzheimers and the like. Should we regulate bridge so that they are not allowed to play because their card play, leads, signals or whatever is of necessity random? Summarising, I don't think Anne Jones should regulate to prohibit "random" carding agreements from being an acceptable form of duplicate bridge. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 18:01:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:01:31 +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 SAA05752 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:01:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pb89.krakow.ppp.tpnet.pl [212.160.3.89]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA12016 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:04:10 +0200 Message-ID: <381019A6.67D5A8F2@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:00:38 +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: Re: Illegal redouble? References: <3.0.1.32.19991021224939.012f1868@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes, I was already convinced by other posts that the redouble was legal. Thank you anyway. Konrad From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 18:04:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:04:22 +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 SAA05768 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:04:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.175] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11eZgF-000Flh-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:04:07 +0100 Message-ID: <005901bf1c63$fea48c80$a55208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Illegal redouble? Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:03:09 +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: 22 October 1999 04:38 Subject: Re: Illegal redouble? >At 12:48 PM 10/21/99 +0200, Konrad wrote: >> >>Hi folks! >> >>NS - a good, competent pair > +=+ competent if you say so; 'good' looks like an over-statement. +=+ > >> Now NS made a mistake - they did not call the TD. >>Instead, the redoubled being sure that West "cannot" >>lead a club right now. > +=+ Did they say this was so? If they did they are an offending side too. I would then be considering Law 11A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 18:32:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:32:25 +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 SAA05821 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:32:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pb208.krakow.ppp.tpnet.pl [212.160.3.208]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA18307 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:34:09 +0200 Message-ID: <381020AD.62A4872E@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:30:37 +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: Re: A Very Important Ruling References: <199910211916.PAA21404@freenet5.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Assuming for the moment that the explanation of 1C was an infraction let's see if there was any damage in play. I see no way (correct me if I'm wrong - it's early in the morning :)) to keep NS to 8 tricks. Did declarer play the hQ and then low from dummy? As to the damage in bidding: East asked no questions about the 1H response - this wouldn't cost him mush. Second, what contract would the EW pair want to play? Or would they want to push NS to 1NT where 150 is available? Ruling: result stands plus a warning to the NS pair for their failure to alert. ************************************************************************** - 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 Fri Oct 22 18:34:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:34:23 +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 SAA05836 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:34:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.78] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11ea9I-000H6V-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:34:08 +0100 Message-ID: <000801bf1c68$307c6b20$4e5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:33:20 +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: 22 October 1999 08:24 Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne >-----Original Message----- >From: Marvin L. French >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 21 October 1999 19:57 >Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne > > >>Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>> >Marvin French writes: >>> > >>> >>Let me get this straight. The OS reaches a 3NT game through misuse of >>> >>UI. Bad breaks would normally result in the game's defeat, -50, but the >>> >>NOS revokes to let declarer makes his game, +400. >>> >> >>> >>When the TD/AC adjusts, who gets what? >>> > >>Will someone involved with the WBF LC please either agree with this policy >>or correct me? Let's settle the matter once and for all. >> >+=+ I think a member of the WBFLC can >only express a personal view. The WBFLC >has discussed what the principle should >be and has published this in its CoP; the >second stage is the application of it to >cases, and that is an Appeal Committee >function, so I would say we await >approval of some examples of the Laws >and CoP in action before the WBF can be >said to have led on the question currently >in debate between Marvin and Eric. > In any case, if the WBFLC is to say >anything on the subject as a body, that >can only be agreed at its next meetings. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 19:20:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA05972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:20:35 +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 TAA05967 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:20:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-123.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.123]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA12884 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:20:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <380F1ABE.7FCA7304@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:53:02 +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: I think partner has... References: <01bf1bad$5f973360$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > Well, I suppose if I have to explain. I am a player on the fringes of > >international selection. Of the people who play regularly in my County > >I am one of the two best. I am known as very highly ranked TD. I am an > >active Professional player, the only one known to them. For me to ask > >for rulings on judgement matters in a club with a mediocre TD is not > >suitable. > > > > To the EBU Selection Committee........Whose CV is this? I was thinking of commenting on slightly different lines : > > I am a player on the fringes of international selection. Is this person moving to Wales ? > > Of the people who play regularly in my County I am one of the two best. Must be Clwyd then ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 19:44:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:48:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from jaguars.cableinet.net (jaguars-int.cableinet.net [193.38.113.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA05874 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:48:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 29589 invoked from network); 22 Oct 1999 07:28:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.146.222) by jaguars with SMTP; 22 Oct 1999 07:28:07 -0000 Message-ID: <381024FB.5E4CC729@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:48:59 +0100 From: masterit Reply-To: masterit@cableinet.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: directing Subject: a very important ruling? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's an unusual, not-quite-fair idea for a possible suspension for repeated offenders; such players may play duplicate but pairs with less than x masterpoints may choose to accept 50% scores and wander off for a coffee break rather than have to play against such a player. Do the Laws permit a C & E hearing to make such a decision? Peter Gill Australia. you may well find some 3 hour coffee breaks and 50% overall scores (might work out well in a h/cap event) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 20:20:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:20:47 +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 UAA06149 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:20:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-213.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.213]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27802 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:20:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <381032F0.4EA5E37D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:48:32 +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: <005b01bf1bf0$d5e63c80$4b84d9ce@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > Herman for those of us who are Christians it is necessary to tell the truth. > There are standards that transcend the laws of bridge. Lying and cheating > are just not acceptable...regardless of what the FLB may say on the subject. > There is a "good book" that overrules. (This applies equally for many of > other religions or beliefs who aspire to similar standards...I by no means > wish to exclude such "fellow travelers".) > Sorry Craig, won't wash. As a good Christian, you would also tell the opponents you hold the Ace of Spades, and show them your other cheek, eh, hand, would you. Whenever you are playing bridge, you are constantly lying. Deception is an accepted part of the game. And then again, it is not lying when you do not tell them that you are uncertain of something, it is omission. It is no crime to omit something you are not legally bound to say. Let's return to the discussion if the Laws (of the FLB, not of The Book) make you legally bound to tell the opponents about your doubt. I find no Law that says so. And even "thou shalt not tell untruths", or however it is formulated, will do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 20:20:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:20:48 +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 UAA06150 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:20:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-213.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.213]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27808 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:20:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <381034F3.C86F5FBF@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:57:07 +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: Nearest left thumb References: <199910211600.JAA12464@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > I play a complex system with some partners, in which 234 of > > spades ask for clubs, 567 of spades ask spades, and 8910 ask > > hearts > > (all 234 ask for same colour - 8910 for same rank) > > > > Presumably that system would be outlawed in the ACBL ? > > Actually, I'm not entirely sure whether it would be outlawed. The > ACBL prohibits, except for the first discard: (1) dual-message carding > strategies, (2) ordering other than right-side-up or upside-down. > (Thus, a system where the cards are ranked 35798642, from more > encouraging to less encouraging, is prohibited---only the orders > 98765432 and 23456789 are allowed.) > > It could be argued that your system is a dual-message carding system > since the 234 and 8910 are both "discouraging in spades" and > "suit-preference". I don't know whether this is correct. It could > also be argued that it violates the ordering restriction, since your > ordering strategy makes the middle cards the most encouraging, which > is neither right-side-up nor upside-down. You could get around this > restriction by making 234 of spades ask for spades, 567 ask for clubs, > 8910 ask for hearts---now the high cards are the encouraging ones, so > the ordering prohibition isn't violated. > > So I suspect this signalling system *would* be illegal in the ACBL, > but others might view it differently. The convention charts don't > define their terms well enough for me to be 100% confident of the > answer. > Silly of the ACBL, but OK. > However, it appears to me that this system has ethical pitfalls at > least as bad as those attributed to odd/even signalling. Suppose you > want to ask for clubs but have no card lower than a 5. Well, there are 9 cards in the pack that one can ask clubs with : 234 of spades, 567 of clubs, and 8910 of diamonds. > Have you > discussed exactly what to do in this situation? If you're not sure, > you will find yourself thinking: Since I lack a low spot, should I > play the lowest one I can and hope partner reads it as an attempt to > make a club suit-preference signal? When we don't want anything, we usually jettison a card that asks for the trump suit, or something other that can't be misread. > Or since I don't want spades > continued, would it be better to play the higher spot to make sure > partner gets the message that I don't like spades, and hope he figures > out to shift to clubs and not hearts? If you've thoroughly discussed > this type of situation, you will know what the correct signal is; but > if not, you might hitch a little bit. Plus, since your system divides > the cards into three groups (instead of just 2, as odd/even signalling > does), there will be many more situations that have to be discussed. > Specifically, there are six possible cases (instead of just one) where > you're out of cards in one or two of the three groups, and that means > a lot more cases where you have to discuss what to do when you're out > of cards in the group you want to be able to signal with. > > -- Adam Combine this with a full adherence to L16 : if partner calls for clubs, I switch clubs, whatever speed it is done, then there is never any problem. I have often called on opponents who did not switch the suit their partner requested in this fashion, and I have once been awarded an adjusted score. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 20:20:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:20:47 +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 UAA06152 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:20:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-213.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.213]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27823 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:20:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <381036BD.910A80BE@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:04:45 +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: Nearest left thumb References: <199910211148.AA29497@gateway.tandem.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM wrote: > > > This brings us to the heart of the problem with EDW (thanks for > the acronym, Craig!). If I understand the dialogue between HdW, DALB, > and some others, Herman's position (*greatly* simplified for the purposes > of this argument) is that if a player bids hearts meaning spades, then > that meaning is necessarily a part of their system. greatly simplified, and I would change the word necessarily into "presumably", but exact. > Moving the argument > to this case, that suggests that a player who hesitates before doubling > because he has poorish spades in his raise to 2NT, or who happily > doubles quickly to show a raise to 2NT with good spades has done so > *because it is part of his imputed system*. > That's quite a big move. > I am quite willing to accept DWS's suggestion that the pair in > question were not cheating; it is clear (to me) that there was improper > communication, but I would be far from willing to suggest that this was > 'pre-arranged'. Yet, as I understand the EDW, *everything* is assumed > to be pre-arranged -- if I am asked to fill in to avoid a half-table, > and sit down with an unknown partner, every bid I make is assumed by the > EDW to be on the basis of a consistent partnership understanding. There > is no room for 'unarranged', spontaneous flights of fancy -- it is > assumed that there is agreement where in fact there was none. > You are greatly oversimplifying. > I am unwilling to apply the EDW logic in DWS' case. If I apply > it at all, where should I draw the line? > At some point of common sense, I should hope. You are always allowed to explain your case. The director shall listen, and determine whether or not the meaning of the call was more restricted than what would be generally assumed to fall under "no agreements". I don't believe that if you play with a total stranger, you will make calls that can be doubtful. I am using the transfer example because it is so clear. But if you are absolutely uncertain whether or not you have agreed transfers, you will most probably not make a transfer call on this round, but rather bid 3NT or 4He or something. If you bid 2He on a hand with spades, I assume that transfer is your system and no amount of "but we did not agree on this" can convince me not to rule MI. On the other part of the spectrum are sequences that are really undiscussed, even by Meckwell. "no agreement" IS a proper answer for those ones. Somewhere in the middle there is a line to be drawn, but that is a case-by-case job for the TD and the AC. > -- > Wally Farley > Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 20:41:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:20:46 +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 UAA06148 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:20:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-213.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.213]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27787 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:20:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <381031E8.B1B86A99@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:44:08 +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: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <002801bf1bd6$e9b70420$4b84d9ce@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > > >Clearly I have failed to clarify my own position. I am not, as far as > >I can see, a member of the De Wael School (or DWS, as we will > >henceforth most certainly not call it). > > EDW? > Sorry Craig, but I am not french-speaking. Flemish for De Wael School is ... De Wael School (the OO sound is not the same, but the spelling is) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 22:25:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:25:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA06556 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:24:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from p5bs02a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.162.92] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11edkM-0004oz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 05:24:38 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 13:22:15 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1c88$1340b140$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 Gill To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 9:05 AM Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Peter Gill wrote. >And there are players out there with Alzheimers and the like. Should we >regulate bridge so that they are not allowed to play because their card >play, leads, signals or whatever is of necessity random? No, of course not. > >Summarising, I don't think Anne Jones should regulate to prohibit "random" >carding agreements from being an acceptable form of duplicate bridge. Rest assured Anne Jones will not be regulating to prohibit anything. As you pointed out, this thread started as referring to lead styles, and turned a corner to discuss signalling. It has all been very interesting and I appreciate that so have contributed so much. You will recall that I spoke of agreements to have no agreement as to the meaning of led cards. I have had several private replies that were pertainant to the original thread, and it is obvious to me that truly random leads should be acceptable. However, I would like to hear your opinion of a practice which is common with players who are not strong, but who have been playing in regular partnerships for many years. Well completed CCs show that their lead style is "standard". In practice their style is anything but. Challenged they will argue that they never know what partner has for a particular lead, and that it is in accord with L75B. We are keen to record and regulate psyches, and misbids in the same manner, but I have never heard that CPUs, that we rarely lead our best suit, we rarely lead away from an honour, we favour short suit leads against NTs and the like, are ever regulated. What say you? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 22:25:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:25:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA06557 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:24:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from p5bs02a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.162.92] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11edkK-0004oz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 05:24:37 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: I think partner has... Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 13:06:28 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1c85$df13ad20$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: Friday, October 22, 1999 10:33 AM Subject: Re: I think partner has... >> > Well, I suppose if I have to explain. I am a player on the fringes of >> >international selection. Of the people who play regularly in my County >> >I am one of the two best. I am known as very highly ranked TD. I am an >> >active Professional player, the only one known to them. For me to ask >> >for rulings on judgement matters in a club with a mediocre TD is not >> >suitable. >> > >> >> To the EBU Selection Committee........Whose CV is this? > >I was thinking of commenting on slightly different lines : > >> > I am a player on the fringes of international selection. > >Is this person moving to Wales ? > >> > Of the people who play regularly in my County I am one of the two best. > >Must be Clwyd then ! I think this is getting unkind! (to the Welsh and to the players of Clwyd) You should appreciate that what David says is true. His achievements are suppassed only by his modesty. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 22:25:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:25:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA06555 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:24:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from p5bs02a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.162.92] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11edkJ-0004oz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 05:24:35 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: a very important ruling? Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:39:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1c79$c720cf60$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: masterit To: directing Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 11:01 AM Subject: a very important ruling? >Here's an unusual, not-quite-fair idea for a possible suspension for >repeated offenders; such players may play duplicate but pairs with less >than x masterpoints may choose to accept 50% scores and wander off >for a coffee break rather than have to play against such a player. Do >the >Laws permit a C & E hearing to make such a decision? Transportation to Blundellsands is not on the list of options of sanction. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 22 22:41:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:36:48 +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 WAA06605 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:36:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11edvm-000CRy-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:36:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 04:02:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Very Important Ruling References: <199910211916.PAA21404@freenet5.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199910211916.PAA21404@freenet5.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >Ok, so I'm being a little sarcastic. > >Brd 1 >Dlr: N >NSV S KT83 N E S W > H A5 1C(1) P 1H(2) P > D AJ62 P P > C J73 > S A97 S J652 (1) alerted, explained only as > H T832 H K7 "could be short" > D KT75 D 943 (2) less than 10 points, > C 98 C KQ65 non-forcing, not alerted > S Q4 N/S are playing a system where > opening H QJ964 result: you need a five card suit to > lead: D5 D Q8 +140NS open 1D, 1H or 1S. 1C is marked > C AT42 as forcing, 13-15 if balanced, > could be short. > 1H was not alerted, the opponents did not ask. After the dummy > was put down, the director was called. West complained that South > had not given a complete explanation of 1C, that North had a hand > different from what he had expected (longer diamonds than clubs, > and not a psych/misbid) and that he might have made a different > lead had he been properly informed. > Before you ask, who are these young whippersnapper scientist/ >terrorists, forgetting to alert 1H, ect... >NS are two nice LOMs in their late seventies, with a grand total >of maybe 60 mps between them accumulated during their 30 year >career playing together. 1C "could be short", stayman and blackwood >are their only conventions. Their "system" is almost strictly >natural; indeed, one of the players seems to have a hate on for >anything conventional. They are nice, but very weak, social players. > On the other hand, West has 3600mps, East, 3900mps. After the hand >was over, EW found out that 1H was non-forcing. E said that had they >been aware that 1H was NF, they might have taken a call; West said >that had he been given a proper explanation of 1C, he would never >have led a diamond (please note the change from "might"). >I realize that I may have coloured EW in somewhat less than pristine >white; NS, lovable as they might well be, still failed to alert; EW, >therefore, still deserve their day in court: as director, >how would you rule: result stands, +140 NS, or adjust, +110 NS? >Thanks! > Tony (aka ac342) > >ps. I suppose you're wondering what W thought he would lead instead > of the D5; the director (ok, ok, you forced it out of me--I was the > director) actively decided not to bother asking. West had already > seen the dummy; how could his responce not be tainted by this > information? I don't know, but if you didn't ask, nor will you. I claim here again and again that TDs have the ability to make good judgement rulings when they have all the facts: if you don't bother to seek the facts because you believe you know the answer you will not make good judgement rulings. Ask W, and ask him Why? His answer might have been most compelling. >pps. in case this helps: +140NS was averagish; +110NS would gain > EW exactly .5 matchpoints (a tie with one other +110NS), a small > gain, but enough to tie section 1/2, rather than a clear 2nd, > in a club game (worth at least an additional .20mps!). :-) Other tables' scores don't help rulings. How do I rule? Result stands, of course. There was MI in the failure to alert, and possibly in the explanation of 1C, though I am fairly doubtful: if the opponents knew that 1D, 1H and 1S showed five cards then they were lying to you about not knowing what the 1C meant. However, East knew that 1H was NF before he passed: after all, it had been passed! It could be a psyche, you say: sure, but he could have asked without putting his side's interests at risk, so failure to ask whether 1H was not forcing is not acceptable. No claim for damage will be entertained from East's pass over 1H. Similarly, no claim for damage in the play will be entertained by EW claiming they did not know 1H was NF. So how could EW have been damaged? East's pass over 1C is automatic: West's pass over 1H is also: what about the lead? I am not convinced that West was misinformed anyway, but suppose he was, how does that affect your lead? Let us look at it in isolation: the bidding goes 1C on your left, 1H [NF] on your right, passed out, and you have to lead from S A97 H T832 D KT75 C 98 First, you have the info that 1C "may be short". You choose a diamond because .... Second, suppose you are told 1C "may be very short: any other opening shows five cards": how is that different? Does it affect the diamond lead? Not in any way that I can see. So, no damage, no adjustment. But I wish I had asked him what he would have led and why: perhaps he noticed something I missed. To be honest, I cannot see much justification for EW even asking for a ruling. Is there a faint smell of BLs about? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 22 23:42:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:46:48 +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 WAA06629 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:46:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA23318 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991022084822.00706870@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:48:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: A Very Important Ruling In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991021223631.012ef580@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199910211916.PAA21404@freenet5.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies for having lost Tony's original post, so I am unable to include it. I am addressing the ruling after 1C-P-1H-P-P-P. In the ACBL, it would be clear to rule result stands. 1C was alerted as "could be short", which means the bidder could hold fewer than three clubs. I am unaware of any method in which the bidder could have fewer than three clubs but cannot have fewer clubs than diamonds. E-W's professed inability to deduce the latter from the former is worse than bridge lawyering; it is pure bulls--t. When the auction proceeded 1C-P-1H-P-P-, E-W had a rather strong clue that 1H may have been non-forcing, and would have been expected to protect themselves by asking (either before passing 1H out or before leading) if it affected their action. Not doing so, and later claiming that had they known they'd have done something different, amounts to asking for redress for their opponents' failure to alert, with no suggestion that they were actually damaged thereby (a "double shot" of the worst kind). If this were an AC ruling (Tony tells us that E-W had 7000+ master points between them) I'd vote to keep the deposit, something I'm less inclined than most to do (OK, I do know that the ACBL no longer takes deposits on appeals, but you know what I mean). Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 00:23:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 00:23:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA06870 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 00:23:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveie8.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.200]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA15487 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:23:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991022102055.012e91a8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:20:55 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Illegal redouble? In-Reply-To: <005901bf1c63$fea48c80$a55208c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:03 AM 10/22/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Did they say this was so? If they did >they are an offending side too. I would >then be considering Law 11A. Consider it if you like, but I don't see how careful analysis can bring the consequences of 11A to bear. "The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty. " NS have gained from the double, as well as from the inappropriate reaction by the doubler. These both occurred before there was any cause to summon the director. They gained as well from their own redouble, but actions taken by the NOS are not cause for forfeiture under the above language. They did not profit by any subsequent action taken by an opponent. The club lead (evidently) cost them a trick, and no other lead would have beat the contract. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 00:40:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 00:40:32 +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 AAA06926 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 00:40:24 +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 KAA18272 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:40:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA11646 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:40:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:40:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910221440.KAA11646@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk FWIW, I agree with DWS that it's reasonable for the ACBL to ban odd/even signals. (And like him, I'm not saying what my own preference is.) Please keep in mind that there are two separate issues: should dual-message carding be allowed, and what card-ordering agreements should be allowed? Two factors no one has mentioned: A. Both dual-message carding and irregular card ordering are unfamiliar in the ACBL, and it is therefore harder for players to play against these methods. Of course this factor is more relevant to the GCC than to the SuperChart. B. There is no obvious technical merit to odd-even card ordering over high to low or low to high. > From: Herman De Wael > I play a complex system with some partners, in which 234 of > spades ask for clubs, 567 of spades ask spades, and 8910 ask > hearts (all 234 ask for same colour - 8910 for same rank) I think this is legal according to the ACBL's written rules. Any card sends only one message (I like suit X.), so there's no dual message. And ordering seems to be top to bottom, as opposed, for example to "2, 4, 6 asks for same color, 3, 5, 7 encourages" which would be clearly illegal. But I agree with Adam that the rules are too unclear to say for sure. In practice, regardless of what the written rules say, I bet you would not be allowed to play this method in the ACBL. Perhaps I'm too cynical. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 01:20:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:20:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07019 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:20:24 +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 IAA01907; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:19:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199910221519.IAA01907@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: A Very Important Ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:48:22 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19991022084822.00706870@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:19:43 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > Apologies for having lost Tony's original post, so I am unable to include > it. I am addressing the ruling after 1C-P-1H-P-P-P. > > In the ACBL, it would be clear to rule result stands. 1C was alerted as > "could be short", which means the bidder could hold fewer than three clubs. > I am unaware of any method in which the bidder could have fewer than three > clubs but cannot have fewer clubs than diamonds. Me neither. But I *am* aware of methods in which the bidder could have fewer than three clubs but cannot have fewer than three clubs if he has four diamonds. That's an important difference. Is it important enough that it would have significantly affected the chance West might have found a club lead? That's the first question that has to be answered. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 02:21:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA07347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 02:21:33 +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 CAA07342 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 02:21:21 +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 QAA26340 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:20:41 GMT Message-ID: <38108EDE.728FAD38@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:20:46 +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: Nearest left thumb References: <199910221440.KAA11646@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner a écrit : > > FWIW, I agree with DWS that it's reasonable for the ACBL to ban > odd/even signals. (And like him, I'm not saying what my own preference > is.) I would not use the term reasonable; I think it is possible but unfortunate. We have L16 to deal with UI problems and it's, at least, a resaonable law. If Law Comitees and TD are not confident enough with it and try to avoid to have to deal with UI by means of drastic prohibitions, how can we hope the average player will be confident in the efficiency of Laws and directors? If we ban these signals, we will soon feel the need to ban more and more actions propitious to exchange of UI. When third hand retains his ace, seeing it would be more effective to wait for his partner to lead again the suit, it is hardly without some huddle: let's forbid to retain an ace and we will have got rid of this too frequent UI-generating situation in which NOS often fail to call TD. It is IMO more profitable to educate players to UI and prove them they are not incurable diseases. JP Rocafort > > Please keep in mind that there are two separate issues: should > dual-message carding be allowed, and what card-ordering agreements > should be allowed? > > Two factors no one has mentioned: > A. Both dual-message carding and irregular card ordering are unfamiliar > in the ACBL, and it is therefore harder for players to play against > these methods. Of course this factor is more relevant to the GCC than > to the SuperChart. > > B. There is no obvious technical merit to odd-even card ordering over > high to low or low to high. > > > From: Herman De Wael > > I play a complex system with some partners, in which 234 of > > spades ask for clubs, 567 of spades ask spades, and 8910 ask > > hearts (all 234 ask for same colour - 8910 for same rank) > > I think this is legal according to the ACBL's written rules. Any card > sends only one message (I like suit X.), so there's no dual message. > And ordering seems to be top to bottom, as opposed, for example to "2, > 4, 6 asks for same color, 3, 5, 7 encourages" which would be clearly > illegal. But I agree with Adam that the rules are too unclear to say > for sure. > > In practice, regardless of what the written rules say, I bet you would > not be allowed to play this method in the ACBL. Perhaps I'm too > cynical. -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 02:41:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:25:10 +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 BAA07033 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:25:02 +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 IAA01976; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:24:24 -0700 Message-Id: <199910221524.IAA01976@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:40:27 PDT." <199910221440.KAA11646@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:24:22 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > Two factors no one has mentioned: > A. Both dual-message carding and irregular card ordering are unfamiliar > in the ACBL, and it is therefore harder for players to play against > these methods. Of course this factor is more relevant to the GCC than > to the SuperChart. I don't know whether this is a valid argument. The kind of players that would find it hard to play against odd-even signaling are probably the same players who never pay attention to the defender's spots when they're declaring anyway. 1/2 :) (Of course, I mean this to apply only to odd-even signaling---not to some esoteric ordering scheme like 53629748 or something.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 03:14:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:14:41 +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 DAA07465 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:14:33 +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 KAA03516; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:13:53 -0700 Message-Id: <199910221713.KAA03516@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:57:07 PDT." <381034F3.C86F5FBF@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:13:53 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > Combine this with a full adherence to L16 : if partner calls > for clubs, I switch clubs, whatever speed it is done, then > there is never any problem. Interesting. If partner makes a suit-preference play after a hesitation that indicates he isn't sure he really wants that shift, it's required by L16 to shift to the suit partner asks for (unless there's a different play that is so clear that it makes the asked-for shift illogical). Fine. But I don't understand why L16 would require a switch to clubs "*whatever* speed" the signal is made? Surely if the signal is made in tempo, you can still look at your own hand and decide what's best? I'm saying this in part because I often ignore my partner's signals. Partner is giving me information about his hand, but I'm still looking at a lot of cards that he doesn't have complete information about, and there's no reason to believe that partner knows the right defense better than I do in all cases. So the idea of always shifting to the suit partner calls for is foreign to me. Perhaps complex signalling systems should only be used by people who are willing to obey their partner's signals most of the time; and that people like me, who don't like playing this style, should restrict themselves to the simple systems. (Which is fine with me; I prefer to stick to very simple signalling methods, and would never voluntarily play something of the sort Herman uses.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 03:40:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:40:31 +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 DAA07542 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:40:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id la583529 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:36:58 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-220-252.tmns.net.au ([139.134.220.252]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Drunken-MailRouter V2.5 3/427109); 23 Oct 1999 03:36:58 Message-ID: <000601bf1d42$ecaef800$fcdc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:39:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Steve Willner wrote: > >Two factors no one has mentioned: >A. Both dual-message carding and irregular card ordering are unfamiliar >in the ACBL, and it is therefore harder for players to play against >these methods. Of course this factor is more relevant to the GCC than >to the SuperChart. > >B. There is no obvious technical merit to odd-even card ordering over >high to low or low to high. > B is a factor rather than a fact. >From my experience, the technical "merit" includes that, when odd encourages, partner can tell without thinking that a five is encouraging. Playing high encouraging, partner often cannot tell that a five is encouraging because he has forgotten which pips have gone. In other words, O/E signals transfer the thinking (call it hesitation if you really want to) from the recipient to the giver of the information. This has some "merit" for playing good bridge but also has some demerit for ethical reasons. I suppose this line of thinking actually adds some weight to the ACBL's stance. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 03:49:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:57:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07150 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:57:49 +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 11eh3Z-0008yU-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 15:56:42 +0000 Message-ID: <3V4cZaAChIE4Ewez@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:52:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: I think partner has... In-Reply-To: <01bf1c85$df13ad20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf1c85$df13ad20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 10:33 AM >Subject: Re: I think partner has... > > >>> > Well, I suppose if I have to explain. I am a player on the fringes of >>> >international selection. Of the people who play regularly in my County >>> >I am one of the two best. I am known as very highly ranked TD. I am an >>> >active Professional player, the only one known to them. For me to ask >>> >for rulings on judgement matters in a club with a mediocre TD is not >>> >suitable. >>> > >>> >>> To the EBU Selection Committee........Whose CV is this? >> >>I was thinking of commenting on slightly different lines : >> >>> > I am a player on the fringes of international selection. >> >>Is this person moving to Wales ? >> >>> > Of the people who play regularly in my County I am one of the two best. >> >>Must be Clwyd then ! > >I think this is getting unkind! (to the Welsh and to the players of Clwyd) >You should appreciate that what David says is true. His achievements >are suppassed only by his modesty. >Anne > > Anyone who can play several sessions with me and limit himself to only one homicidal outburst is definitely the Great Omnipotent Director. (pace DBurn) the homicidal outburst took place after a game where we were winning and I completely fell out of the boat on the last two hands. 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 Oct 23 03:59:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:50:37 +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 BAA07110 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:50:27 +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 11egwS-000HYe-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 15:49:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 14:24:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Very Important Ruling References: <199910211916.PAA21404@freenet5.carleton.ca> <3.0.1.32.19991021223631.012ef580@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991021223631.012ef580@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Were the opponents damaged by the failure to alert the 1H bid? Indirectly, >perhaps. Had the bid been properly alerted and explained, then East might >have been more likely to balance. As it was, E might well have concluded >that the pass of the "forcing" response was too great a gift to pass up. An >interesting problem: are EW entitled to redress if they (wrongly) infer >from the failure to alert that the opponents have erred? I don't think so, >but I'm open to argument on the point. The ACBL says: Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves. The EBU says: 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. It is clear in the EBU and the ACBL, and I think should be the case everywhere, that for East to assume that 1H is forcing after it has been passed without asking a question will mean that no redress should be offered for damage created by not realising it is not forcing. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 23 04:02:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 04:02:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f302.hotmail.com [207.82.251.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA07607 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 04:02:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 46245 invoked by uid 0); 22 Oct 1999 18:01:41 -0000 Message-ID: <19991022180141.46244.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:01:40 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:01:40 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael > > Adam: > > > > > > I play a complex system with some partners, in which 234 of > > > spades ask for clubs, 567 of spades ask spades, and 8910 ask > > > hearts > > > (all 234 ask for same colour - 8910 for same rank) > > > > > > Presumably that system would be outlawed in the ACBL ? > > >Silly of the ACBL, but OK. > > > However, it appears to me that this system has ethical pitfalls at > > least as bad as those attributed to odd/even signalling. Suppose you > > want to ask for clubs but have no card lower than a 5. > >Well, there are 9 cards in the pack that one can ask clubs >with : >234 of spades, 567 of clubs, and 8910 of diamonds. > Ah, I see. I think that Adam has done the same mis-reading of this system that I have - this carding system applies only to discards, not to following suit. Am I right? In that case, Dual-purpose signals on the first discard are legal (provided they are disclosed, of course). So, provided you only did this on the first discard, it would be fine (but expect to have the TD called on you - If "they've" never heard of it before, it must be illegal, and someone will eventually stop grumbling volubly and DTRT (i.e. call the TD and check)). I must admit that I did read it first to be three-way carding when following suit - and that would lead to several tempo-sensitive situations... ------------------------------------------------------------------ As far as the question of O/E signals are concerned, I agree that: a) The ACBL has the right to disallow them (L40D - it is a bit uncomfortable to have this in "The Auction" section, but it is explicitly there). b) Any decent pair that decides to play them will come up with a rule to deal with the bad situations. I, personally, would welcome liberalization of this regulation (as I actively push for liberalization of bidding regulations; i.e. any Mid-Chart legal game someone with <10 000 masterpoints can enter within a 6-hour drive of here. This includes all of Southern Ontario (notably Toronto), Montreal (if I push it), Buffalo and Detroit. About 25 million souls, give or take). However, I do believe that it will take at least as long to remove the hitch from the bad O/E situations as it did, when first learning to play bridge, to remove the hitch before playing the 8 from T98. It will eventually become automatic, if you work at it. Also, I know that unbelievable as it may seem to us, there are *many* pairs who have been playing for many years who *don't* deal with these problems. Vis. the many pairs who have been playing Precision for years that I run into who can't tell me how short their "short" 1D could be. Vis. "Weasel" vs. weak NTs - people who have had to deal with 12-14ish counts after a weak NT many times, and still will play the hitching game. After all, it is to their detriment (whether or not they actively use the hitch as a signalling method) to work this out and learn to use it. And they very rarely get called on it, and it is hard to prove anyway (at least part of the reason they very rarely get called on it; another part is that the people they do it to don't understand their rights; another part is that there still are tournament directors - at regional tournaments (County Congress equivalents? 4-6 per district per year, and 25 districts for NA - 400odd million people) - who both can't get a simple L27B2 ruling right and can't be bothered to R it out of TFLB). Yes, the calibre of the directing staff in the ACBL must be improved, and must be seen to be improved (Note: I am not intending to paint every TD in the ACBL with the same brush - the good TD's are *very* good, both in law-related and people-problems-handling matters; but work must be done to bring the rest up to at least creditable standard); yes, more work must be done to make clear to the world that there are more to the proprieties than just L74A1, A2, and C; yes, I'd much rather people crack down on the incessant natterers than increased system (bidding and play) regulations; but I can understand the reasoning behind the regulation. Yes, the ACBL is curing the symptoms, not the disease; is there any NCBO (or any organization at all) who is not guilty of this, in some instance? Michael (surprised at himself at publicly defending the ACBL, even as mildly as I am; I guess I am mellowing out in my old age). ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 04:30:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 04:30:11 +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 EAA07739 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 04:30:05 +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 FAA24043 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 05:29:59 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 05:29:35 +1100 Message-ID: <01BF1D17.97BCA840.mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au> From: Mark Abraham To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: Nearest left thumb Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 05:29:34 +1100 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 Saturday, October 23, 1999 9:40 PM, Peter Gill [SMTP:GillP@bigpond.com] wrote: >>Steve Willner wrote: >> >>>Two factors no one has mentioned: >>A. Both dual-message carding and irregular card ordering are unfamiliar >>in the ACBL, and it is therefore harder for players to play against >>these methods. Of course this factor is more relevant to the GCC than >>to the SuperChart. Where in the Laws or regulations does it say that life has to be made easy for people? I sure find it harder to play against weak twos than strong twos - can't I get them banned? >>B. There is no obvious technical merit to odd-even card ordering over >>high to low or low to high. > > From my experience, the technical "merit" includes that, when odd > encourages, partner can tell without thinking that a five is encouraging. > Playing high encouraging, partner often cannot tell that a five is > encouraging because he has forgotten which pips have gone. In other words, > O/E signals transfer the thinking (call it hesitation if you really want to) > from the recipient to the giver of the information. This has some "merit" > for playing good bridge but also has some demerit for ethical reasons. I > suppose this line of thinking actually adds some weight to the ACBL's > stance. Interesting point - but the recipient still has to think in the marginal cases. When a defender plays a two the recipient of that information has to wonder where the odd cards are/have been, and correspondingly for a nine. This supports Steve's view that there isn't any merit difference between the two - both signalling systems have their "margin" cards that sometimes the recipient will have to wonder about. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 04:41:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 04:41:32 +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 EAA07777 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 04:41:21 +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 TAA23126 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:41:09 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA05435 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:41:08 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:41:08 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 TAA04879 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:41:07 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id TAA24723 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:41:07 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:41:07 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199910221841.TAA24723@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L21B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is based on an actual hand. But I have not included the hands, because they do not fit all the facts. West North East South 1C Pass 3D 4D 4NT 5H X Pass 6D Pass Pass Pass 4D and 4NT were alerted. X was not. East explains that X should be alerted, as it showed no aces (DOPI). West say "oh dear, this is not going to be good". The TD is called. The TD explains Law21B to South. Now suppose South would very likely bid 6H over 6D except that 5H had (apparently) been doubled for penalties. So Law21B applies and South may change his call, so he doubles (perhaps because of West's remark). As far as I can see, Law21B does not require the non-offender to make the call he would have made without the misinformation, only that he would have made a different call without the misinformation! Robin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 04:43:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:50:51 +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 BAA07117 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:50:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11egxY-0004CK-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 15:50:34 +0000 Message-ID: <$qgkuPD1NGE4Ew87@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 14:15:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: I think partner has... References: <01bf1c85$df13ad20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf1c85$df13ad20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 10:33 AM >Subject: Re: I think partner has... > > >>> > Well, I suppose if I have to explain. I am a player on the fringes of >>> >international selection. Of the people who play regularly in my County >>> >I am one of the two best. I am known as very highly ranked TD. I am an >>> >active Professional player, the only one known to them. For me to ask >>> >for rulings on judgement matters in a club with a mediocre TD is not >>> >suitable. >>> > >>> >>> To the EBU Selection Committee........Whose CV is this? >> >>I was thinking of commenting on slightly different lines : >> >>> > I am a player on the fringes of international selection. >> >>Is this person moving to Wales ? >> >>> > Of the people who play regularly in my County I am one of the two best. >> >>Must be Clwyd then ! > >I think this is getting unkind! (to the Welsh and to the players of Clwyd) >You should appreciate that what David says is true. His achievements >are suppassed only by his modesty. I had no wish to make any such claims. I thought it was obvious why I do not ask for rulings in clubs. However, when such a sensible person as Steve Willner starts spouting about the clubs I play in because he assumes I am the same as the rest I have to explain. Anyway, I would be quite happy for people to tell me what regular County players are better than me. Please? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 05:04:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 05:04:46 +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 FAA07860 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 05:04:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca945024 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 05:01:09 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-223-206.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.206]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Legendary-MailRouter V2.5 7/966065); 23 Oct 1999 05:01:09 Message-ID: <009e01bf1d4e$af2734a0$fcdc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 05:03:56 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: >Combine this with a full adherence to L16 : if partner calls >for clubs, I switch clubs, whatever speed it is done, then >there is never any problem. > >I have often called on opponents who did not switch the suit >their partner requested in this fashion, and I have once >been awarded an adjusted score. > If you did that in Australia you would be likely to cop a lot of flak. I have heard of a case in Australia where someone who called the TD in a similar situation was treated as the Offender. Apparently he had broken L74A2 ("action" being "calling the TD") and L75B5 ("discourteous" referring not to the player's manner but to his action of calling the TD). Is this an absurd way to interpret the FLB? Peter Gill Sydney, Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 05:20:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:33:38 +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 BAA07070 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:33:30 +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 11eggQ-000G0y-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 15:32:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:25:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: I think partner has... In-Reply-To: <002701bf1b73$8fe1eb80$235108c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <002701bf1b73$8fe1eb80$235108c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott writes snip >....................... \x/ ................... >> Well, I suppose if I have to explain. I am a player on the fringes of >>international selection. Of the people who play regularly in my County >>I am one of the two best. I am known as very highly ranked TD. I am an >>active Professional player, the only one known to them. For me to ask >>for rulings on judgement matters in a club with a mediocre TD is not >>suitable. >> >> But that does not apply to anyone else. Everyone else can call for >>the TD with no problems, but it would not be suitable for me to do so. >>I do not think that because of my personal ethics you should come to >>conclusions about other players. >> >+=+ David's ethics are impeccable by any standard. >The Blundellsands club was one of those quiet little >havens of bridge where the game is enjoyed at an >unsophisticated level - with advanced methods not >one of life's expectations. I have not been there for >a while but I hope it continues to be a place to play >that kind of game. The TD there might just feel it a >trifle gratuitous to be labelled worldwide as mediocre; >he/she very likely has no pretensions to rank with >David, and is probably doing a pretty fair unrewarded >job in a style the club finds comfortable. It would >reflect poorly on David were he suddenly to change >into the kind of bigger fish that swims into shallow >waters and then does a lot of splashing and flapping >about. ~G~ +=+ > David and I occasionally play in the ACBL ladies game at the YC on Thursday afternoons. The UI and MI is awesome to behold. We just smile at each other, take advantage of it and score c. 70% as usual. It would be totally inappropriate to call the (fairly clueless but charming) TD, who in any event would make an illegal ruling. Blundellsands and clubs like it are just fine, long may they continue. 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 Oct 23 05:46:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:49:46 +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 BAA07101 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:49:32 +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 11egvl-0007TT-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 15:48:39 +0000 Message-ID: <0KWmGKDvHGE4Ew+Q@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 14:09:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce J. Moore wrote: > >It's been more than a few years, but I still remember learning >about signalling during lunchtime bridge at work. A coworker said >something like, "Play a big card if you like my lead". My next question >was "What if I don't have a big card?". I hadn't been playing >bridge very long and this seemed an obvious question. To you, yes. To me, yes. To the majority of people who have not been playing long, definitely not. You find things complicated enough: you don't try to add to the complication. I have taught bridge for years. No-one has ever asked me that question. >I find it most improbable that a pair would agree on odd/even signals >without discussing what to do without the "right" card. Even if they >failed to discuss this point it seems unconceivable that such a >discussion would not take place after the first time someone was stuck. >If you factor in the fact that they're using anything but "Standard >signals", the chance of this last has to be about nil. I don't know where you play your bridge, but you seem to be amongst a group of very scientifically minded people. The normal events at my club are like this: AQ54 KJT2 A874 K3 AJ3 KT4 T7 AK54 West opens 1H, and East, proudly remembering that he has agreed to play Baron 2NT, bids 2NT. Now West is confused. No-one has taught her how to bid complicated hands, such as 4432 ones. Finally she bids 3NT because she is balanced. East bids 4NT, West tells him he has three aces [*don't* say it] and East bids 6NT. Despite a diamond lead he has no play for it [he does not know about ducking a club and playing for a heart-club squeeze] and goes off. Now for the post-mortem. "Couldn't make it, sorry." "How about the club finesse?" "Doesn't work." Next board. It really is not the way bridge is played that players who take up conventions discuss them when they go wrong: of course they should have discussed how to find the spade fit, but they often don't. Experts? Of course they will discuss, but the Laws apply to *everyone*, and I hope on BLML we are not discussing how to apply the Laws to the Flt A people and assuming no-one else matters. >This last paragraph is the point I should have made in my first post. >Odd/even signalling should never cause additional UI issues with the >possible exception of their first use. With lesser players, especially unscientific ones, the problems will recur and recur. >Pam apparently appreciates the fact a 3 is not really high and that >a 4 is not really odd. David appreciates the fact that a 3 could >be intended as high if the next card is a 2; it seems *odd* ;-) that >he does not appreciate the fact that a 7 could be intended as even >if the next card is a 3. I don't believe gender has anything to >do with it! Experience, not gender. Players realise that a 3 is higher than a 2: they do not realise that 6 - 2 equals odd. Playing with a strange partner, that includes me: I have no idea how he will take 6 - 2 playing odd-even, but I bet he takes 3 - 2 as high-low. >I suppose I should temper all this with the fact that I've never >played odd/even (they're illegal here, remember!) nor played against >anyone who has. Since most folks get a chance to signal on half the >hands they play, it just doesn't seem logical that any reasonably >simple method would cause a problem after a few hands. Logical? Where does that fit into players' agreements? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 11:10:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:10:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08668 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:10:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb4s06a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.102.181] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11epgw-0002cZ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:09:54 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: I think partner has... Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 02:17:11 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1cf4$551b1760$b56693c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 7:59 PM Subject: Re: I think partner has... >Anne Jones wrote: >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Herman De Wael >>To: Bridge Laws >>Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 10:33 AM >>are suppassed only by his modesty. >when such a sensible person >as Steve Willner starts spouting about the clubs I play in because he >assumes I am the same as the rest I have to explain. RTFLB Luke 18 Ch1 v11 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 11:42:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:28:52 +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 LAA08710 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:28:41 +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 11epyt-000KzC-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:28:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:04:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: <199910221440.KAA11646@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199910221524.IAA01976@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199910221524.IAA01976@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> Two factors no one has mentioned: >> A. Both dual-message carding and irregular card ordering are unfamiliar >> in the ACBL, and it is therefore harder for players to play against >> these methods. Of course this factor is more relevant to the GCC than >> to the SuperChart. >I don't know whether this is a valid argument. The kind of players >that would find it hard to play against odd-even signaling are >probably the same players who never pay attention to the defender's >spots when they're declaring anyway. 1/2 :) > >(Of course, I mean this to apply only to odd-even signaling---not to >some esoteric ordering scheme like 53629748 or something.) This is the argument that is continually hammered on RGB. we cannot play the Multi because it is unknown, so it will not be allowed until it is better known - but it cannot become better known because it is not allowed! I think the ACBL solution is to have more MidChart events. There are plenty of Level 4 events here to allow people to practise more esoteric methods. Admittedly we have geographical problems - one or two large Counties have no Level 4 events! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 23 12:06:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 12:06:18 +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 MAA08811 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 12:06:09 +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 11eqZ9-000Jmd-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 02:05:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:04:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >> >>(Of course, I mean this to apply only to odd-even signaling---not to >>some esoteric ordering scheme like 53629748 or something.) > I like 85497632. At least it's logical. 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 Oct 23 12:36:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:28:57 +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 LAA08711 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:28:43 +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 11epyw-000CUw-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:28:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:25:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Ban on odd-even carding References: <199910151400.AA10041@gateway.tandem.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: > >Bobby Goldman was one of the fiercest defenders (and maybe responsible for) >of the ACBL position. Basically the same view for two-way notrumps. He was >a member of the Comp. & Conv. Committee and I don't expect you will see a >change from them on this issue. > >They would be who you should lobby (in writing) if you care to. (via Gary >Blaiss) One thing we should be clear on. In the ACBL you may play the first discard as Odd/Even so long as there is no Dual meaning. So, if you play Odd = encouraging, Even = discouraging as your first discard, that is legal. Furthermore, you can play Odd = encouraging, Even = discouraging as your first discard, but a high-low Odd = discouraging, and a high-low Even = encouraging, and that is still legal. When I was young this was called REO for Reverse-even-odd. But you may not play Odd = encouraging, Even = discouraging and Lavinthal: that is Dual meaning. Furthermore you may not play Odd/Even signals, or later discards. The EBU position, for comparison, is that you may not play Dual meaning Odd/Even signals: you may play Odd/Even signals without Dual meanings, and you may play Dual meaning and/or Odd/Even Discards. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 23 12:51:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:28:57 +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 LAA08712 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:28:43 +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 11epyw-000CUx-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:28:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:09:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: <19991022180141.46244.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19991022180141.46244.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >>From: Herman De Wael >> > Adam: >> > > >> > > I play a complex system with some partners, in which 234 of >> > > spades ask for clubs, 567 of spades ask spades, and 8910 ask >> > > hearts >> > > (all 234 ask for same colour - 8910 for same rank) >> > > >> > > Presumably that system would be outlawed in the ACBL ? >> > > >>Silly of the ACBL, but OK. >> >> > However, it appears to me that this system has ethical pitfalls at >> > least as bad as those attributed to odd/even signalling. Suppose you >> > want to ask for clubs but have no card lower than a 5. >> >>Well, there are 9 cards in the pack that one can ask clubs >>with : >>234 of spades, 567 of clubs, and 8910 of diamonds. >> >Ah, I see. I think that Adam has done the same mis-reading of this system >that I have - this carding system applies only to discards, not to following >suit. Am I right? > >In that case, Dual-purpose signals on the first discard are legal (provided >they are disclosed, of course). So, provided you only did this on the first >discard, it would be fine (but expect to have the TD called on you - If >"they've" never heard of it before, it must be illegal, and someone will >eventually stop grumbling volubly and DTRT (i.e. call the TD and check)). They are not Dual purpose! They have a *single* meaning and are clearly legal under GCC. If I discard a 2, 3 or 4 I am asking for the suit of the same colour. That is a single meaning. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 23 13:42:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:28:57 +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 LAA08714 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:28:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11epyt-000CUz-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:28:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:01:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb References: <199910221440.KAA11646@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910221440.KAA11646@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >FWIW, I agree with DWS that it's reasonable for the ACBL to ban >odd/even signals. (And like him, I'm not saying what my own preference >is.) > >Please keep in mind that there are two separate issues: should >dual-message carding be allowed, and what card-ordering agreements >should be allowed? > >Two factors no one has mentioned: >A. Both dual-message carding and irregular card ordering are unfamiliar >in the ACBL, and it is therefore harder for players to play against >these methods. Of course this factor is more relevant to the GCC than >to the SuperChart. > >B. There is no obvious technical merit to odd-even card ordering over >high to low or low to high. > >> From: Herman De Wael >> I play a complex system with some partners, in which 234 of >> spades ask for clubs, 567 of spades ask spades, and 8910 ask >> hearts (all 234 ask for same colour - 8910 for same rank) > >I think this is legal according to the ACBL's written rules. Any card >sends only one message (I like suit X.), so there's no dual message. >And ordering seems to be top to bottom, as opposed, for example to "2, >4, 6 asks for same color, 3, 5, 7 encourages" which would be clearly >illegal. But I agree with Adam that the rules are too unclear to say >for sure. > >In practice, regardless of what the written rules say, I bet you would >not be allowed to play this method in the ACBL. Perhaps I'm too >cynical. If anyone tried to stop me playing it in the ACBL I would wave the regs in his face. I don't see the ambiguity. It is absolutely clear that it is legal. Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender's first discard. Except for the first discard, only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are approved. Encrypted signals are not approved. In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any method (such as suit preference systems at trick one) when they are deemed to be playing it in a manner which is not compatible with the maintenance of proper tempo (much like dual message signals). This decision may be appealed to the tournament committee. OK. It is not a Dual message carding method, so ignore sentence #1. The ordering it uses is numerical, so ignore sentence #2. It is not Encrypted, so ignore sentence #3. It seems easy to play in tempo, so ignore sentence #4. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 23 14:17:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA09128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 14:17:16 +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 OAA09123 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 14:17:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-199-12.s266.tnt4.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.199.12]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA07867; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 00:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000c01bf1d0d$4c4da300$0cc77ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <199910151400.AA10041@gateway.tandem.com> Subject: Re: ACBL Ban on odd-even carding Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 00:15:50 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 5:25 PM Subject: Re: ACBL Ban on odd-even carding [snip] > > One thing we should be clear on. In the ACBL you may play the first > discard as Odd/Even so long as there is no Dual meaning. > > So, if you play Odd = encouraging, Even = discouraging as your first > discard, that is legal. > > Furthermore, you can play Odd = encouraging, Even = discouraging as > your first discard, but a high-low Odd = discouraging, and a high-low > Even = encouraging, and that is still legal. When I was young this was > called REO for Reverse-even-odd. > > But you may not play Odd = encouraging, Even = discouraging and > Lavinthal: that is Dual meaning. This is not correct. >Furthermore you may not play Odd/Even > signals, or later discards. > True. Dual-message strategies are permitted on the first discard by each defender in the ACBL. On your first discard, you may certainly play odd=encouraging, even=discouraging and Lavinthal. The relevant part of the GCC is below. Hirsch CARDING Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender's first discard. Except for the first discard, only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are approved. Encrypted signals are not approved. In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any method (such as suit preference systems at trick one) when they are deemed to be playing it in a manner which is not compatible with the maintenance of proper tempo (much like dual message signals). This decision may be appealed to the tournament committee. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 00:02:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:02:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA10125 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:02:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-16-87.inter.net.il [213.8.16.87]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10479; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:01:47 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3811BFD7.D1A0F85A@zahav.net.il> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:01:59 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hirsch Davis CC: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Ban on odd-even carding References: <199910151400.AA10041@gateway.tandem.com> <000c01bf1d0d$4c4da300$0cc77ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote it some days ago , that the O-E signaling on the opening lead is allowed...I read it again when Lady Chya told me that it is forbidden (maybe I didn't understand it properly..) and I see again , bellow , I was right . Now a more important question : After the opening lead the declarer is allowed to think for ...20 days, as long as needed to plan his play ... As his RHO I think always 20 days too , in order to plan our defense. I asked Ton some years ago if there is any "BAN" and then I got the answer that it isn't forbidden , just before the first card played. If this is right , you can play any CUCHIBUCHI agreement for the first card play by the defender to the opening lead . Following , I don't think that there can be any normal break in tempo (don't speak about extreme ...20 days thoughts) when the declarer's RHO plays his first card to the opening lead ..... Does anyone have another opinion ???? Dany Hirsch Davis wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Stevenson > To: > Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 5:25 PM > Subject: Re: ACBL Ban on odd-even carding > > [snip] > > > > One thing we should be clear on. In the ACBL you may play the first > > discard as Odd/Even so long as there is no Dual meaning. > > > > So, if you play Odd = encouraging, Even = discouraging as your first > > discard, that is legal. > > > > Furthermore, you can play Odd = encouraging, Even = discouraging as > > your first discard, but a high-low Odd = discouraging, and a high-low > > Even = encouraging, and that is still legal. When I was young this was > > called REO for Reverse-even-odd. > > > > But you may not play Odd = encouraging, Even = discouraging and > > Lavinthal: that is Dual meaning. > > This is not correct. > > >Furthermore you may not play Odd/Even > > signals, or later discards. > > > > True. > > Dual-message strategies are permitted on the first discard by each defender > in the ACBL. On your first discard, you may certainly play odd=encouraging, > even=discouraging and Lavinthal. The relevant part of the GCC is below. > > Hirsch > > CARDING > > Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender's > first discard. Except for the first discard, only right-side-up or > upside-down card ordering strategies are approved. Encrypted signals are not > approved. In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any method > (such as suit preference systems at trick one) when they are deemed to be > playing it in a manner which is not compatible with the maintenance of > proper tempo (much like dual message signals). This decision may be appealed > to the tournament committee. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 02:30:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 02:30:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.midsouth.rr.com (mail.midsouth.rr.com [24.92.68.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA10590 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 02:29:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from compaq ([24.92.75.194]) by mail.midsouth.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:25:48 -0500 Message-ID: <002701bf1d73$df380be0$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> Reply-To: "Chyah Burghard" From: "Chyah Burghard" To: "Bridge-Laws" References: <199910151400.AA10041@gateway.tandem.com> <000c01bf1d0d$4c4da300$0cc77ad1@hdavis> <3811BFD7.D1A0F85A@zahav.net.il> Subject: Re: ACBL Ban on odd-even carding Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:30:06 -0500 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I said that the ACBL prohibits odd/even signaling in response to the opening lead or while you are following suit. The first DISCARD by each defender may still be a dual message card; i.e. even discouraging and showing suit preference. -Chyah ----- Original Message ----- From: Dany Haimovici To: Hirsch Davis Cc: David Stevenson ; Sent: Saturday, October 23, 1999 9:01 AM Subject: Re: ACBL Ban on odd-even carding > I wrote it some days ago , that the O-E signaling on the opening lead is > allowed...I read it again when Lady Chya told me that it is forbidden > (maybe I didn't understand it properly..) and I see again , > bellow , I was right . > > Now a more important question : > After the opening lead the declarer is allowed to think for ...20 days, > as long as needed to plan his play ... > As his RHO I think always 20 days too , in order to plan our defense. > I asked Ton some years ago if there is any "BAN" and then I got the > answer that it isn't forbidden , just before the first card played. > > If this is right , you can play any CUCHIBUCHI agreement for the first > card play by the defender to the opening lead . Following , I don't > think that there can be any normal break in tempo (don't speak about > extreme ...20 days thoughts) when the declarer's RHO plays his first > card to the opening lead ..... > > Does anyone have another opinion ???? > > Dany > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: David Stevenson > > To: > > Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 5:25 PM > > Subject: Re: ACBL Ban on odd-even carding > > > > [snip] > > > > > > One thing we should be clear on. In the ACBL you may play the first > > > discard as Odd/Even so long as there is no Dual meaning. > > > > > > So, if you play Odd = encouraging, Even = discouraging as your first > > > discard, that is legal. > > > > > > Furthermore, you can play Odd = encouraging, Even = discouraging as > > > your first discard, but a high-low Odd = discouraging, and a high-low > > > Even = encouraging, and that is still legal. When I was young this was > > > called REO for Reverse-even-odd. > > > > > > But you may not play Odd = encouraging, Even = discouraging and > > > Lavinthal: that is Dual meaning. > > > > This is not correct. > > > > >Furthermore you may not play Odd/Even > > > signals, or later discards. > > > > > > > True. > > > > Dual-message strategies are permitted on the first discard by each defender > > in the ACBL. On your first discard, you may certainly play odd=encouraging, > > even=discouraging and Lavinthal. The relevant part of the GCC is below. > > > > Hirsch > > > > CARDING > > > > Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender's > > first discard. Except for the first discard, only right-side-up or > > upside-down card ordering strategies are approved. Encrypted signals are not > > approved. In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any method > > (such as suit preference systems at trick one) when they are deemed to be > > playing it in a manner which is not compatible with the maintenance of > > proper tempo (much like dual message signals). This decision may be appealed > > to the tournament committee. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 03:00:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 03:00:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA10710 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 03:00:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 10:00:40 -0700 Message-ID: <012101bf1d78$14295f80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199910151400.AA10041@gateway.tandem.com> <000c01bf1d0d$4c4da300$0cc77ad1@hdavis> Subject: Re: ACBL Ban on odd-even carding Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 10:00:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis quoted the applicable ACBL regulation instead of relying on memory. We should all follow his good example. > He wrote: > > Dual-message strategies are permitted on the first discard by each defender > in the ACBL. On your first discard, you may certainly play odd=encouraging, > even=discouraging and Lavinthal. The relevant part of the GCC is below. > > CARDING > > Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender's > first discard. Except for the first discard, only right-side-up or > upside-down card ordering strategies are approved. Encrypted signals are not > approved. In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any method > (such as suit preference systems at trick one) when they are deemed to be > playing it in a manner which is not compatible with the maintenance of > proper tempo (much like dual message signals). This decision may be appealed > to the tournament committee. > Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 05:44:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 05:44:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA11013 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 05:44:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 12:44:07 -0700 Message-ID: <012e01bf1d8e$e922d980$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199910221841.TAA24723@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: L21B Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:49:54 -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 In the absence of any reply to Robin's question, I'll give it a try. Robin Barker wrote: > This is based on an actual hand. But I have not included the hands, > because they do not fit all the facts. > > West North East South > 1C Pass 3D 4D > 4NT 5H X Pass > 6D Pass Pass Pass > > 4D and 4NT were alerted. X was not. > > East explains that X should be alerted, as it showed no aces (DOPI). > West say "oh dear, this is not going to be good". > The TD is called. East was supposed to call the TD and report the failure to Alert the double before explaining it. No one should say anything further *until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty." (L9B2). Having done that (or perhaps before), the TD will ask North-South if they want an explanation of the double. They will of course say yes, and after the explanation the TD asks South if s/he wants to change the last call on account of the MI, emphasizing that the call may not be changed for any other reason (L21B1/B2). > The TD explains Law21B to South. Now suppose South would very likely > bid 6H over 6D except that 5H had (apparently) been doubled for penalties. > So Law21B applies and South may change his call, so he doubles (perhaps > because of West's remark). > As far as I can see, Law21B does not require the non-offender to make > the call he would have made without the misinformation, only that he > would have made a different call without the misinformation! > Well, it allows the NO to "change a call when it is probable that he made the call as a result of the misinformation given to him by an opponent." When citing a Law, it is best to quote it. Would South probably have doubled if West had Alerted East's double, explained it, and then bid 6D? Robin's writeup implies not, but the TD must make that judgment after the play is over. If the answer is negative, a double would be changing the last call for a reason other than the MI, and that is not allowed. Had West issued a delayed Alert just before the final pass, following with an explanation, then South would be free to make any call whatsoever. ACBL TDs routinely ask South in this situation: "Do you want to change your call?" That is not the right question, which is: "Do you want to change your call because of the misinformation, which is the only legal basis for doing so?" A call cannot be changed because of a statement like West's. This seems like a good spot to comment on ACBL TD practice (hereabouts, anyway) in such cases. The NOs are called away from the table, one at a time, and asked if they would have bid differently had there been no MI. They must decide immediately, warns the TD, because if they do not the matter is over, there will be no redress.This procedure serves no good purpose that I can see, and there is nothing in the Laws that even hints at it. Only one NO, maybe neither, can change a call, and that decision can be made at the table because it is not UI. Any other questioning can wait until the deal is over, if and when the TD needs input from the NOS to make a ruling. Immediate questioning is iinappropriate for at least three reasons: (1) pllayers may not know offhand what they would have done, perhaps needing some thinking time; (2) such answers are unreliable, given the potential for bias; and (3) it unfairly wastes time in this time-driven game. Since the OS gets the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, there is no requirement that a player be certain about an answer, while the TD insists upon certainty. "I'm pretty sure I would have doubled" is not accepted, the TD saying, "You must decide right now, one way or the other." Hypothetical questions are not always that easy to answer. TDs will argue that they want immediate input before the players have a chance to make up a false answer, perhaps after an illegal conference. Actually they hope to get away from the table without having to return. Another argument is that if they have all the facts right away they will have time to study the hand, perhaps conferring with other TDs, and be ready to make a ruling immediately when the deal is over. The Laws do not require such a timely ruling, which can wait for a few rounds or more, with a tentative score entered. However, TDs don't like to change scores, it's too much trouble. The correct procedure is to allow a change of call when applicable, then wait (not necessarily at the table) until the deal is over before ruling. At that time the NOS need not claim damage to get redress (contrary to common opinion), although a TD will probably want that input before ruling. If the TD leaves the table during the play period, the usual statement is "Call me if you feel you were damaged." That may be okay with experienced NOs, but inexperienced NOs may not realize that they were damaged, or may be reluctant to recall the TD. My feeling is that the TD should *always* return. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 05:44:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 05:44:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA11014 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 05:44:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 12:44:08 -0700 Message-ID: <012f01bf1d8e$e97e6700$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <002e01bf1c60$0e573e60$a55208c3@swhki5i6> Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 12:29:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Grattan Endicott > From: Marvin L. French > >> Let me get this straight. The OS reaches a 3NT game > > through misuse of UI. Bad breaks would normally > >result in the game's defeat, -50, but the >> NOS revokes to let declarer makes his game, +400. >> When the TD/AC adjusts, who gets what? My belief is that the OS gets +150, the NOS -400 (no direct damage, subsequent damage self-inflicted) The belief I added later is that if the revoke only led to an overtrick, with 3NT cold, then the OS gets +180, the NOS -180. The game score is direct damage, the subsequent revoke is self-inflicted damage. Then I asked: >> Will someone involved with the WBF LC please either >> agree with this policy or correct me? Let's settle the >> matter once and for all. And Grattan replied: > > +=+ I think a member of the WBFLC can > only express a personal view. The WBFLC > has discussed what the principle should > be and has published this in its CoP; Hmm. The CoP comes from the WBFLC? Going by the names on the CoP committee, and the lack of reference to the WBFLC in the document, I assumed the CoP was written independently of the WBFLC. > the > second stage is the application of it to > cases, and that is an Appeal Committee > function, so I would say we await > approval of some examples of the Laws > and CoP in action before the WBF can be > said to have led on the question currently > in debate between Marvin and Eric. > In any case, if the WBFLC is to say > anything on the subject as a body, that > can only be agreed at its next meetings. I thought Lille Interpretation #3 and the CoP aimed to settle the questions raised by my two examples, which are rather simple and straightforward. Lille #3 (in part): ******** Damage to an offender shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. ...The right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild, or gambling. ******* That seems pretty plain. Redress can be annulled if damage is caused, not by the infraction, but by an "evidently irrational, wild, or gambling" action. (Such as a revoke). The CoP says: ****** The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12C2) is appropriate when a iolation of law causes damage to an innocent side that has not damaged itself by irrational, wild or gambling action subsequent to the infraction ***** So far, so good, that agrees with Lille #3. But then follows an apparent cotradiction of the first sentence: ***** Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction. ***** There are two types of damage: (1) a direct consequence of an infraction, and (2) damage subsequent to an infraction, but not a direct consequence of it. L16A2: The Director stands "ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction has resulted in damge." In my 50 years of duplicate bridge, TDs have routinely ruled "no redress" for the NOS when an infraction should have given them a *better* result "than would have been expected in the instant prior to the infraction," but they did something irrational to throw away that advantage. If the CoP is referring only to (1) direct damage, then no contradiction. If it is referring to both (1) and (2), there is a serious contradiction of Law, custom, and Lille #3. The CoP continues: ******* If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild, or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. ****** Contradiction affirmed, if this says that the mentioned revoke stands for the NOS, but in a score of -150, not -400. The CoP continues: ****** The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted without regard to the revoke. ****** Well, that's clear as mud. If it means that the NOS gets -150 and the OS +120, then it not only gives redress to the NOS when none is due, but also opens the Pandora's Box of changing the actual play of the cards when an infraction has not directly affected the play. If the language is indeed clear, then why can't my two simple examples get a simple answer? Such cases come up all the time. Are they really so complicated that an answer must wait until the WBFLC meets again? Marv (Marvin L. French) The CoP may be viewed on David Stevenson's web site: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_cop.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 06:01:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA11077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 06:01:18 +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 GAA11072 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 06:01:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA11057 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:01:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA12928 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:01:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910232001.QAA12928@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L21B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Well, it allows the NO to "change a call when it is probable that he > made the call as a result of the misinformation given to him by an > opponent." This is correct: the threshold for changing a call is that you would have made a different call if given correct information. Robin's point, though, was that once this threshold is reached, you can change to _any_ other call, not only the one you would have chosen if given correct information and nothing else. So while an opponent's remark doesn't in itself allow a change of call, if you are allowed to change a call because of MI, you are then allowed to consider the remark in deciding _which_ change to make. Subtle and perhaps a bit surprising, but I can't see anything in the laws that contradicts Robin's conclusion. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 08:11:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:11:24 +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 IAA11322 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:11:17 +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 SAA02709 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 18:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991023181307.006a388c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 18:13:07 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne In-Reply-To: <012f01bf1d8e$e97e6700$fb095e18@san.rr.com> References: <002e01bf1c60$0e573e60$a55208c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:29 PM 10/23/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >******** >Damage to an offender shall be a consequence of the >infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. >...The right to redress for a non-offending side is not > annulled by normal error or misjudgement in the >subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently >irrational, wild, or gambling. >******* > >That seems pretty plain. Redress can be annulled if >damage is caused, not by the infraction, but by an >"evidently irrational, wild, or gambling" action. >(Such as a revoke). So a diamond is led to trick three, and I see no diamonds among the ten cards in my hand, so I discard. Oops. It was trick three, and that means I really had 11 cards in my hand. At trick five, it gets easier to count. I look at my eight cards and realize I should have nine. I search again, and find a diamond stuck behind another card. My action at trick three was, choose one: (a) Evidently irrational. (b) Evidently wild. (c) Evidently gambling. (d) Inattentive and careless, but none of the above. At our regular weekly game, which is of fairly high standard and runs to 50-60 tables, there are usually two or three revokes over the course of an evening. That sounds more like a "normal error" than like an "action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling" to me. 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 Sun Oct 24 09:38:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:38:16 +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 JAA11494 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:38:08 +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 <19991023030851.DQUM22510.mail.rdc1.pa.home.com@cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com>; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:08:51 -0700 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Logic of opening bids. Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 19:37:48 -0400 Message-ID: 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 I've been having a discussion via private e-mail with one of the OKBridge mailing list regulars concerning an article which he summarised, taken from the September/October issue of Bridge World. With his permission, this is a re-post of the relevant part of his article on the discuss list. in the september/october issue of bridge today, michael rosenberg, who would get my vote as the most fiercely actively ethical bridge player on the planet, discusses precisely this point from a tactical point of view. he writes, in part,: "a prime example of this [planning one's bidding in order to gain a tactical advantage in play] is the decision about which minor to open with 4-4. those players who always open with the same suit are adding an 'element of ease' to their opponents' leads and subsequent defense. by varying intelligently, you can make life more difficult for them without hurting yourself appreciably. I HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN TO ZIA, ALL OF MY RULES GOVERNING WHICH MINOR I OPEN [emphasis added] but the factors involved as: a) ability to handle the auction; b) position; c) vulnerabilty; d) lead-inhibiting; e) lead-directional; f) strength of opposition; g) the other table(s)." The author and I had a difference of opinion on this, and I would be interested to hear some other views. With the disclaimer that I have not done any TD work for a LONG time, and was only an HCD when I did, my view is that, particularly playing with someone of Zia's ability, Rosenberg's position is not tenable, at least not if screens are in use. If he has rules which tell him which minor he opens with 4-4 in the minors, it is very hard to believe that Zia has not picked up at least some of those rules from past experience, and as such, that knowledge is required to be disclosed to opponents. In normal (screenless) F2F play, then obviously this does not require Rosenberg to disclose anything - Zia would have to tell the opponents which of the rules he has worked out from past experience - but if screens were in use, it would put Rosenberg in the difficult position of having to know which of the rules Zia had worked out in order to fulfil his obligations on his side of the screen, which seems to create a few logical problems, at least IMHO. Now, it's entirely possible that I'm totally wrong on any or all of this, but I don't *think* I am - opinions awaited with interest. Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 10:49:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:49:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11635 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:49:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from p65s03a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.83.102] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11fBqB-0002NC-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 17:48:56 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 01:55:41 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1dba$7eb24c80$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: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, October 24, 1999 12:54 AM Subject: Logic of opening bids. > >I've been having a discussion via private e-mail with one of >the OKBridge mailing list regulars concerning an article >which he summarised, taken from the September/October issue >of Bridge World. With his permission, this is a re-post of >the relevant part of his article on the discuss list. > > > >in the september/october issue of bridge today, michael >rosenberg, who would get my vote as the most fiercely >actively ethical bridge player on the planet, discusses >precisely this point from a tactical point of view. he >writes, in part,: > >"a prime example of this [planning one's bidding in order to >gain a tactical advantage in play] is the decision about >which minor to open with 4-4. those players who always open >with the same suit are adding an 'element of ease' to their >opponents' leads and subsequent defense. by varying >intelligently, you can make life more difficult for them >without hurting yourself appreciably. > >I HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN TO ZIA, ALL OF MY >RULES GOVERNING WHICH MINOR I OPEN [emphasis added] but the >factors involved as: a) ability to handle the auction; b) >position; c) vulnerabilty; d) lead-inhibiting; e) >lead-directional; f) strength of opposition; g) the other >table(s)." I am quite sure that any competent partner would *_KNOW_* after a period of time what criteria are being applied. > > > > > >The author and I had a difference of opinion on this, and I >would be interested to hear some other views. With the >disclaimer that I have not done any TD work for a LONG time, >and was only an HCD when I did, my view is that, >particularly playing with someone of Zia's ability, >Rosenberg's position is not tenable, at least not if screens >are in use. If he has rules which tell him which minor he >opens with 4-4 in the minors, it is very hard to believe >that Zia has not picked up at least some of those rules from >past experience, and as such, that knowledge is required to >be disclosed to opponents. In normal (screenless) F2F play, >then obviously this does not require Rosenberg to disclose >anything - Zia would have to tell the opponents which of the >rules he has worked out from past experience - but if >screens were in use, it would put Rosenberg in the difficult >position of having to know which of the rules Zia had worked >out in order to fulfil his obligations on his side of the >screen, which seems to create a few logical problems, at >least IMHO. > >Now, it's entirely possible that I'm totally wrong on any or >all of this, but I don't *think* I am - opinions awaited >with interest. I would consider that there is understanding. One understands what the other is doing, and the understanding is not being disclosed. This reminds me of the thoughts I had when I posted "Nearest left thumb" recently. It amounts to " we know what we are doing but we are not going to tell you." Assume MR chooses his suit totally randomly. ZM will not have any idea of the quality of the suit wrt the other minor. However we are told that there are restraints which guide the leader to a particular suit. The argument that "I have not told anyone, not even Zia" will be considered as self serving and I fear that in a regular partnership this should be discounted. As I understand what you are saying MR (with screens) will tell opp "Inspired choice from 4/4 minors,or better minor"ZM will tell opp "Educated or inspired choice of 4/4 minors or better minor but there is a pattern and it appears that in the present circumstances this may be a poor suit or not as the case may be." Does Zia need to look at his own hand to decide? Are both these fiercely actively ethical players telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? A):D):E):F) and G) are encrypted. I would surprised if the ACBL has not addressed this :-) I will await the contributions of others, but at the moment I agree with you Brian. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 14:26:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA11978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 14:26:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp04.nwnexus.com (smtp04.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11973 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 14:26:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from king.halcyon.com (bbo@king.halcyon.com [206.63.63.10]) by smtp04.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA07234; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by king.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA11333; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:26:08 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Brian Meadows cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I happen to think you are totally wrong! To reduce the bidding process to this absurdity, wherein a ten-minute or shorter lecture is required after every opening bid in a minor, is totally ridiculous. I don't believe any true bridge player plays by rote, automatically selecting the same call every time he has 4-4 in the minors, least of all any of the OKBridge regulars. Secondly, one does not automatically have 4-4 in the minors when one opens one. It might be 5-3 or 6-2, or even 8-0, just to mention a few possibilities! R. B. Odlin ---------------------[past history:]------------------------------- On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brian Meadows wrote: > > I've been having a discussion via private e-mail with one of > the OKBridge mailing list regulars concerning an article > which he summarised, taken from the September/October issue > of Bridge World. With his permission, this is a re-post of > the relevant part of his article on the discuss list. > > > > in the september/october issue of bridge today, michael > rosenberg, who would get my vote as the most fiercely > actively ethical bridge player on the planet, discusses > precisely this point from a tactical point of view. he > writes, in part,: > > "a prime example of this [planning one's bidding in order to > gain a tactical advantage in play] is the decision about > which minor to open with 4-4. those players who always open > with the same suit are adding an 'element of ease' to their > opponents' leads and subsequent defense. by varying > intelligently, you can make life more difficult for them > without hurting yourself appreciably. > > I HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN TO ZIA, ALL OF MY > RULES GOVERNING WHICH MINOR I OPEN [emphasis added] but the > factors involved as: a) ability to handle the auction; b) > position; c) vulnerabilty; d) lead-inhibiting; e) > lead-directional; f) strength of opposition; g) the other > table(s)." > > > > > > The author and I had a difference of opinion on this, and I > would be interested to hear some other views. With the > disclaimer that I have not done any TD work for a LONG time, > and was only an HCD when I did, my view is that, > particularly playing with someone of Zia's ability, > Rosenberg's position is not tenable, at least not if screens > are in use. If he has rules which tell him which minor he > opens with 4-4 in the minors, it is very hard to believe > that Zia has not picked up at least some of those rules from > past experience, and as such, that knowledge is required to > be disclosed to opponents. In normal (screenless) F2F play, > then obviously this does not require Rosenberg to disclose > anything - Zia would have to tell the opponents which of the > rules he has worked out from past experience - but if > screens were in use, it would put Rosenberg in the difficult > position of having to know which of the rules Zia had worked > out in order to fulfil his obligations on his side of the > screen, which seems to create a few logical problems, at > least IMHO. > > Now, it's entirely possible that I'm totally wrong on any or > all of this, but I don't *think* I am - opinions awaited > with interest. > > > Brian. > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 15:48:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA12120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:48:22 +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 PAA12115 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:48:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 22:48:01 -0700 Message-ID: <000701bf1de3$4a6b7040$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199910232001.QAA12928@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: L21B Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 22:47:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Marvin L. French > > Well, it allows the NO to "change a call when it is probable that he > > made the call as a result of the misinformation given to him by an > > opponent." > > This is correct: the threshold for changing a call is that you would > have made a different call if given correct information. > > Robin's point, though, was that once this threshold is reached, you can > change to _any_ other call, not only the one you would have chosen if > given correct information and nothing else. So while an opponent's > remark doesn't in itself allow a change of call, if you are allowed to > change a call because of MI, you are then allowed to consider the > remark in deciding _which_ change to make. > > Subtle and perhaps a bit surprising, but I can't see anything in the > laws that contradicts Robin's conclusion. > If South would have passed in the absence of any MI (the double Alerted and explained), then I don't see how it could be said that the actual pass was "a result of the misinformation." I agree that if South changes the pass to a double, and the TD later agrees that a pass would have been unlikely If South had known of East's lack of an ace, then it doesn't matter what reasons go into that decision. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 17:29:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:29:14 +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 RAA12289 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:29:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:28:52 -0700 Message-ID: <003001bf1df1$61575360$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <002e01bf1c60$0e573e60$a55208c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991023181307.006a388c@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:27:40 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > Marvin wrote: > > >******** > >Damage to an offender shall be a consequence of the > >infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. > >...The right to redress for a non-offending side is not > > annulled by normal error or misjudgement in the > >subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently > >irrational, wild, or gambling. > >******* > > > >That seems pretty plain. Redress can be annulled if > >damage is caused, not by the infraction, but by an > >"evidently irrational, wild, or gambling" action. > >(Such as a revoke). > > So a diamond is led to trick three, and I see no diamonds among the ten > cards in my hand, so I discard. Oops. It was trick three, and that means > I really had 11 cards in my hand. At trick five, it gets easier to count. > I look at my eight cards and realize I should have nine. I search again, > and find a diamond stuck behind another card. My action at trick three > was, choose one: > > (a) Evidently irrational. > (b) Evidently wild. > (c) Evidently gambling. > (d) Inattentive and careless, but none of the above. > > At our regular weekly game, which is of fairly high standard and runs to > 50-60 tables, there are usually two or three revokes over the course of an > evening. That sounds more like a "normal error" than like an "action that > is evidently irrational, wild or gambling" to me. > Well, what constitutes an irrational action is a matter of opinion. I usually defer to Edgar Kaplan when it comes to interpretations of the Laws. He wrote in *The Bridge World*, July 1993: "When we think of mistakes that could cancel the usual protection, we think in terms of revokes, or other *gross* errors." [his emphasis] The word *irrational* can have many shades of meaning. My favorite dictionary, *Webster's New Collegiate*, explains that the word "may imply mental derangement, but more often it suggests actions, words, etc., directly in conflict with reason." That is, it usually doesn't mean that an action so characterized must be extremely crazy. The word was first used by the WBFLC in Lille #3 interpretation, and appears again in the CoP, so we can look there for guidance as to its intended meaning. Under "Score Adjustment" the CoP uses a revoke (by implication) as an example of an "irrational, wild, or gambling action." Since the WBFLC is responsible for the use of the word in this context, I think we have to go along with its belief that a revoke is irrational. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 18:38:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:38:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.pa.home.com [24.2.5.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12372 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:38:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com ([24.1.53.108]) by mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991023101315.GVYD22510.mail.rdc1.pa.home.com@cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com> for ; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:13:15 -0700 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 04:37:46 -0400 Message-ID: <+sQSOPfeVcstZDZ3HR3SkCwoNyWB@4ax.com> 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: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard Odlin wrote: > >Secondly, one does not automatically have 4-4 in the minors when one opens >one. It might be 5-3 or 6-2, or even 8-0, just to mention a few >possibilities! > Since my original post, i.e. the part of Rosenberg's article which was quoted, specifically constrained itself to hands which were 4-4 in the minor, I don't see what relevance this part of your reply has to anything. However, if you wish to split hairs, please assume that the question asked by the opponents at the opening lead is "If your partner is 4-4 in the minors, would he have opened 1C or 1D?" Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 18:40:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:40:40 +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 SAA12386 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:40:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.19] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11fJCQ-000Py5-00; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:40:22 +0100 Message-ID: <001601bf1dfb$63a333a0$135108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Cc: Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:38:36 +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 Cc: rcolker@worldnet.att.net Date: 23 October 1999 21:18 Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne >From: Grattan Endicott > >> From: Marvin L. French > ..... \x/ .......... > >And Grattan replied: >> >> +=+ I think a member of the WBFLC can >> only express a personal view. The WBFLC >> has discussed what the principle should >> be and has published this in its CoP; > >Hmm. The CoP comes from the WBFLC? >Going by the names on the CoP committee, >and the lack of reference to the WBFLC in >the document, I assumed the CoP was >written independently of the WBFLC. > +=+ absolutely right - I did correct myself as soon as I spotted the error caused by a habit of mind. Getting old, I suppose. The correction had evidently not been seen. +=+ > ........... \x/ .............. > >In my 50 years of duplicate bridge, TDs have >routinely ruled "no redress" for the NOS when an >infraction should have given them a *better* result >"than would have been expected in the instant prior >to the infraction," but they did something irrational >to throw away that advantage. > +=+ I wonder what they will be doing over the next fifty years? +=+ > >If the CoP is referring only to (1) direct damage, >then no contradiction. If it is referring to both (1) and >(2), there is a serious contradiction of Law, custom, >and Lille #3. > >The CoP continues: > >******* >If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its >own damage by irrational, wild, or gambling action, >it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such >part of the damage as is self-inflicted. >****** > >Contradiction affirmed, if this says that the mentioned >revoke stands for the NOS, but in a score of -150, >not -400. > >The CoP continues: > >****** >The offending side, however, should be awarded the >score that it would have been allotted as the normal >consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent >side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score >but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted without >regard to the revoke. >****** > >Well, that's clear as mud. If it means that the NOS >gets -150 and the OS +120, then it not only gives >redress to the NOS when none is due, [+=+ begging the question +=+] but also >opens the Pandora's Box of changing the actual play >of the cards when an infraction has not directly affected >the play. > >If the language is indeed clear, then why can't my two >simple examples get a simple answer? Such cases >come up all the time. Are they really so complicated >that an answer must wait until the WBFLC meets again? +=+ On the other hand, I think the language is wholly clear. It states the *principle* by which ACs (and Directors) are to adjust scores. The offending side is to have the score adjustment that it would have got with no ripples of irrationality etc., and no revoke. The score adjustment for the NOS will leave with the NOS that part of its score that is judged to have been engineered by its own I/W/G action, revoke etc., but it will be given redress in respect of that part of the damage that is judged to have been engineered by its opponent's infraction and not brought upon itself. You then ask for interpretation of this in a specific case, and I am not drawn to state my personal view because it would be only that. You seem not to have taken the point that the application of the principle to a specific case is the function of the Director and the appeals procedures; this is why the extension of the work of the Group will be to build up next a jurisprudence of approved case law based upon appeals in which the WBF considers its freshly enunciated principles are well portrayed. I do understand your impatience but I am still not prepared to anticipate the next piece of the action when we are 'making progress towards' and have still to arrive. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 18:50:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:50:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from gadolinium (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12406 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:50:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.231.38] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11fJM0-0003C5-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:50:16 +0100 Message-ID: <000501bf1dfb$e72631a0$26e7abc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <002e01bf1c60$0e573e60$a55208c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991023181307.006a388c@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:43:52 +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 Eric wrote: > So a diamond is led to trick three, and I see no diamonds among the ten > cards in my hand, so I discard. Oops. It was trick three, and that means > I really had 11 cards in my hand. At trick five, it gets easier to count. > I look at my eight cards and realize I should have nine. I search again, > and find a diamond stuck behind another card. My action at trick three > was, choose one: > > (a) Evidently irrational. > (b) Evidently wild. > (c) Evidently gambling. > (d) Inattentive and careless, but none of the above. > > At our regular weekly game, which is of fairly high standard and runs to > 50-60 tables, there are usually two or three revokes over the course of an > evening. That sounds more like a "normal error" than like an "action that > is evidently irrational, wild or gambling" to me. While I have some sympathy with Eric's position, I think that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. If we are to regard a revoke as "inattentive and careless" as opposed to irrational, then we would have to rule in cases of contested claims that, since the claimer might make the "normal error" of revoking, he is automatically entitled to at least two fewer tricks than he has claimed. Mind you, anything that stops people making bum claims is to be applauded, so perhaps... David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 19:11:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 19:11:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from gadolinium (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA12450 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 19:11:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.231.38] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11fJgY-0006tL-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:11:30 +0100 Message-ID: <002501bf1dfe$de4f4960$26e7abc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:05:06 +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 An amusing thing happened while I was coaching the British team at the Rhodes Olympiad. One of the American pairs - I think it was Oest and Garner - put on their convention card that with 4-4 in the minors, "one of us opens 1C and the other opens 1D". Obviously, these players had chosen to allow a fierce ideological difference to remain unresolved, but in my notes to the British pairs I wrote: "This is, of course, an illegal method, since both members of a partnership must play the same system. So, as soon as one of them opens 1m, you should call the Director and have them disqualified." Sadly, these notes somehow fell into the hands of the Americans. Not being totally conversant with the British sense of humour, they were somewhat alarmed. We reassured them that we had meant no harm, but the question is - were they, in fact, playing an illegal method? David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 20:25:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 20:25:18 +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 UAA12569 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 20:25:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-197.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.197]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA04622 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 12:25:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3812D0AC.F6240E8C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:26:04 +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: Nearest left thumb References: <19991022180141.46244.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > > >Well, there are 9 cards in the pack that one can ask clubs > >with : > >234 of spades, 567 of clubs, and 8910 of diamonds. > > > Ah, I see. I think that Adam has done the same mis-reading of this system > that I have - this carding system applies only to discards, not to following > suit. Am I right? > With me, yes. Some people in Limburg also play it on the first lead of partner, but I don't. I believe, as I've now read, as if the discarding would be allowed, but the signalling in the suit would not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 20:25:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 20:25:20 +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 UAA12570 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 20:25:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-197.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.197]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA04627 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 12:25:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3812D3DD.99EED67D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:39:41 +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: Logic of opening bids. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: > > > > > I HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN TO ZIA, ALL OF MY > RULES GOVERNING WHICH MINOR I OPEN [emphasis added] but the > factors involved as: a) ability to handle the auction; b) > position; c) vulnerabilty; d) lead-inhibiting; e) > lead-directional; f) strength of opposition; g) the other > table(s)." > > > IMO (dWs position coming up) There are rules governing the choice of bid. These rules are disclosable to opponents. However : MR maintains that the set of rules is too complex to explain even to Zia. I would allow him to explain this to opponents, adding : "there is a complex rule governing this, but it is too long to explain, and you would probably not be able to deduce any useful knowledge from it, before the 12th trick is played". Disclosable in theory but not in practice, is my opinion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 22:25:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA12828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 22:25:31 +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 WAA12823 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 22:25:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp202-19.worldonline.nl [195.241.202.19]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA03558; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 14:25:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006201bf1e23$6713c220$57e3f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 14:26:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF1E2B.C78878A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dit is een meerdelig bericht in MIME-indeling. ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF1E2B.C78878A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Richard Odlin wrote: > >I happen to think you are totally wrong! To reduce the bidding process = to >this absurdity, wherein a ten-minute or shorter lecture is required = after >every opening bid in a minor, is totally ridiculous. I don't believe = any >true bridge player plays by rote, automatically selecting the same call >every time he has 4-4 in the minors, least of all any of the OKBridge >regulars. > >Secondly, one does not automatically have 4-4 in the minors when one = opens >one. It might be 5-3 or 6-2, or even 8-0, just to mention a few >possibilities! > >R. B. Odlin > >---------------------[past history:]------------------------------- > > >On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brian Meadows wrote: > >> >> I've been having a discussion via private e-mail with one of >> the OKBridge mailing list regulars concerning an article >> which he summarised, taken from the September/October issue >> of Bridge World. With his permission, this is a re-post of >> the relevant part of his article on the discuss list. >> >> >> >> in the september/october issue of bridge today, michael >> rosenberg, who would get my vote as the most fiercely >> actively ethical bridge player on the planet, discusses >> precisely this point from a tactical point of view. he >> writes, in part,: >> >> "a prime example of this [planning one's bidding in order to >> gain a tactical advantage in play] is the decision about >> which minor to open with 4-4. those players who always open >> with the same suit are adding an 'element of ease' to their >> opponents' leads and subsequent defense. by varying >> intelligently, you can make life more difficult for them >> without hurting yourself appreciably. >> >> I HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN TO ZIA, ALL OF MY >> RULES GOVERNING WHICH MINOR I OPEN [emphasis added] but the >> factors involved as: a) ability to handle the auction; b) >> position; c) vulnerabilty; d) lead-inhibiting; e) >> lead-directional; f) strength of opposition; g) the other >> table(s)." >> >> >> >> >> >> The author and I had a difference of opinion on this, and I >> would be interested to hear some other views. With the >> disclaimer that I have not done any TD work for a LONG time, >> and was only an HCD when I did, my view is that, >> particularly playing with someone of Zia's ability, >> Rosenberg's position is not tenable, at least not if screens >> are in use. If he has rules which tell him which minor he >> opens with 4-4 in the minors, it is very hard to believe >> that Zia has not picked up at least some of those rules from >> past experience, and as such, that knowledge is required to >> be disclosed to opponents. In normal (screenless) F2F play, >> then obviously this does not require Rosenberg to disclose >> anything - Zia would have to tell the opponents which of the >> rules he has worked out from past experience - but if >> screens were in use, it would put Rosenberg in the difficult >> position of having to know which of the rules Zia had worked >> out in order to fulfil his obligations on his side of the >> screen, which seems to create a few logical problems, at >> least IMHO. >> >> Now, it's entirely possible that I'm totally wrong on any or >> all of this, but I don't *think* I am - opinions awaited >> with interest. >> >> >> Brian. >> >> > I fully agree with Brian. Your remark, Richard, is not relevant. It is = the Laws and the WBF that enforce full disclosure of any agreement or system used. If you want to prevent those lectures, you should either change = the Laws and regulations, or outlaw the use of any agreement that would give rise to a lengthy discussion. Jac ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF1E2B.C78878A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Richard Odlin wrote:


>
>I happen to think you = are=20 totally wrong!  To reduce the bidding process to
>this = absurdity,=20 wherein a ten-minute or shorter lecture is required after
>every = opening=20 bid in a minor, is totally ridiculous.  I don't believe = any
>true=20 bridge player plays by rote, automatically selecting the same = call
>every=20 time he has 4-4 in the minors, least of all any of the=20 OKBridge
>regulars.
>
>Secondly, one does not = automatically=20 have 4-4 in the minors when one opens
>one.  It might be 5-3 = or 6-2,=20 or even 8-0, just to mention a = few
>possibilities!
>
>R. B.=20 Odlin
>

>---------------------[past=20 history:]-------------------------------
>
>
>On Sat, = 23 Oct=20 1999, Brian Meadows wrote:
>
>>
>> I've been = having a=20 discussion via private e-mail with one of
>> the OKBridge = mailing list=20 regulars concerning an article
>> which he summarised, taken = from the=20 September/October issue
>> of Bridge World. With his = permission, this=20 is a re-post of
>> the relevant part of his article on the = discuss=20 list.
>>
>> <paste>
>>
>> in = the=20 september/october issue of bridge today, michael
>> rosenberg, = who=20 would get my vote as the most fiercely
>> actively ethical = bridge=20 player on the planet, discusses
>> precisely this point from a = tactical=20 point of view.  he
>> writes, in = part,:
>>
>>=20 "a prime example of this [planning one's bidding in order = to
>>=20 gain a tactical advantage in play] is the decision about
>> = which minor=20 to open with 4-4.  those players who always open
>> with = the same=20 suit are adding an 'element of ease' to their
>> opponents' = leads and=20 subsequent defense.  by varying
>> intelligently, you can = make=20 life more difficult for them
>> without hurting yourself=20 appreciably.
>>
>> I HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED TO ANYONE, = NOT EVEN=20 TO ZIA, ALL OF MY
>> RULES GOVERNING WHICH MINOR I OPEN = [emphasis=20 added] but the
>> factors involved as: a) ability to handle the = auction; b)
>> position; c) vulnerabilty; d) lead-inhibiting;=20 e)
>> lead-directional; f) strength of opposition; g) the=20 other
>> table(s)."
>>
>>
>> = <end=20 paste>
>>
>>
>> The author and I had a = difference=20 of opinion on this, and I
>> would be interested to hear some = other=20 views. With the
>> disclaimer that I have not done any TD work = for a=20 LONG time,
>> and was only an HCD when I did, my view is=20 that,
>> particularly playing with someone of Zia's=20 ability,
>> Rosenberg's position is not tenable, at least not = if=20 screens
>> are in use. If he has rules which tell him which = minor=20 he
>> opens with 4-4 in the minors, it is very hard to=20 believe
>> that Zia has not picked up at least some of those = rules=20 from
>> past experience, and as such, that knowledge is = required=20 to
>> be disclosed to opponents. In normal (screenless) F2F=20 play,
>> then obviously this does not require Rosenberg to=20 disclose
>> anything - Zia would have to tell the opponents = which of=20 the
>> rules he has worked out from past experience - but=20 if
>> screens were in use, it would put Rosenberg in the=20 difficult
>> position of having to know which of the rules Zia = had=20 worked
>> out in order to fulfil his obligations on his side of = the
>> screen, which seems to create a few logical problems,=20 at
>> least IMHO.
>>
>> Now, it's entirely = possible=20 that I'm totally wrong on any or
>> all of this, but I don't = *think* I=20 am - opinions awaited
>> with=20 interest.
>>
>>
>>=20 Brian.
>>
>>
>

I fully agree with Brian. = Your=20 remark, Richard, is not relevant. It is the
Laws and the WBF that = enforce=20 full disclosure of any agreement or system
used. If you want to = prevent those=20 lectures, you should either change the
Laws and regulations, or = outlaw the=20 use of any agreement that would give
rise to a lengthy=20 discussion.

Jac

------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF1E2B.C78878A0-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 22:26:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA12842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 22:26:15 +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 WAA12830 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 22:26:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.3]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24472 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 14:26:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3812E351.CBB1CEB2@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 12:45:37 +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: Logic of opening bids. References: <+sQSOPfeVcstZDZ3HR3SkCwoNyWB@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard Odlin > wrote: > > > > >Secondly, one does not automatically have 4-4 in the minors when one opens > >one. It might be 5-3 or 6-2, or even 8-0, just to mention a few > >possibilities! > > > > Since my original post, i.e. the part of Rosenberg's article > which was quoted, specifically constrained itself to hands > which were 4-4 in the minor, I don't see what relevance this > part of your reply has to anything. However, if you wish to > split hairs, please assume that the question asked by the > opponents at the opening lead is "If your partner is 4-4 in > the minors, would he have opened 1C or 1D?" > > Brian. No, the question would be : "he opened 1Di, under what circumstances could he hold 4 clubs ?" The answer would be : "if he has 5 or more Diamonds, or if he has 4 diamonds and a set of circumstances too difficult to explain but coming down to about 50/50 chance." -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 23:43:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:43:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13019 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:43:42 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id pNHa016946 (4209); Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <736705b1.254466e6@aol.com> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:43:02 EDT Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: bbo@halcyon.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 10/24/99 8:27:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jfuchs@worldonline.nl writes: > > >> "a prime example of this [planning one's bidding in order to > >> gain a tactical advantage in play] is the decision about > >> which minor to open with 4-4. those players who always open > >> with the same suit are adding an 'element of ease' to their > >> opponents' leads and subsequent defense. by varying > >> intelligently, you can make life more difficult for them > >> without hurting yourself appreciably. > >> > >> I HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN TO ZIA, ALL OF MY > >> RULES GOVERNING WHICH MINOR I OPEN [emphasis added] but the > >> factors involved as: a) ability to handle the auction; b) > >> position; c) vulnerabilty; d) lead-inhibiting; e) > >> lead-directional; f) strength of opposition; g) the other > >> table(s)." > >> Sorry to bother anyone with this, but where in the above does it say anything about PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDING? Mr. Rosenberg simply says that HE ("MY RULES") takes a whole bunch of things into consideration when making an opening bid with 4-4 in the minors. His partner isn't aware of what they are, which takes precedence at any one time, or has any information that the opponents are entitled to. NOR IS HE (ANY PARTNER NOT JUST ZIA) AWARE THAT MICHAEL HAS 4-4 IN THE MINORS AT THE TIME. What would you like him to say? "........If my partner has 4-4 in the minors he considers a lot of factors before calling including the stupid look on your face...." Come on, this is one case where reading simple English is highly recommended. Or are the words "NOT EVEN TO ZIA" so enticing that this discussion group needs to explain to the most ethical player in the game (notice I left out the word "actively" since it adds nothing to meaning) how to play by the Laws? Get real! There are certainly examples of real and much greater import in improving our Laws and procedures than to use this as even remotely non-compliance. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 24 23:59:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:59:36 +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 XAA13062 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:59:28 +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 JAA08956 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:57:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991024095602.007f4100@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:56:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. In-Reply-To: <3812D3DD.99EED67D@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:39 AM 10/24/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >There are rules governing the choice of bid. >These rules are disclosable to opponents. >However : >MR maintains that the set of rules is too complex to explain >even to Zia. I understand that Rosenberg described these as "rules", but they appear to me to be Rosenberg applying his bridge judgment. I get the idea that with identical hands, Rosenberg might choose two different opening bids based upon things like: "f) strength of opposition; g) the other table(s)." This, to me, is just Rosenberg making use of his bridge experience while making a judgment call. To explain, when asked, that a variety of factors, such as "blah blah" come into play seems quite sufficient to me. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 02:00:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 01:09:44 +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 BAA13301 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 01:09:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldmm5.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.218.197]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA20205 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:09:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <38132267.26ECE640@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:14:47 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. References: <736705b1.254466e6@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/24/99 8:27:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jfuchs@worldonline.nl writes [quoting Rosenberg]: > > > > > >> "a prime example of this [planning one's bidding in order to > > >> gain a tactical advantage in play] is the decision about > > >> which minor to open with 4-4. those players who always open > > >> with the same suit are adding an 'element of ease' to their > > >> opponents' leads and subsequent defense. by varying > > >> intelligently, you can make life more difficult for them > > >> without hurting yourself appreciably. > > >> > > >> I HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN TO ZIA, ALL OF MY > > >> RULES GOVERNING WHICH MINOR I OPEN [emphasis added] but the > > >> factors involved as: a) ability to handle the auction; b) > > >> position; c) vulnerabilty; d) lead-inhibiting; e) > > >> lead-directional; f) strength of opposition; g) the other > > >> table(s)." > > >> > > Sorry to bother anyone with this, but where in the above does it say anything > about PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDING? With partners who insist on 5-card majors, I still open 4-card majors occasionally. I don't tell them. For the purposes of this, I won't talk to them. Five years into one of these partnerships, someone asks partner if I can have four of a major after a 1M opening. Is he supposed to say no? Look, Zia understands these issues. It may be complicated, but there certainly is an issue of disclosure. Mr. Rosenberg simply says that HE ("MY > RULES") takes a whole bunch of things into consideration when making an > opening bid with 4-4 in the minors. His partner isn't aware of what they > are, Wow. Kojak, I am not so bold as to presume Zia can't figure stuff out after many years in a regular partnershup. Of course, Zia will guess very well. Actually, I think *I* could guess pretty well. My partners, who have to put up with my propensity to choose a minor based on somewhat ethereal considerations, are expected to explain as well as they know. But then, I'm not MR, so they have to? which takes precedence at any one time, or has any information that the > opponents are entitled to. NOR IS HE (ANY PARTNER NOT JUST ZIA) AWARE THAT > MICHAEL HAS 4-4 IN THE MINORS AT THE TIME. What would you like him to say? > "........If my partner has 4-4 in the minors he considers a lot of factors > before calling including the stupid look on your face...." Sure, if that's an issue. Come on, this is > one case where reading simple English is highly recommended. Or are the > words "NOT EVEN TO ZIA" so enticing that this discussion group needs to > explain to the most ethical player in the game (notice I left out the word > "actively" since it adds nothing to meaning) how to play by the Laws? I don't know. An appeals committee ruled against him on hesitation Blackwood. The Bridge World editorialized that Mr. Rosenberg was dead wrong on his ethical views on leads out of turn. So, people have disagreed with MR on ethics in the past. I am certain, were he reading this, that he would not be personally offended. Other quibble: I don't believe MR is "the most ethical player in the game." There are many others who strain to do the right thing on every occasion, and are quite knowledgeable about the rules. I would never say, as you have, that they are less ethical than MR. I would, instead, say that no player is more ethical than MR. Get > real! There are certainly examples of real and much greater import in > improving our Laws and procedures than to use this as even remotely > non-compliance. OK, try this example: The defense come into the endgame. MR is declaring and has opened 1C. He holds either Qx AJxx AJxx Qxxx or Qx AJxx Jxxx AQxx. The opponents ask whether he would open 1C on the first hand or second. Zia has an obligation to say "yes," "no," or, "40 percent of the time on the first, 80% of the time on the second," or whatever is true. This is not trivial and applies to many other bidding situations. --JRM > > Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 03:10:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 03:10:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13763 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 03:09:56 +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 11fR9O-000OHI-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:09:47 +0000 Message-ID: <4JjXQ3Ah0zE4EwO4@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:08:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. In-Reply-To: <+sQSOPfeVcstZDZ3HR3SkCwoNyWB@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <+sQSOPfeVcstZDZ3HR3SkCwoNyWB@4ax.com>, Brian Meadows writes >On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard Odlin >wrote: > >> >>Secondly, one does not automatically have 4-4 in the minors when one opens >>one. It might be 5-3 or 6-2, or even 8-0, just to mention a few >>possibilities! >> > >Since my original post, i.e. the part of Rosenberg's article >which was quoted, specifically constrained itself to hands >which were 4-4 in the minor, I don't see what relevance this >part of your reply has to anything. However, if you wish to >split hairs, please assume that the question asked by the >opponents at the opening lead is "If your partner is 4-4 in >the minors, would he have opened 1C or 1D?" > > >Brian. > "Either, depending on his perception of his opponents, state of the match, specific holding, dealer, vulnerabilty, tempo of opponents, who else is his seat, what he had for lunch, whether it's a Thursday, blah blah. More often one diamond than one club." should get a ZT as well :)) 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 Oct 25 03:10:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 03:10:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13762 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 03:09:56 +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 11fR9O-000B9R-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:09:47 +0000 Message-ID: <$5VW8yA6yzE4EwME@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:07:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. In-Reply-To: <38132267.26ECE640@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38132267.26ECE640@mindspring.com>, "John R. Mayne" writes snip > My partners, >who have to put up with my propensity to choose a minor based on >somewhat ethereal considerations, snip my partners have this problem with *all* my bids :)) 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 Oct 25 03:42:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 03:22:09 +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 DAA13804 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 03:21:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:21:47 -0700 Message-ID: <00af01bf1e44$36e2b5e0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:20:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Richard B. or Barbara B. > > I happen to think you are totally wrong! To reduce the bidding process to > this absurdity, wherein a ten-minute or shorter lecture is required after > every opening bid in a minor, is totally ridiculous. Yes. This disclosure thing is getting out of hand. Someone has to put a reasonable lid on it. Those with special partnership agreements, such as "We always open [1D ] [1C] with 4-4 in the minors" should put that on their cc, and should certainly disclose such things when asked about style. To go further than that is indeed ridiculous. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 05:03:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 05:03:33 +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 FAA14049 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 05:03:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-196-234.s234.tnt5.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.196.234]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id PAA27901 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003e01bf1e52$6afbc660$eac47ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <+sQSOPfeVcstZDZ3HR3SkCwoNyWB@4ax.com> <3812E351.CBB1CEB2@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:03:10 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, October 24, 1999 6:45 AM Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. > Brian Meadows wrote: > > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard Odlin > > wrote: > > > > > > > >Secondly, one does not automatically have 4-4 in the minors when one opens > > >one. It might be 5-3 or 6-2, or even 8-0, just to mention a few > > >possibilities! > > > > > > > Since my original post, i.e. the part of Rosenberg's article > > which was quoted, specifically constrained itself to hands > > which were 4-4 in the minor, I don't see what relevance this > > part of your reply has to anything. However, if you wish to > > split hairs, please assume that the question asked by the > > opponents at the opening lead is "If your partner is 4-4 in > > the minors, would he have opened 1C or 1D?" > > > > Brian. > > No, the question would be : "he opened 1Di, under what > circumstances could he hold 4 clubs ?" > The answer would be : "if he has 5 or more Diamonds, or if > he has 4 diamonds and a set of circumstances too difficult > to explain but coming down to about 50/50 chance." > If I was called to this table, I would rule that there was a concealed partnership understanding (L40B), and adjust under L40C if IMO the other side had been damaged. If the player making this explanation were experienced, I would likely impose a PP as well. The "set of circumstances too difficult to explain" is in fact a partnership understanding. A player does not have the right to fail to disclose an agreement. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 05:32:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 05:32:01 +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 FAA14130 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 05:31:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-196-234.s234.tnt5.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.196.234]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id PAA14939 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005901bf1e56$660e57e0$eac47ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3812D3DD.99EED67D@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:31:37 -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, October 24, 1999 5:39 AM Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. [snip] > > There are rules governing the choice of bid. > These rules are disclosable to opponents. Not if Zia really doesn't know them. > However : > MR maintains that the set of rules is too complex to explain > even to Zia. Doesn't really matter. Do you really think that Zia will not be able to discern these rules over time? The problem appears to be that MR is hedging Law 40 by avoiding explicit discussion. The logic is that if there has been no discussion, then there is no agreement. However, the absence of discussion does not mean that there is in fact no partnership agreement. Zia is a good enough player to observe his partner's tendencies without discussion, and to take those tendencies into account in his bidding. This creates an implicit agreement, in which Zia would in fact have a better idea of the types of hand MR could hold than the opponents. According disclosure is required. > I would allow him to explain this to opponents, adding : > "there is a complex rule governing this, but it is too long > to explain, and you would probably not be able to deduce any > useful knowledge from it, before the 12th trick is played". > > Disclosable in theory but not in practice, is my opinion. > Interesting idea, but IMO not possible under the laws as currently written. If an agreement is disclosable in theory, it must be disclosed in practive. Should there be a law change, such that certain agreements are not disclosed? What would the standards be? Who would decide which agreements met those standards?\ Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 05:52:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA14207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 05:52:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.nwnexus.com (smtp10.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA14202 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 05:52:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from king.halcyon.com (bbo@king.halcyon.com [206.63.63.10]) by smtp10.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA22932; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 12:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by king.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05316; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 12:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 12:52:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Brian Meadows cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. In-Reply-To: <+sQSOPfeVcstZDZ3HR3SkCwoNyWB@4ax.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Brian Meadows wrote: > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard Odlin > wrote: > > > > >Secondly, one does not automatically have 4-4 in the minors when one opens > >one. It might be 5-3 or 6-2, or even 8-0, just to mention a few > >possibilities! > > > > Since my original post, i.e. the part of Rosenberg's article > which was quoted, specifically constrained itself to hands > which were 4-4 in the minor, I don't see what relevance this > part of your reply has to anything. However, if you wish to > split hairs, please assume that the question asked by the > opponents at the opening lead is "If your partner is 4-4 in > the minors, would he have opened 1C or 1D?" Well I am sorry, you did not mention anything about the opponents asking questions. I read your original post as inferring that the minute MR opened one of a minor, it was incumbent upon Zia to explain in detail everything he knew about the 4-4 situation! Never mind how he knows MR is 4-4, just disclose right away! For that reason I thought I would mention that there are other distributions that would be opened one of a minor as a demonstration of why what I thought was being suggested ends up being an abomination, which I am sure you agree it would have been. :) R. B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 07:18:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA14390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 07:18:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA14384 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 07:18:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-187.access.net.il [213.8.3.187] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA12659; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:18:13 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3813779F.C0C6AB43@zahav.net.il> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:18:23 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. References: <3812D3DD.99EED67D@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't like this approach Your Disclosureness !!!!!! Either I am entitled to know everything going on or not : If not - because it takes 20 days to explain it , or "they don't love to tell everything " or any other nuts or coconuts... - you have two alternatives (without logic...): a. to forbid that system/convention or b. play everything you want , without need for disclosure..... This is my basic opinion ! But I agree with Kojak , dealing with the "better minor" opening bid , when you have 4-4....There are a lot of considerations , in order to decide "which is the better..." and I believe that in different situations (including table presence or opponents' number of eyes...) one can open once Club and other time Diam....My inclination is to accept this "Rosenberg's meaning". Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > > Brian Meadows wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN TO ZIA, ALL OF MY > > RULES GOVERNING WHICH MINOR I OPEN [emphasis added] but the > > factors involved as: a) ability to handle the auction; b) > > position; c) vulnerabilty; d) lead-inhibiting; e) > > lead-directional; f) strength of opposition; g) the other > > table(s)." > > > > > > > > IMO (dWs position coming up) > > There are rules governing the choice of bid. > These rules are disclosable to opponents. > However : > MR maintains that the set of rules is too complex to explain > even to Zia. > I would allow him to explain this to opponents, adding : > "there is a complex rule governing this, but it is too long > to explain, and you would probably not be able to deduce any > useful knowledge from it, before the 12th trick is played". > > Disclosable in theory but not in practice, is my opinion. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 08:05:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:05:16 +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 IAA14446 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:05:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16178 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:04:59 +0200 Received: from ip71.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.71), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda16175; Mon Oct 25 00:04:50 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: L21B Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:04:49 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199910221841.TAA24723@tempest.npl.co.uk> <012e01bf1d8e$e922d980$fb095e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <012e01bf1d8e$e922d980$fb095e18@san.rr.com> 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 IAA14447 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:49:54 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Immediate questioning is iinappropriate for at least three reasons: >(1) pllayers may not know offhand what they would have done, perhaps >needing some thinking time; (2) such answers are unreliable, given >the potential for bias; and (3) it unfairly wastes time in this >time-driven game. And (4) it places the NOS in the position of having to spend mental energy on making bidding decisions twice in slightly different contexts, thus also ensuring that their concentration for playing the contract is disturbed. Top players may be able to handle that, but many of the rest of us would run a large risk of playing the hand badly when we came back to the table. That is not a reasonable way to treat a non-offending side. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 08:09:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:09:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14463 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:09:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.16] (math-16.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.16]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA10806 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:09:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:09:42 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn writes: >An amusing thing happened while I was coaching the British team at the >Rhodes Olympiad. One of the American pairs - I think it was Oest and >Garner - put on their convention card that with 4-4 in the minors, >"one of us opens 1C and the other opens 1D". Obviously, these players >had chosen to allow a fierce ideological difference to remain >unresolved, but in my notes to the British pairs I wrote: >"This is, of course, an illegal method, since both members of a >partnership must play the same system. So, as soon as one of them >opens 1m, you should call the Director and have them disqualified." The ACBL policy is that both members of a partnership must use the same system but they can vary style. This appears to fit into the category of style. (The ACBL's example is that if one player plays a 15-17 1NT, so must his partner, but if one player never opens 1NT with a five-card major, his partner may often open it.) Do other organizations have similar rules? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 08:13:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:13:20 +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 IAA14480 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:13:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp230-178.worldonline.nl [195.241.230.178]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA04381; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:13:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000e01bf1e75$8b261940$b2e6f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:14:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 10/24/99 8:27:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >jfuchs@worldonline.nl writes: > >> >> >> "a prime example of this [planning one's bidding in order to >> >> gain a tactical advantage in play] is the decision about >> >> which minor to open with 4-4. those players who always open >> >> with the same suit are adding an 'element of ease' to their >> >> opponents' leads and subsequent defense. by varying >> >> intelligently, you can make life more difficult for them >> >> without hurting yourself appreciably. >> >> >> >> I HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN TO ZIA, ALL OF MY >> >> RULES GOVERNING WHICH MINOR I OPEN [emphasis added] but the >> >> factors involved as: a) ability to handle the auction; b) >> >> position; c) vulnerabilty; d) lead-inhibiting; e) >> >> lead-directional; f) strength of opposition; g) the other >> >> table(s)." >> >> > >Sorry to bother anyone with this, but where in the above does it say anything >about PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDING? Mr. Rosenberg simply says that HE ("MY >RULES") takes a whole bunch of things into consideration when making an >opening bid with 4-4 in the minors. His partner isn't aware of what they >are, which takes precedence at any one time, or has any information that the >opponents are entitled to. NOR IS HE (ANY PARTNER NOT JUST ZIA) AWARE THAT >MICHAEL HAS 4-4 IN THE MINORS AT THE TIME. What would you like him to say? >"........If my partner has 4-4 in the minors he considers a lot of factors >before calling including the stupid look on your face...." Come on, this is >one case where reading simple English is highly recommended. Or are the >words "NOT EVEN TO ZIA" so enticing that this discussion group needs to >explain to the most ethical player in the game (notice I left out the word >"actively" since it adds nothing to meaning) how to play by the Laws? Get >real! There are certainly examples of real and much greater import in >improving our Laws and procedures than to use this as even remotely >non-compliance. > > Kojak > Dear Kojak, 1) Everything that you quoted above was not written by me, but came from previous mails. So if you feel another urge to write in the "Come on man, get real" vein, please do not put my name above it next time, suggesting I was the author of some ridiculous text. 2) At no time did I suggest I would like to see the Laws amended here. 3) I agree with you that Mr. Rosenberg need not disclose the factors on which he bases his own decisions on what to bid, but I agree with the original poster as far as a quote that you conveniently omitted is concerned: >it is very hard to believe > that Zia has not picked up at least some of those rules from > past experience, and as such, that knowledge is required to > be disclosed to opponents. I do not say that Zia refrains from full disclosure, I merely say that he ought to tell whatever he knows about how Mr. Rosenberg decides which minor to bid. Jac From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 08:35:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:35:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14518 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:35:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.16] (math-16.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.16]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA15556 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:35:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:36:00 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows writes: >"a prime example of this [planning one's bidding in order to >gain a tactical advantage in play] is the decision about >which minor to open with 4-4. those players who always open >with the same suit are adding an 'element of ease' to their >opponents' leads and subsequent defense. by varying >intelligently, you can make life more difficult for them >without hurting yourself appreciably. >I HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN TO ZIA, ALL OF MY >RULES GOVERNING WHICH MINOR I OPEN [emphasis added] but the >factors involved as: a) ability to handle the auction; b) >position; c) vulnerabilty; d) lead-inhibiting; e) >lead-directional; f) strength of opposition; g) the other >table(s)." The question at issue is whether the issues are "special partnership agreements", which must be disclosed, or "general bridge knowledge>" I think the special partnership agreement is that either bid is suitable, and that the opponents are entitled to know this if they ask. It is general bridge knowledge that a player who has two different bids available which are allowed by system will choose whichever he considers more effective. Thus, I think full disclosure is served by the explanation, "With 4-4 in the minors, partner may open either one." Presumably, any expert whose system allows either bid will weigh the same factors. This is similar to the explanation, "Partner's 2NT opening shows a good 20 to 22 HCP." Experts may disagree on what constitutes a good 20, but they will consider the same factors in deciding whether a particular 20 is good. A situation becomes a special partnership agreement if the partnership makes use of it in other bidding. For example, deciding what to open with 4-5-2-2 becomes a special partnership agreement if you have an agreement (explicit or implicit) that responder will not pass 1H-1NT-2C with four clubs and five diamonds, or that 1S-2C-2H-2S-3H shows the 4-5 and cancels the previous spade agreement. It is not a special partnership agreement if you simply bid AKJx Kxxxx xx Kx as if it was 5-5-2-2 (open 1S), and Kxxx KQJTx xx Ax as if it was 4-6-2-2 (open 1H and rebid 2H over 2NT), and QJxx Kxxxx Kx Ax as if it was 4-5-2-3 (open 1H and rebid 2C over 2NT). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 08:55:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:55:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14555 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:54:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.216] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11fWXK-0006Uh-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:54:50 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01bf1e72$c1746900$d85108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:53:55 +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; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:17:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from p93s03a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.83.148] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11fXou-00019S-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:17:05 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 01:07:22 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1e7c$e94a4580$3e8c93c3@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: Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws Date: Monday, October 25, 1999 12:10 AM Subject: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. > >Grattan--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >----- >"I didn't get where I am today without knowing >a real winner when I see one." = David Nobbs. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >+=+ >What has Grattan been doing today? Referee >at the Premier League Division 2 matches - >if the first Division comprises those up for >selection for the Olympiad, Div. 2 could be >the fringe of selection? Two appeals; I >arrived when each of the 8 teams had played >the first quarter of a 48 board match. As I >stepped over the threshold the Director - >M. Amos - handed me this: > North > ---------- > Q. > void > T 9 > Q.5. > A.9.3 K.J.T.2 > 6. 9. > 5. void > void void > > 7 6 5 4 > void > void > 9 > >West is declarer in a Heart contract. The lead is in >the West hand. Declarer needs to make all five tricks >for his contract. West does not lay down either top >Spade; instead he lays down his hand and says to >South: "I've no choice, I play you for the Queen of >Spades" (he knows North has at most two cards in >the suit). The Director is called and rules that it >would be irrational for a player of this class to ruff >the diamond and take a first round finesse in Spades, >so the contract is made. N/S are appealing. > >I pick up the telephone for a consultation with >another panel referee; he says the first round >finesse is inferior - no problem - but that it is >careless rather than irrational. This could be a >bit marginal, I think, so I make another call to >another panel member. "I think it's careless >rather than irrational", he says. I have not told >either of them that I have a hearsay report that >suggests two other Wests - in whatever situations - >have lost the first round finesse to the Q. They >only know the cards, the statement, and the >nature of the tournament. > >So, on the appeal form I record my colleagues' >opinions, and add: 'I think this losing play is on >the very edge of irrationality for this class of >player, but it probably just qualifies as careless'. >(I am thinking it would be irrational for a player >truly of international class not to cash Spade K >or else to ruff a diamond and then cash Spade K.) >We allow the appeal. NS +100 instead of NS - 1510. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I'm afraid that I would have ruled that it was irrational for any competent player who had a 2way finesse, and who knew which way he was taking it, not to cash a top card first when he could do so at no cost. On reflection I can see that it would be careless not to do so, but I think a revoke is careless and it would appear that I am in a minority on that as well.:-) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 10:52:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:52:09 +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 KAA14756 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:52:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:51:53 -0700 Message-ID: <011401bf1e83$18a0be80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <+sQSOPfeVcstZDZ3HR3SkCwoNyWB@4ax.com> <3812E351.CBB1CEB2@village.uunet.be> <003e01bf1e52$6afbc660$eac47ad1@hdavis> Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:48:34 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > A player > does not have the right to fail to disclose an agreement. > He does if it is nothing *special* (L75) Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 13:09:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:09:10 +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 NAA15058 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:09:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11faUz-000HwJ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 03:08:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:46:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L21B References: <199910221841.TAA24723@tempest.npl.co.uk> <012e01bf1d8e$e922d980$fb095e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:49:54 -0700, "Marvin L. French" > wrote: > >>Immediate questioning is iinappropriate for at least three reasons: >>(1) pllayers may not know offhand what they would have done, perhaps >>needing some thinking time; (2) such answers are unreliable, given >>the potential for bias; and (3) it unfairly wastes time in this >>time-driven game. > >And (4) it places the NOS in the position of having to spend >mental energy on making bidding decisions twice in slightly >different contexts, thus also ensuring that their concentration >for playing the contract is disturbed. Top players may be able >to handle that, but many of the rest of us would run a large risk >of playing the hand badly when we came back to the table. > >That is not a reasonable way to treat a non-offending side. Furthermore, it is not a decision made in the right way. Players make decisions sitting at the table after consideration. When you take them away from the table and ask them such a question the obvious answer is "I don't know". To be forced to take a decision that they might or might not have taken at the table under different circumstances is not at all fair. I am sick and tired of the principle that bridge rulings against offenders are acceptable but in favour of non-offenders are not: it does nothing for the game of bridge apart from bringing it into disrepute. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 25 13:08:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:08:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15051 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:08:51 +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 11faUz-000BUH-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 03:08:41 +0000 Message-ID: <4C6qFsA+n7E4EwuY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 03:01:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. References: <3812D3DD.99EED67D@village.uunet.be> <005901bf1e56$660e57e0$eac47ad1@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <005901bf1e56$660e57e0$eac47ad1@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >From: Herman De Wael >[snip] >> >> There are rules governing the choice of bid. >> These rules are disclosable to opponents. > >Not if Zia really doesn't know them. > >> However : >> MR maintains that the set of rules is too complex to explain >> even to Zia. > >Doesn't really matter. Do you really think that Zia will not be able to >discern these rules over time? Yes, I do. I think the presumption behind this thread is quite ridiculous. In situations where my partner and I have options, I do not worry myself trying to work out what he does with particular holdings. Why should Zia waste his time this way? People make it sound as though he has nothing better to do with his time than work out what MR opens with 4-4 m-m. I believe that their agreement is that they choose which minor to open with 4-4 and that is therefore all that is disclosable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 25 14:06:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:06:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15182 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:06:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveihe.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.46]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA21412 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991025000348.012ef004@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:03:48 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. In-Reply-To: <002501bf1dfe$de4f4960$26e7abc3@davidburn> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:05 AM 10/24/99 +0100, David B wrote: >An amusing thing happened while I was coaching the British team at the >Rhodes Olympiad. One of the American pairs - I think it was Oest and >Garner - put on their convention card that with 4-4 in the minors, >"one of us opens 1C and the other opens 1D". Obviously, these players >had chosen to allow a fierce ideological difference to remain >unresolved, but in my notes to the British pairs I wrote: > >"This is, of course, an illegal method, since both members of a >partnership must play the same system. So, as soon as one of them >opens 1m, you should call the Director and have them disqualified." > >Sadly, these notes somehow fell into the hands of the Americans. Not >being totally conversant with the British sense of humour, they were >somewhat alarmed. We reassured them that we had meant no harm, but the >question is - were they, in fact, playing an illegal method? > The answer is no. As Grattan has emphasized, an SO may impose a requirement that partners employ the same _system_ (per L40E1), but the same law protects the rights of partners to differ in matters of style and judgement. It is clear to me that the decision about which of two 4-card minor suits to open in various circumstances falls in the latter category. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 14:37:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:37:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15230 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:37:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveihe.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.46]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA14027 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:36:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991025003432.012f3afc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:34:32 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. In-Reply-To: <000e01bf1e75$8b261940$b2e6f1c3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:14 AM 10/25/99 +0100, Jac wrote: >3) I agree with you that Mr. Rosenberg need not disclose the factors on >which he bases his own decisions on what to bid, but I agree with the >original poster as far as a quote that you conveniently omitted is >concerned: >>it is very hard to believe >> that Zia has not picked up at least some of those rules from >> past experience, and as such, that knowledge is required to >> be disclosed to opponents. >I do not say that Zia refrains from full disclosure, I merely say that he >ought to tell whatever he knows about how Mr. Rosenberg decides which minor >to bid. Probably this is the only reasonable interpretation of the Laws, but in practice it is both unworkable and completely unenforceable. Zia is certainly one of world's best, and I suppose much better even than the strongest players in our little gathering. But even so, I don't credit him with the ability to precisely enumerate and quantify the many factors which MR relies upon in making the decision on which minor suit to open. Certainly the mere mortals among us would be unable to provide much useful information in this respect, absent specific discussion with our partners. In paractice, it is hard to imagine anything that he could say much more helpful than: "We have no specific agreement on how to choose which minor to open. Partner uses his judgement of a number of factors, including the relative strengths and textures of the suits, state of the match, vulnerability, his judgement of the opponents' style, and others." All true. Anything more specific, when in truth he doesn't know which particular factors are in play on the current hand, risks a basis for an adverse ruling for MI. Moreover, we are once again in that murky area where it may be very difficult to separate the inferences Zia can draw purely from his experience with Rosenerg from those that are informed by his own holding and other judgements. He may well have a very clear picture of partner's hand, based on his cards, the other bids, and even table feel (like the fact that the opponents are so intently interested in this problem in the first place). But these judgements and inferences need not be disclosed, and teasing out exactly what part of them are derived from "partnership agreements" is not a realistic expectation. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 16:07:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA15360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:07:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15355 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:07:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.78.117.31]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with ESMTP id <19991025060604.VQQY16897@worldnet.att.net>; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 06:06:04 +0000 Message-ID: <38141D64.3A4D6893@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:05:40 -0700 From: Richard Colker Reply-To: rcolker@worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne References: <002e01bf1c60$0e573e60$a55208c3@swhki5i6> <012f01bf1d8e$e97e6700$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin, Grattan, As best as I can follow the thread of what was sent to me, it looks like there is confusion on someone's part about what score adjustments are made when there has been an infraction which led to a contract which should have given the NOS a better result than they could otherwise have obtained (e.g., a plus score defending 3NT, which should be beaten) but they then commit an egregious bridge error of some sort (e.g., a revoke) to let the contract make which breaks the causal link between the infraction and the damage. I agree with Grattan that both the COP and previous practice has been that the OS gets the same score adjustment that they would have been given had the contract been cold and not one that should have gone down except for the revoke -- i.e., in the example above they would get the score for 1NT (or 2NT) making three (+150). This has (I believe) been ratified by both the WBFLC and ACBLLC when they each adopted a definition of "damage" for the OS in terms of the actual score achieved on the board (i.e., if the OS ends up with a better score than they would have achieved w/o the infraction, then there has been damage and they get their score adjusted -- regardless of whether the damage came directly from their own actions or indirectly from some "subsequent" error committed by the NOS). In other words, there is no difference between consequent and subsequent for the OS -- everything is now consequent (at least since Lille). But the NOS gets their poor table result of -400 since they "earned" it. None of this is new. It has been this way ever since I can remember. (Although many appeals people seem not to know this, as I learned a few NABCs ago when I reiterated this policy in a meeting of our National Appeals Committee and many of the people there looked at me like I was crazy. But that's clearly our policy and, as I've said, our past practice -- at least at the "official" level.) As for the COP, I believe it ratifies this concept and I agree with Grattan that it "should" be clear from what is written there. As for the other situation, where the revoke only results in an overtrick (3NT is cold), then the two sides get reciprocal +/-180s. Since the OS reached a good (making) contract and not even avoiding the revoke would have altered that, the NOS gets protection from the improperly reached game -- but not from the overtrick caused by their revoke. A perhaps more interesting question arises when this sort of situation (the one where 3NT should be beaten) occurs in a head-to-head KO match. In that case, it is not possible to give totally separate scores to each side, since the two get averaged in the final analysis. In my opinion, the offenders' improper action should take precedent over the NOS's revoke. To give a two-way adjustment would allow the OS to (partially) profit from their infraction. I would rather see the NOS "excused" from their revoke. I would assign +/-150s rather than +150 and -400. I would only give non-reciprocal scores in a MP or VP event, where the two sides could each receive independent score adjustments. Finally, I think Grattan's right again in saying that members of the LC can only express personal opinions on issues not previously explicitly addressed by the LC. Formal, "official," statements would have to await the next LC meeting. Regards, Rich Marvin L. French wrote: > From: Grattan Endicott > > > From: Marvin L. French > > > >> Let me get this straight. The OS reaches a 3NT game > > > through misuse of UI. Bad breaks would normally > > >result in the game's defeat, -50, but the > >> NOS revokes to let declarer makes his game, +400. > > >> When the TD/AC adjusts, who gets what? > > My belief is that the OS gets +150, the NOS -400 > (no direct damage, subsequent damage self-inflicted) > > The belief I added later is that if the revoke only led to an > overtrick, with 3NT cold, then the OS gets +180, the > NOS -180. The game score is direct damage, the > subsequent revoke is self-inflicted damage. > > Then I asked: > > >> Will someone involved with the WBF LC please either > >> agree with this policy or correct me? Let's settle the > >> matter once and for all. > > And Grattan replied: > > > > +=+ I think a member of the WBFLC can > > only express a personal view. The WBFLC > > has discussed what the principle should > > be and has published this in its CoP; > > Hmm. The CoP comes from the WBFLC? > Going by the names on the CoP committee, > and the lack of reference to the WBFLC in > the document, I assumed the CoP was > written independently of the WBFLC. > > > the > > second stage is the application of it to > > cases, and that is an Appeal Committee > > function, so I would say we await > > approval of some examples of the Laws > > and CoP in action before the WBF can be > > said to have led on the question currently > > in debate between Marvin and Eric. > > In any case, if the WBFLC is to say > > anything on the subject as a body, that > > can only be agreed at its next meetings. > > I thought Lille Interpretation #3 and the CoP aimed to > settle the questions raised by my two examples, which > are rather simple and straightforward. > > Lille #3 (in part): > > ******** > Damage to an offender shall be a consequence of the > infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. > ...The right to redress for a non-offending side is not > annulled by normal error or misjudgement in the > subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently > irrational, wild, or gambling. > ******* > > That seems pretty plain. Redress can be annulled if > damage is caused, not by the infraction, but by an > "evidently irrational, wild, or gambling" action. > (Such as a revoke). > > The CoP says: > > ****** > The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12C2) > is appropriate when a iolation of law causes damage > to an innocent side that has not damaged itself by > irrational, wild or gambling action subsequent to the > infraction > ***** > So far, so good, that agrees with Lille #3. But then > follows an apparent cotradiction of the first sentence: > > ***** > Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, > an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable > than would have been the expectation in the instant > prior to the infraction. > ***** > > There are two types of damage: (1) a direct > consequence of an infraction, and (2) damage > subsequent to an infraction, but not a direct > consequence of it. > > L16A2: The Director stands "ready to assign an > adjusted score if he considers that an infraction > has resulted in damge." > > In my 50 years of duplicate bridge, TDs have > routinely ruled "no redress" for the NOS when an > infraction should have given them a *better* result > "than would have been expected in the instant prior > to the infraction," but they did something irrational > to throw away that advantage. > > If the CoP is referring only to (1) direct damage, > then no contradiction. If it is referring to both (1) and > (2), there is a serious contradiction of Law, custom, > and Lille #3. > > The CoP continues: > > ******* > If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its > own damage by irrational, wild, or gambling action, > it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such > part of the damage as is self-inflicted. > ****** > > Contradiction affirmed, if this says that the mentioned > revoke stands for the NOS, but in a score of -150, > not -400. > > The CoP continues: > > ****** > The offending side, however, should be awarded the > score that it would have been allotted as the normal > consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent > side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score > but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted without > regard to the revoke. > ****** > > Well, that's clear as mud. If it means that the NOS > gets -150 and the OS +120, then it not only gives > redress to the NOS when none is due, but also > opens the Pandora's Box of changing the actual play > of the cards when an infraction has not directly affected > the play. > > If the language is indeed clear, then why can't my two > simple examples get a simple answer? Such cases > come up all the time. Are they really so complicated > that an answer must wait until the WBFLC meets again? > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > The CoP may be viewed on David Stevenson's > web site: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_cop.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 17:54:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:54:20 +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 RAA15499 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:54:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.128] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11fex8-000Fxw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:54:02 +0100 Message-ID: <001901bf1ebe$14a5e860$805208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Lead problem. Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:46:13 +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, 25 Oct 1999 17:54:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.128] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11fex6-000Fxw-00; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:54:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001801bf1ebe$13fe0fa0$805208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Hirsch Davis" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:17:53 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws Date: 24 October 1999 20:52 Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. > ..................... \x/ .................... > >> I would allow him to explain this to opponents, adding : >> "there is a complex rule governing this, but it is too long >> to explain, and you would probably not be able to deduce any >> useful knowledge from it, before the 12th trick is played". > .......... \x/ ............. >Should there be a law change, such that certain agreements are not >disclosed? What would the standards be? > +=+ Agreements that opponents are incapable of understanding ? :-))) +=+ ~ G ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 17:55:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:55:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15513 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:54:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from cuda.jcu.edu.au (cuda.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.28]) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA10643; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:54:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mosaic@localhost) by cuda.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA16709; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:54:47 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:54:47 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199910250754.RAA16709@cuda.jcu.edu.au> X-Authentication-Warning: cuda.jcu.edu.au: mosaic set sender to sci-lsk@jcu.edu.au using -f From: Laurie Kelso To: Grattan Endicott Reply-To: Laurie Kelso Cc: bridge-laws References: <001e01bf1e72$c1746900$d85108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <001e01bf1e72$c1746900$d85108c3@swhki5i6> 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: 202.80.71.100 Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quoting Grattan Endicott : So, on the appeal form I record my colleagues\' > opinions, and add: \'I think this losing play is on > the very edge of irrationality for this class of > player, but it probably just qualifies as careless\'. > (I am thinking it would be irrational for a player > truly of international class not to cash Spade K > or else to ruff a diamond and then cash Spade K.) > We allow the appeal. NS +100 instead of NS - 1510. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ If you consider that ruffing a diamond before cashing the Spade K is a possibility, then with South overruffing (or not as the case may be), the boundary between irrational and careless shifts once more! Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 20:42:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:42:46 +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 UAA15813 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:42:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA09853 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:42:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:42 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: A Very Important Ruling To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > First, you have the info that 1C "may be short". You choose a diamond > because .... > > Second, suppose you are told 1C "may be very short: any other opening > shows five cards": how is that different? Does it affect the diamond > lead? > > Not in any way that I can see. So, no damage, no adjustment. But I > wish I had asked him what he would have led and why: perhaps he noticed > something I missed. To be fair the percentage of the 1C bids that are short when other calls require a 5CS is obviously higher than when playing eg "better minor"/4CD (what I would assume if explained as just "may be short"). I don't know what this would make the actual percentages but I think the clubs would still tend to be 4CS so it wouldn't affect *my* choice of lead. I'd not argue with "result stands" on the evidence so far (including the 3 responses on RGB). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 20:42:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:42:46 +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 UAA15812 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:42:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA09834 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:42:13 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:42 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb 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: <199910221440.KAA11646@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve Willner wrote: > B. There is no obvious technical merit to odd-even card ordering over > high to low or low to high. I think an ordering of 35798642 often enables a player to send his message with a low card - thus retaining a potentially critical spot. I'm not up to the maths to prove/disprove this but it feels like it might present a minor advantage now and again. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 20:42:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:42:47 +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 UAA15814 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:42:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA09845 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:42:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:42 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. 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: <4C6qFsA+n7E4EwuY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > >Doesn't really matter. Do you really think that Zia will not be able > to > >discern these rules over time? > > Yes, I do. I think the presumption behind this thread is quite > ridiculous. In situations where my partner and I have options, I do not > worry myself trying to work out what he does with particular holdings. > Why should Zia waste his time this way? People make it sound as though > he has nothing better to do with his time than work out what MR opens > with 4-4 m-m. > > I believe that their agreement is that they choose which minor to open > with 4-4 and that is therefore all that is disclosable. While it is unlikely that Zia will work out all MR's "rules" he may well have noticed eg that MR tends to bid the weaker suit against weak players and the stronger suit against strong players (he may not). I do believe that any tendencies he *has* noticed are down to partnership experience and thus disclosable in response to a question. Playing behind screens MR should thus disclose what he believes Zia has noticed of his (MRs) tendencies. If Zia reveals a greater knowledge than MR believed he (Zia) possessed then the path to an MI ruling is open (not that there will often be damage). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 21:21:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA15951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:21:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15946 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:21:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-31.access.net.il [213.8.1.31] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05794; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:21:09 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38143D2E.85E11129@zahav.net.il> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:21:19 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The costliest mistake References: <380EF612.DEB9E2DD@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is very funny ; I can ask how many dioptries needs that chap... But -> as much as I remember many people thought to change the colors of the four suits , in order to avoid such mistakes.... Well , is it so difficult (clubs -> GREEN , diamonds -> Blue) ???? It is a great interest to change something , after more than 100 years of playing cards......... Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > > Not a difficult ruling, but a funny story. > > A player picks up seven spades from AJ and a void in clubs. > > He bids to the five level in spades and gets doubled. > > Opponents cash two tricks and then lead a club. > > My player ruffs, and cashes the Ace of Spades, intending to > claim on the next round for a nice +850. > > Director ! > > What ? > > You just ruffed a club and now you lead a club ! > > That Ace of spades was in fact the ace of clubs. > > Result, after revoke ruling : four down, -1100. > > The title of this post could also have been 'The cheepest > pair of glasses". > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 21:40:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA15983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:40:26 +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 VAA15978 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:40:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from svenni (nas1102.islandia.is [194.144.238.102]) by hummvee.islandia.is (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id LAA76972 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:41:55 GMT (envelope-from svenni@islandia.is) Message-ID: <001001bf1ed7$9c648ae0$66ee90c2@svenni> From: "Sveinn Runar Eiriksson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <001901bf1ebe$14a5e860$805208c3@swhki5i6> Subject: Re: Lead problem. Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:56:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Bridge-laws group! There are a few things that struck me here. It seems that NS are a fairly new partnership but still South is playing Norths system. If they have no notes, how is it possible for a TD to rule that North knows the system and not South? Specially as it seems to be a version that is not commonly widespread. It seems that if North has any evidence that he knows the system he should take that to the appeals committee, but maybe I am totally out of track here. I am not sure how the committee evaluated the leads here but why isnt it about 50% that East will lead either black suit? Lets take each case: If you lead the club K you need partner to have the cA and to give you a ruff and then score the sK. This means that clubs have to be 4432 and that you are scoring your sK. I think that as NS are in GF position normally you wont have more alternatives as the setting trick here than the sK. You might also find partner with cQJ and score 2+2 black tricks, but this seems pretty longshot as both NS hands have to have 33+ in black suits. I am not sure what the 3D bid says about the diamond distribution, but guess as the hands are, 2-2 might be an alternative. If you lead the sK then you need partner to have the A and spades to be 4333 and then score a club trick. He might have the sQ and you then need to score the cK plus another trick. My analysis ofcourse arent too deep, but was just my spontaneous reaction to this posting. But to me seems as likely for success to lead a spade or a club. But then, why is does the appeals committee have to evaluate what is likely. Isnt a spade lead likely enough for them to rule 4h -1? Isnt 4h -1 a logical alternative. I know that if a TD would have decided that the mis-explanations would have affected Easts choice of lead he would have ruled 4h-1. And if NS would have appealed that, my guess is that they would have lost their money! "You cant build a reputation on what you are going to do!" Henry Ford best of all to all of you Svenni svenni@islandia.is ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: 25. október 1999 08:46 Subject: Lead problem. > > > Grattan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ----- > "I didn't get where I am today without knowing > a real winner when I see one." = David Nobbs. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Premier League Div. 2. > The TD was packing up the boxes 25 minutes > or so after the last board of the day, and I was > contemplating the driving rain between me > and my car, when the door of the room opened > and a voice said "we have decided to appeal > that ruling". In time. > > North > ---------- > Q.7.6. > K Q T 7 6 > A Q 4 > J 5 > A 5 3 K J T 2 > 4 2 9 8 > 9 6 2 T 8 7 5 3 > Q T 8 7 6 K 3 > 9 8 4 > A J 5 3 > K J > A 9 4 2 > Dealer North GA With EW passing throughout: > North South > 1H 2NT* (a) > 3C*(b) 3D* (c) > 4H (d) end > (* alerts both sides of screen) > (a) 'raise to 3H' > (b) either singleton and not accepting, > or balanced. > (c) North to East: 'probe' > South to West: 'game forcing' > (d) North to East: 'balanced, not absolute > minimum. Medium.' > South to West: 'no firm agreement'. > > Diamond lead. Ten tricks. Director considered > the questionable information had not affected > the play. Score stands. > > East argued that had he received the information > that West had been given he would have made an > aggressive lead not a passive one. Referee asked > whether it had been determined which explanation > was right; South said "It is my partner's system > which I am supposed to have learnt; I think it is > North who has explained it correctly." North > nodded affirmatively. In answer to other enquiry > East agreed he had no knowledge of opponents' > suit holdings from the auction; he considered a > Spade lead more attractive than a Club. From the > Spade holding his standard lead is J. > > Referee's view: Whilst the suggestion that North > knows his own system best is attractive, the sheet > from the system file (produced) does not help after > the 3C bid. A margin of doubt exists which goes in > East's favour. Agree the possibility of an aggressive > lead if East has the explanation that 3D is game > forcing. Spade is more probable than Club, but > accept South's suggestion that West may not > necessarily return a Spade. Allow Spade lead 70% > of time, Spade return half** the time. The contract > goes light on 35% of the occasions. This decision > is found to make for a swing of 5 imps to EW (4.2 > rounded in favour of NOS). +=+ ~ G ~ > [** With hindsight this is perhaps too generous to > North/South] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 22:10:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:10:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16088 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:10:19 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id cHNS2_R0b_ (4263); Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:04:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.c80d6f65.2545a14f@aol.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:04:31 EDT Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. To: jfuchs@worldonline.nl, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 10/24/99 6:13:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jfuchs@worldonline.nl writes: > >In a message dated 10/24/99 8:27:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >jfuchs@worldonline.nl writes: Dear Jan, Sorry for the confusion. I just reached for the "reply" key without looking to see where I was. I should have gone back and found the original posting. Do I get a PP for that? Cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 23:10:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:33:17 +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 WAA16158 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:33:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.8]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20345 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:32:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38143C5F.26DD0BC5@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:17:51 +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: Logic of opening bids. References: <3.0.1.32.19991025000348.012ef004@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > At 10:05 AM 10/24/99 +0100, David B wrote: > > The answer is no. As Grattan has emphasized, an SO may impose a requirement > that partners employ the same _system_ (per L40E1), but the same law > protects the rights of partners to differ in matters of style and > judgement. It is clear to me that the decision about which of two 4-card > minor suits to open in various circumstances falls in the latter category. > > Mike Dennis You may well be right, Mike, but I would not stress the "it is clear to me" bit. If A chooses 1Di on 3244 and 1Cl on 2344, that is his system. If the other chooses 1Di on 5 points in the majors or more, 1Cl on a weak major hand, then that is his system. That is not style, but system, and so the regulation applies. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 23:27:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA16329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:27:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA16324 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:27:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:26:49 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA01463 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:26:13 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: The costliest mistake Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:17:46 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D1@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" 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: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837643434@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >It is very funny ; I can ask how many dioptries needs that chap... > >But -> as much as I remember many people thought to change the colors of >the four suits , in order to avoid such mistakes.... > >Well , is it so difficult (clubs -> GREEN , diamonds -> Blue) ???? >It is a great interest to change something , after more than 100 years >of playing cards......... > >Dany Would you really want such a change? It provides great excuses for opening weak twos on fivecard suit, following on fourcard suits, denying fit when you actually have one, etc (sorry partner, had a diamond with the hearts) ;-) Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 23:44:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:33:18 +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 WAA16161 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:33:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.8]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20369 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:32:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38143F79.EF16D716@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:31:05 +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: Re: Logic of opening bids. References: <736705b1.254466e6@aol.com> <38132267.26ECE640@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John R. Mayne" wrote: > > > OK, try this example: The defense come into the endgame. MR is declaring > and has opened 1C. He holds either Qx AJxx AJxx Qxxx or Qx AJxx Jxxx > AQxx. The opponents ask whether he would open 1C on the first hand or > second. > Let's rewrite the question with just 13 cards in each hand. I presume you mean : Qx AJx Jxxx Qxxx or Qx Jxx AJxx Qxxx > Zia has an obligation to say "yes," "no," or, "40 percent of the time on > the first, 80% of the time on the second," or whatever is true. > Indeed he should. And if he gets it wrong, MR has the ethical obligation to say, I have never told ZM what I do, so he cannot be blamed for getting it wrong, but in fact my style is ... It is then up to TD and AC to determine whether the player was damaged. > This is not trivial and applies to many other bidding situations. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 25 23:57:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA16443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:57:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA16438 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:56:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-17-77.inter.net.il [213.8.17.77]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07523; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:56:18 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3814618D.310E2673@zahav.net.il> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:56:29 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Schoderb@aol.com CC: jfuchs@worldonline.nl, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. References: <0.c80d6f65.2545a14f@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Of course a P..., but administrative or technical , not procedural..........!!!!! Dany Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/24/99 6:13:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > jfuchs@worldonline.nl writes: > > > >In a message dated 10/24/99 8:27:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > >jfuchs@worldonline.nl writes: > > Dear Jan, Sorry for the confusion. I just reached for the "reply" key > without looking to see where I was. I should have gone back and found the > original posting. Do I get a PP for that? > Cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 00:36:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:33:17 +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 WAA16157 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:33:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.8]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20332 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:32:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38143BAF.F919B52F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:14:55 +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: Logic of opening bids. References: <+sQSOPfeVcstZDZ3HR3SkCwoNyWB@4ax.com> <3812E351.CBB1CEB2@village.uunet.be> <003e01bf1e52$6afbc660$eac47ad1@hdavis> <011401bf1e83$18a0be80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > A player > > does not have the right to fail to disclose an agreement. > > > He does if it is nothing *special* (L75) > > Marv (Marvin L. French) That is certainly not the case here. Hirsh is right. Not even MR has the right to fail to disclose his method for selecting which of the suits to open with. Not even if he believes his methods are even too difficult to explain to Zia. But on the other hand, if the methods are so difficult (and long) to explain, then the deductions that can be made from them must be too difficult as well. Consider this : I open 1Di on a 4-4 if I hold either the ace of Spades, or the queen of hearts, but not both. When would the defender from this be able to deduce that MR holds 4 clubs? Probably somewhere in the 7th trick. He could know the number of clubs far sooner by just watching the distribution signals of partner. Before the 7th trick, it would just be enough to know that the 1Di opening includes the 4-4 minor as a possibility. So in short, I would rule MI, but no damage. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 00:40:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 00:40:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA16609 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 00:40:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb2s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.179] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11flHt-0007ee-00; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 07:39:54 -0700 Message-ID: <001001bf1ef6$acf21e80$b38a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Laurie Kelso" , "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 12:58:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott Cc: bridge-laws Date: 25 October 1999 09:19 Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. > >If you consider that ruffing a diamond before cashing >the Spade K is a possibility, then with South >overruffing (or not as the case may be), the boundary >between irrational and careless shifts once more! > >Laurie > +=+ I am puzzled. Only declarer and dummy have trumps, one each. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 00:43:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:33:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16160 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:33:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.8]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20357 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:32:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38143D6B.DBAB2BF6@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:22:19 +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: Logic of opening bids. References: <3812D3DD.99EED67D@village.uunet.be> <005901bf1e56$660e57e0$eac47ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsh is also hedging, some of his statements below are clear dWs, some are not : Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > There are rules governing the choice of bid. > > These rules are disclosable to opponents. > > Not if Zia really doesn't know them. > Irrelevant because not provable. > > However : > > MR maintains that the set of rules is too complex to explain > > even to Zia. > > Doesn't really matter. Do you really think that Zia will not be able to > discern these rules over time? > Exactly. To hide behind the fact that you do not tell your partner is IMO not a valid argument. Not provable, and not relevant. > The problem appears to be that MR is hedging Law 40 by avoiding explicit > discussion. The logic is that if there has been no discussion, then there > is no agreement. However, the absence of discussion does not mean that there > is in fact no partnership agreement. Zia is a good enough player to observe > his partner's tendencies without discussion, and to take those tendencies > into account in his bidding. This creates an implicit agreement, in which > Zia would in fact have a better idea of the types of hand MR could hold than > the opponents. According disclosure is required. > True blue dWs ! > > I would allow him to explain this to opponents, adding : > > "there is a complex rule governing this, but it is too long > > to explain, and you would probably not be able to deduce any > > useful knowledge from it, before the 12th trick is played". > > > > Disclosable in theory but not in practice, is my opinion. > > > > Interesting idea, but IMO not possible under the laws as currently written. > If an agreement is disclosable in theory, it must be disclosed in practive. But if we believe MR when he says that the explanation would take hours, and not be helpful to the hand at all, do we really expect him to explain ? > Should there be a law change, such that certain agreements are not > disclosed? What would the standards be? Who would decide which agreements > met those standards?\ > No, absolutely not. I would accept no such rule. It would be too difficult to enforce. Better to rule : MI, no damage. > Hirsch -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 01:36:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:36:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16722 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:36:45 +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 LAA14101 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA14123 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:36:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:36:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910251536.LAA14123@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Richard Colker > (e.g., a plus score defending 3NT, which should be beaten) but > they then commit an egregious bridge error of some sort (e.g., a revoke) > to let the contract make which breaks the causal link between the > infraction and the damage. > > I agree with Grattan that both the COP and previous practice has been > that the OS gets the same score adjustment that they would have been > given had the contract been cold and not one that should have gone down > except for the revoke -- i.e., in the example above they would get the > score for 1NT (or 2NT) making three (+150). This is interesting... he is saying the OS "keep" the benefit of the revoke. Last time this was discussed on BLML, the consensus seemed to be the opposite, i.e. that the OS score +120, gaining no benefit from the revoke. From the new CoP: The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard to the revoke. This seems pretty clearly to agree with +120. > But the NOS gets their poor table result of -400 since they "earned" it. I consider the BLML consensus to have been the same. My reading of the CoP is that they say the opposite; If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. Everyone agrees the NOS gave away nine tricks and keep that, but part of the damage came from being in an illegal contract. Thus the CoP seems to say the NOS should get -150, not -400. I understand why Grattan doesn't wish to comment further at the moment, but it's clear we need further guidance. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 01:42:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:42:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16741 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:42:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA14345 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:42:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA14134 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:42:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:42:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910251542.LAA14134@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > My [revoke] at trick three was, choose one: > > (a) Evidently irrational. > (b) Evidently wild. > (c) Evidently gambling. > (d) Inattentive and careless, but none of the above. Personally, I'd choose a and b (and the first half of d if you will let me ignore the second half), but I can understand why you might disagree. No matter what we think about semantics, quite a few bridge laws and interpretations make more sense if we agree that _for legal purposes_, a revoke is considered irrational. If you want a rationalization, consider this: we cannot know the mental processes that led to the revoke. On the actual facts of any bridge deal, surely it is irrational to revoke. So we rule on that basis. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 02:42:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 02:42:44 +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 CAA17018 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 02:42:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-014.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.206]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA91508 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:42:26 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <000f01bf1f0a$04e34340$ce307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: After 93C Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:57:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A national body feels that its national appeals committee has made a mistake in interpreting the regulations for a national competition. Does the national body have the right to overturn a decision taken by the national appeals committee? Regards Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 03:08:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 03:08:37 +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 DAA17092 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 03:08:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA13308 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:09:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991025130853.006fef30@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:08:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne In-Reply-To: <199910251536.LAA14123@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:36 AM 10/25/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: Richard Colker > >> But the NOS gets their poor table result of -400 since they "earned" it. > >I consider the BLML consensus to have been the same. My reading of the >CoP is that they say the opposite; > > If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by > irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the > adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. > >Everyone agrees the NOS gave away nine tricks and keep that, but part >of the damage came from being in an illegal contract. Thus the CoP >seems to say the NOS should get -150, not -400. > >I understand why Grattan doesn't wish to comment further at the moment, >but it's clear we need further guidance. I'll continue to beat this horse, because I think it is important. If Mr. Colker and others believe that the NOS should get -400 because "they 'earned' it", they're entitled to their opinion, but it seems clear to me that this would require a change to the laws as currently written. L12C2 says "...the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". We can debate the interpretation of "most favorable" and of "likely" all we want, but I see no way to interpret the above text as allowing an adjusted score that reflects a result that *could not possibly have been obtained* "had the irregularity not occurred". 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 Oct 26 03:30:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 03:30:10 +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 DAA17163 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 03:30:00 +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 11fnwH-0007oh-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:29:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:50:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. In-Reply-To: <01bf1e7c$e94a4580$3e8c93c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf1e7c$e94a4580$3e8c93c3@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes snip > >I'm afraid that I would have ruled that it was irrational for >any competent player who had a 2way finesse, and >who knew which way he was taking it, not to cash a top >card first when he could do so at no cost. On reflection >I can see that it would be careless not to do so, but I think >a revoke is careless and it would appear that I am in a >minority on that as well.:-) we do agree on this one, Anne :)) >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 Tue Oct 26 04:00:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:00:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA17260 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:00:18 +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 OAA23101 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:00:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA14288 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:00:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:00:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910251800.OAA14288@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > L12C2 says "...the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable > result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". We can debate > the interpretation of "most favorable" and of "likely" all we want, but I > see no way to interpret the above text as allowing an adjusted score that > reflects a result that *could not possibly have been obtained* "had the > irregularity not occurred". If the NOS were not damaged _by the irregularity_, we never get as far as L12C2: no adjusted score, table result stands (for the NOS). I am not saying this is the correct or only possible interpretation, but it doesn't seem to be in obvious conflict with the Laws. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 04:01:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:01:54 +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 EAA17276 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:01:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:01:37 -0700 Message-ID: <01cd01bf1f12$f48e44a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: , References: <002e01bf1c60$0e573e60$a55208c3@swhki5i6> <012f01bf1d8e$e97e6700$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <38141D64.3A4D6893@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:59:52 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In regard to my two example cases and related question:: (1) A pair misuses MI to bid 3NT, which has no chance due to bad breaks, but the NOS revokes, letting it make. (2) A pair misuses MI to bid 3NT, which is cold, but a revoke gives them an overtrick. Who gets what when applying L12C2? My answers are -400/+150 for (1), -180/+180 for (2) Grattan Endicott wrote: +=+ On the other hand, I think the language is wholly clear. It states the *principle* by which ACs (and Directors) are to adjust scores. The offending side is to have the score adjustment that it would have got with no ripples of irrationality etc., and no revoke. Ergo, -400/+120 for (1), -180/+150 for (2) Rich Colker wrote (in agreement with my score assignments): > I agree with Grattan that both the COP and previous practice has been > that the OS gets the same score adjustment that they would have been > given had the contract been cold and not one that should have gone down > except for the revoke -- i.e., in the example above they would get the > score for 1NT (or 2NT) making three (+150). > As for the other situation, where the revoke only results in an > overtrick (3NT is cold), then the two sides get reciprocal +/-180s. > Since the OS reached a good (making) contract and not even avoiding the > revoke would have altered that, the NOS gets protection from the > improperly reached game -- but not from the overtrick caused by their > revoke. > As for the COP, I believe it ratifies this concept and I agree with > Grattan that it "should" be clear from what is written there. Here is the CoP wording: > ****** > The offending side, however, should be awarded the > score that it would have been allotted as the normal > consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent > side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score > but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted without > regard to the revoke. > ****** As I said, clear as mud. "Without regard to the revoke" can mean (to us illiterates) either that the revoke is not to be included in the OS score assignment, or that the revoke is not to be eliminated in the OS score assignment. A skeptic might think that the language is purposefully vague so that organizations can draw whatever conclusions they wish to draw. Avoids confrontations. Here is a clear statement, which BLMLers will perhaps be able to pick apart. ******* When applying L12C2: -- If the NOS could have obtained a superior result despite the infraction, were it not for a *gross* error for the level of player involved (e.g., a revoke), table result stands for them if the error was not directly related to the infraction. -- When assigning scores, the actual play of the cards is not changed unless it was directly affected by the infraction. ******* Rich continues: > A perhaps more interesting question arises when this sort of situation > (the one where 3NT should be beaten) occurs in a head-to-head KO match. > In that case, it is not possible to give totally separate scores to each > side, since the two get averaged in the final analysis. In my opinion, > the offenders' improper action should take precedent over the NOS's > revoke. To give a two-way adjustment would allow the OS to (partially) > profit from their infraction. I would rather see the NOS "excused" from > their revoke. I would assign +/-150s rather than +150 and -400. I would > only give non-reciprocal scores in a MP or VP event, where the two sides > could each receive independent score adjustments. Or IMP-Pairs, I presume. By "excused" I assume you mean that an irrational action would not be grounds for annullment of redress, which (off the top of my head) means that unbalanced scores should not be assigned in team games. While this prevents an OS from profiting (partially) from their infraction, it gives relief to a pair that has done something really stupid. L86 seems designed to balance those two considerations. I think it would be better to get L86 changed rather than render it moot by banning unbalanced score assigments in violation of L12C2.. > > Finally, I think Grattan's right again in saying that members of the LC > can only express personal opinions on issues not previously explicitly > addressed by the LC. Formal, "official," statements would have to await > the next LC meeting. No argument with that. It seemed to me that my example cases were so simple (and common) that consulting with the WBFLC would not be necessary. The LC *did* explicitly address this matter (LIlle interpretation #3). Thanks to Rich for participating on BLML, even though he seems reluctant to join us. His opinions are important and welcome, since he is the ACBL Appeals Administrator (and very smart besides). Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 04:16:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:16:11 +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 EAA17358 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:16:01 +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 LAA27988; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:15:15 -0700 Message-Id: <199910251815.LAA27988@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:00:14 PDT." <199910251800.OAA14288@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:15:14 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > L12C2 says "...the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable > > result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". We can debate > > the interpretation of "most favorable" and of "likely" all we want, but I > > see no way to interpret the above text as allowing an adjusted score that > > reflects a result that *could not possibly have been obtained* "had the > > irregularity not occurred". > > If the NOS were not damaged _by the irregularity_, we never get as > far as L12C2: no adjusted score, table result stands (for the NOS). > > I am not saying this is the correct or only possible interpretation, > but it doesn't seem to be in obvious conflict with the Laws. Actually, I was just about to raise the same point. Several people have argued that the NOs' score shouldn't be adjusted because the only damage was self-inflicted; but if that's the case, then we can't adjust the offenders' score either, can we? What Law would allow us to do so? It seems to me that either there was damage or there wasn't---we can't rule that damage both existed and didn't exist, except perhaps in a world created by Lewis Carroll or George Orwell. So based on this, it seems the only possible results allowed by the Laws (assuming 3NT couldn't reasonably be set more than one trick) are -150/+150, -150/+120, -400/+400. -400/+150 and -400/+120 don't seem legal. Ruling "score stands" seems to let the offenders get away with something, but we can still assess a PP, can't we? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 05:43:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 05:43:18 +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 FAA17678 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 05:43:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id pa840543 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 05:37:21 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-220-36.tmns.net.au ([139.134.220.36]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Bored-MailRouter V2.5 5/1491823); 26 Oct 1999 05:37:21 Message-ID: <018601bf1faf$43c3b360$24dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 05:40:19 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >David Burn writes: >>An amusing thing happened while I was coaching the British team at the >>Rhodes Olympiad. One of the American pairs - I think it was Oest and >>Garner - put on their convention card that with 4-4 in the minors, >>"one of us opens 1C and the other opens 1D". Obviously, these players >>had chosen to allow a fierce ideological difference to remain >>unresolved, but in my notes to the British pairs I wrote: > >>"This is, of course, an illegal method, since both members of a >>partnership must play the same system. So, as soon as one of them >>opens 1m, you should call the Director and have them disqualified." > >The ACBL policy is that both members of a partnership must use the same system >but they can vary style. This appears to fit into the category of style. >(The ACBL's example is that if one player plays a 15-17 1NT, so must his >partner, but if one player never opens 1NT with a five-card major, his >partner may often open it.) > >Do other organizations have similar rules? > Yes. All the following are available on the Web: WBF: "Both members of a partnership must use the same methods." (PG: *method* is an interesting word to use. Dated 1995 so applied at Rhodes). ABF (Australia): "Both members of a partnership must play the same system, including bidding and cardplay agreements. Where as a matter of style members frequently adopt different styles from each other, that difference (or those differences) must be disclosed on the system card." EBU (England): "You and your partner must use the same bidding conventions and play the same system of leads, signals and discards." NSWBA (applies to most bridge in Sydney): "Both members of a partnership muse use the same bidding system and play conventions." In Australia I believe the rules may have been expanded because some years ago one pro and his sponsor played different systems (the pro played his own 3NT opening as basically "10 to 20 points no 5 card major" for example, with great success). Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 05:49:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 05:49:02 +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 FAA17715 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 05:48:52 +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 PAA01625 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:49:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991025154922.006a2934@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:49:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne In-Reply-To: <199910251800.OAA14288@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:00 PM 10/25/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> L12C2 says "...the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable >> result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". We can debate >> the interpretation of "most favorable" and of "likely" all we want, but I >> see no way to interpret the above text as allowing an adjusted score that >> reflects a result that *could not possibly have been obtained* "had the >> irregularity not occurred". > >If the NOS were not damaged _by the irregularity_, we never get as >far as L12C2: no adjusted score, table result stands (for the NOS). > >I am not saying this is the correct or only possible interpretation, >but it doesn't seem to be in obvious conflict with the Laws. When there is an infraction and there is damage -- meaning that the NOS got a worse score than they would have gotten absent the infraction -- we adjudicate according to L12, which sets forth the principles that determine the result of the adjudication. When we say "no damage, result stands", that is shorthand for saying that we have applied L12, and determined that the assigned score should be the same as the result at the table. If we determine that the damage to the NOS was "subsequent but not consequent", i.e. did not occur *because* of the infraction, and therefore rule "no damage, result stands", we are still making a determination governed by L12. 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 Oct 26 05:51:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 05:51:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA17731 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 05:50:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from p54s10a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.170.85] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11fq8a-0002tX-00; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 12:50:37 -0700 Message-ID: <003a01bf1f22$147934a0$55aa93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:48:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Date: 25 October 1999 14:29 Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. >"Michael S. Dennis" wrote: >> >> At 10:05 AM 10/24/99 +0100, David B wrote: >> >> The answer is no. As Grattan has emphasized, an SO may impose a requirement >> that partners employ the same _system_ (per L40E1), but the same law >> protects the rights of partners to differ in matters of style and >> judgement. It is clear to me that the decision about which of two 4-card >> minor suits to open in various circumstances falls in the latter category. >> >> Mike Dennis > >You may well be right, Mike, but I would not stress the "it >is clear to me" bit. If A chooses 1Di on 3244 and 1Cl on >2344, that is his system. If the other chooses 1Di on 5 >points in the majors or more, 1Cl on a weak major hand, then >that is his system. >That is not style, but system, and so the regulation >applies. > +=+ In the Code of Practice you will find it said twice that habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it can be anticipated. My original draft only said it once; the group (and Mr. Polisner in particular) thought it worth saying twice. What is habitual is method. I wonder what results this test would produce if applied to any partnership you might be thinking of? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 06:11:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 06:11:45 +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 GAA17786 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 06:11:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29942; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:10:52 -0700 Message-Id: <199910252010.NAA29942@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:49:22 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19991025154922.006a2934@pop.cais.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:10:53 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:00 PM 10/25/99 -0400, Steve wrote: > > >If the NOS were not damaged _by the irregularity_, we never get as > >far as L12C2: no adjusted score, table result stands (for the NOS). > > > >I am not saying this is the correct or only possible interpretation, > >but it doesn't seem to be in obvious conflict with the Laws. > > When there is an infraction and there is damage -- meaning that the NOS got > a worse score than they would have gotten absent the infraction -- we > adjudicate according to L12, which sets forth the principles that determine > the result of the adjudication. When we say "no damage, result stands", > that is shorthand for saying that we have applied L12, and determined that > the assigned score should be the same as the result at the table. Not necessarily. It could be shorthand for saying that we have applied L16A2, which says the Director awards an adjusted score if there is damage, and we've determined that there is no damage so therefore no adjustment so therefore we never get to L12. The problem is that "damage" isn't defined, and we haven't really agreed on what it means. I asked about this recently on BLML. Some have the opinion that "damage" is defined by L12, i.e. you apply the standards of L12 to determine whether there was damage. But I don't believe everyone sees things this way. If you don't adopt this definition, then Steve is right and you never apply L12 if you determine (from whatever other definition of "damage" you adopt) that there was no damage. But you don't start with L12. You only go there when another Law tells you to. And if there's UI, you start with L16, and L16 doesn't always reroute you to L12. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 06:18:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 06:18:53 +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 GAA17805 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 06:18:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za004393 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 06:04:08 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-222-221.tmns.net.au ([139.134.222.221]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Teeny-Weeny-MailRouter V2.5 7/1483641); 26 Oct 1999 06:04:07 Message-ID: <019101bf1fb2$ff10e400$24dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 06:06:22 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote originally: >in the september/october issue of bridge today, michael >rosenberg, writes >*snip* >"I HAVE NEVER DISCLOSED TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN TO ZIA, ALL OF MY >RULES GOVERNING WHICH MINOR I OPEN [emphasis added] but the >factors involved as: a) ability to handle the auction; b) >position; c) vulnerabilty; d) lead-inhibiting; e) >lead-directional; f) strength of opposition; g) the other table(s)." and later Brian wrote: >my view is that, particularly playing with >someone of Zia's ability, Rosenberg's position >is not tenable, at least not if screens are in use. ASSUMPTION Surely the reason Michael has never disclosed these personal "rules" to anyone (until he did so in his excellent book *Bridge, Zia and Me*) is because no screenmate has ever asked him a question to which it would be a suitable answer. Otherwise he surely would disclose the relevant information to the best of his ability. And so would Zia. This information, and indeed all information which they must disclose according to the FLB, is freely available to opponents who ask for it. The assumption that anyone has ever asked for such information has created a thread of ****. If you've never been asked a question, is your failure to reply to it untenable? Their information is available on request, and nothing in Michael's writings suggests that it has ever been withheld. Am I the only BLMLer who has read Rosenberg's book, with its fascinating writings about the Laws? I think most of the subsequent discussion in this thread has been so far removed from reality that many of the contributors should buy Michael's book and see the true context of Michael's words. Then they would realise what a disservice this unreal discussion has done. Of course, some contributions, in particular those of Marv French, Kojak and DWS, have attempted to restore sanity to the discussion. When I was first reading Michael's book, I recall thinking how generous he was to the rest of us bridge players to reveal the inner workings of his mind, such as his description of which minor to open with 4/4. It was most refreshing to read a book which delved into the mystique behind the author's rather than his opponents' successes. In high level bridge games my experience is that it is most unlikely, indeed rare for any opponent at the table to ask the sort of questions which have been posed in this thread. Brian's point about screens is answered by the practical fact that if one opponent asked such an unlikely question, it is highly unlikely that his partner would ask the same unlikely question about a natural bid. In practice the problem simply won't occur. SCREENS There is, however, an important and real problem with *explanations behind screens*, which one of Australia's best players explained to me. With screens, he thinks that practical application of the laws encourages players to minimise their explanations by interpreting "all special information" in L75C in a narrow way, so that their explanations have maximum chance of matching. The more one writes in one's explanation, the more likely one is to differ from partner's explanation. In other words, the ethical players who go out of their way to give full explanations are, in practice, disadvantaged relative to the less ethical players who, based on their personal interpretation of the word "special", stick to one word answers such as *natural*. For example you open 1H, partner raises to 2H, you bid 3C with xx, AQJxx, AQx, Axx, playing behind screens. The less ethical players (in partnership) both describe this as *long suit try*; their explanations match and they are safe from scrutiny. Upon further questioning they both write *3+ clubs*, again safe from scrutiny. They are never questioned after opening leader with Ax, Kxx, Kxxx, Kxxx leads a diamond and 4H makes. A club lead defeats 4H. The partners in the more ethical pair, in the same position, both write long explanations that 3C, while it is a *long suit try*, tends to be a *help suit try* more than a traditional long suit try on 5332 shapes. "In fact our style on 5332s is such that it is usually best to lead this suit more often than not", writes the particularly ethical player whose screenmate perchance is NOT on opening lead. The opening leader has been told by dummy that "3C is a long suit try; with a 4+ suit we almost always make the try in that suit, without a four card suit we bid one of our three card suits, depending on our individual preferences." A diamond is led. The TD rules that had the Opening Leader had the full information which his partner had, he probably would have led a club. Note that both pairs play exactly the same methods, but the ethical pair did worse than the unethical pair, due to the different style with which the two pairs approach their dual explanations. The Aussie expert's point is practical, not theoretical. The more detail you give, the more likely you are to give non-matching explanations, one of which must be *wrong*. In case any smart-arse is now planning to ask Rosenberg-Zia some probing questions next time Michael opens 1C or 1D against you, I hope such an action might breach any or all of L74A2, L74B2 and perhaps the second last Lille interpretation. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 08:00:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:00:55 +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 IAA18039 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:00:49 +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 IAA07618 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:00:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mosaic@localhost) by cuda.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA03426; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:00:43 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:00:43 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199910252200.IAA03426@cuda.jcu.edu.au> X-Authentication-Warning: cuda.jcu.edu.au: mosaic set sender to sci-lsk@jcu.edu.au using -f From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws Reply-To: Laurie Kelso References: <001001bf1ef6$acf21e80$b38a93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001001bf1ef6$acf21e80$b38a93c3@pacific> 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: 202.80.71.14 Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quoting Grattan Endicott : > > Grattan Endicott ================================ > \"There is always a best way of doing everything, > if it be to boil an egg.\" - Ralph Waldo Emerson > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Laurie Kelso > To: Grattan Endicott > Cc: bridge-laws > Date: 25 October 1999 09:19 > Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. > > > > > >If you consider that ruffing a diamond before cashing > >the Spade K is a possibility, then with South > >overruffing (or not as the case may be), the boundary > >between irrational and careless shifts once more! > > > >Laurie > > > +=+ I am puzzled. Only declarer and dummy > have trumps, one each. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Oops! I totally mis-read the question. Somehow I had it in my head that spades and not hearts were trumps. Sorry for the confusion - serves me right for snipping the hand before replying. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 08:40:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:40:08 +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 IAA18138 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:40:00 +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 <19991024160648.WRWH22510.mail.rdc1.pa.home.com@cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com> for ; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:06:48 -0700 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Rosenberg's article Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 18:39:39 -0400 Message-ID: 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 I'm getting more than a little irritated with the responses, both private and public, which imply that my original post somehow accused Michael Rosenberg or Zia Mahmood of unethical behaviour. Let me make it absolutely clear to all concerned that I intended no such accusation. MR (presumably) wrote an article published under his name in "Bridge Today" which prompted a private e-mail discussion between a friend (who does not read BLML) and myself about whether Rosenberg's rules could really be said to be "undiscussed", given a partner of Zia's ability. Since we disagreed, I said that I would seek opinions on BLML. Now, I hope that's clear to one and all. Whether or not any or all of you think the discussion was idiotic, ridiculous or whatever term you care to use, can I please have an end to the suggestions that I was in any way accusing Michael Rosenberg of unethical behaviors? Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 10:23:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:23:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18328 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:23:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from p62s08a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.88.99] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11fuOE-0002js-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:23:02 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: After 93C Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:30:05 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1f49$3fd72040$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: Fearghal O'Boyle To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, October 25, 1999 5:56 PM Subject: After 93C >A national body feels that its national appeals committee has made a mistake >in interpreting the regulations for a national competition. > >Does the national body have the right to overturn a decision taken by the >national appeals committee? The Constitution of the Welsh Bridge Union states that the Laws and Ethics Committee is the National Authority referred to in L93C, and hears all appeals to the National Authority from any event held in Wales.The committees decision is final under this sub paragraph. In Wales the answer to your question would be "No" However, if your constitution does not so define, I suspect that the National Authority may have a national appeals committee which hears, reports and advises the National Authority. In this case the National Authority would have that power. I am surprised that an interpretation of regulation was dealt with by your national appeals committee. Did an AC on site hear an appeal against a ruling that was not appealable? Is there something I have not thought of? Interpretation of regulation would be a matter for the Tournament Committee here, and would not come to L&E under L93C. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 10:27:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:27:02 +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 KAA18354 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:26:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:26:46 -0700 Message-ID: <01ec01bf1f48$c39e48a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19991025130853.006fef30@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:25:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > L12C2 says "...the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable > result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". We can debate > the interpretation of "most favorable" and of "likely" all we want, but I > see no way to interpret the above text as allowing an adjusted score that > reflects a result that *could not possibly have been obtained* "had the > irregularity not occurred". > I agree with that, but L12C2 is not applied unless there is damage to the NOS. My opinion (which Rich seems to share) is that the NOS has not been damaged by an infraction if it should have (with rational bridge) led to a superior result for them.. The issue of damage is rightly debatable, so you might do better to concentrate on that aspect of the matter, since no one disagrees with you on how L12C2 should be applied. The current thinking seems to be that any improvement in the OS score that can be directly attributed to the infraction constitutes "damage" by them, but not necessarily damage to the opposing side. No damage to the NOS, no L12C2 for them. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 10:38:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:38:08 +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 KAA18390 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:37:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:37:38 -0700 Message-ID: <01fb01bf1f4a$4849cba0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199910251815.LAA27988@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:35:40 -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: ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: Cc: Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 11:15 AM Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: Eric Landau > > > L12C2 says "...the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable > > > result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". We can debate > > > the interpretation of "most favorable" and of "likely" all we want, but I > > > see no way to interpret the above text as allowing an adjusted score that > > > reflects a result that *could not possibly have been obtained* "had the > > > irregularity not occurred". > > > > If the NOS were not damaged _by the irregularity_, we never get as > > far as L12C2: no adjusted score, table result stands (for the NOS). > > > > I am not saying this is the correct or only possible interpretation, > > but it doesn't seem to be in obvious conflict with the Laws. > > Actually, I was just about to raise the same point. Several people > have argued that the NOs' score shouldn't be adjusted because the only > damage was self-inflicted; but if that's the case, then we can't > adjust the offenders' score either, can we? What Law would allow us > to do so? The answer to this question is found in the WBFLC's interpretation #3 from Lille a year+ ago. See David Stevenson's web site (http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm) > > It seems to me that either there was damage or there wasn't---we can't > rule that damage both existed and didn't exist, except perhaps in a > world created by Lewis Carroll or George Orwell. So based on this, it > seems the only possible results allowed by the Laws (assuming 3NT > couldn't reasonably be set more than one trick) are -150/+150, > -150/+120, -400/+400. -400/+150 and -400/+120 don't seem legal. > > Ruling "score stands" seems to let the offenders get away with > something, but we can still assess a PP, can't we? That was ACBL thinking and ACBL practice prior to Lille #3, which made clear that it is legal to adjust for one side only. Rich Colker (hence ACBL ACs) has accepted this interpretation. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 10:52:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:52:56 +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 KAA18445 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:52:48 +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 UAA24190 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:53:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991025205317.0068dcbc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:53:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. In-Reply-To: <018601bf1faf$43c3b360$24dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:40 AM 10/26/99 -0700, Peter wrote: >NSWBA (applies to most bridge in Sydney): "Both members of a >partnership muse use the same bidding system and play conventions." I can understand requiring my partner and me to play the same bidding system, but do we really have to play conventions if we don't want to? 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 Oct 26 11:02:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:02:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18471 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:02:47 +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 VAA24784 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991025210320.00707b2c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:03:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne In-Reply-To: <199910252010.NAA29942@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:10 PM 10/25/99 PDT, Adam wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> When there is an infraction and there is damage -- meaning that the NOS got >> a worse score than they would have gotten absent the infraction -- we >> adjudicate according to L12, which sets forth the principles that determine >> the result of the adjudication. When we say "no damage, result stands", >> that is shorthand for saying that we have applied L12, and determined that >> the assigned score should be the same as the result at the table. > >Not necessarily. It could be shorthand for saying that we have >applied L16A2, which says the Director awards an adjusted score if >there is damage, and we've determined that there is no damage so >therefore no adjustment so therefore we never get to L12. > >The problem is that "damage" isn't defined, and we haven't really >agreed on what it means. I asked about this recently on BLML. Some >have the opinion that "damage" is defined by L12, i.e. you apply the >standards of L12 to determine whether there was damage. But I don't >believe everyone sees things this way. If you don't adopt this >definition, then Steve is right and you never apply L12 if you >determine (from whatever other definition of "damage" you adopt) that >there was no damage. > >But you don't start with L12. You only go there when another Law >tells you to. And if there's UI, you start with L16, and L16 doesn't >always reroute you to L12. It's certainly unarguable that you don't go to L12 every time someone calls the director, but you must go to L12 before you make any decision as to whether to award an assigned score, which is what's at issue here. Of course you may never get that far, but then you never reach the point of worrying about consequent vs. subsequent, or, for that matter, about whether to adjust at all. Besides, as someone else pointed out (actually I thought it was Adam, but if so he would seem to be arguing against himself here), if you don't reach L12, you cannot award an adjusted score to the OS either. 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 Oct 26 11:42:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:09:02 +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 LAA18513 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:08:49 +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 11fv6G-000KdU-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:08:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 00:46:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne References: <002e01bf1c60$0e573e60$a55208c3@swhki5i6> <012f01bf1d8e$e97e6700$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <38141D64.3A4D6893@worldnet.att.net> <01cd01bf1f12$f48e44a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01cd01bf1f12$f48e44a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Thanks to Rich for participating on BLML, even though he seems reluctant to >join us. His opinions are important and welcome, since he is the ACBL >Appeals Administrator (and very smart besides). He impressed me at Lille probably more than anyone else. [Uh-oh: I remember that Kojak and Ton read this: present company excepted, Kojak and Ton, of course.] He has explained to me that he is just too busy to get involved in BLML. He would be a major catch if he joined us. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 12:22:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:22:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mplspop3.mpls.uswest.net (mplspop3.mpls.uswest.net [204.147.80.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA18661 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:22:05 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199910260222.MAA18661@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 11372 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 1999 02:21:19 -0000 Delivered-To: fixup-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au@fixme Received: (qmail 11365 invoked by uid 0); 26 Oct 1999 02:21:19 -0000 Received: from hdslppp228.mpls.uswest.net (HELO oemcomputer) (63.225.144.228) by mplspop3.mpls.uswest.net with SMTP; 26 Oct 1999 02:21:19 -0000 From: "Chip" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Blundering through the bidding Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:15:24 -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 Good Evening, A local "C" player opened 1 heart and her "B" partner bid 3 spades. The obligatory inquiry fetched "I think it's a spade pre-empt". The opener then bid 4 spades and her partner now bid 5 hearts which she raised to 6. The opponents forgot to take their Ace of clubs so of course it went away. As there was no good spade sacrifice for the opponents I ruled that they were just unlucky but I don't really have a handle on this. It seems that each player would have bid what they did if no explanations were made so no foul, no harm. I would really appreciate knowing how to think about this kind of situation. Incidentally I do have the offender's hands but not the opponent's. Bidding Review 1h - p - 3s* - p 4s - p - 5h - p 6h - all pass *explained as a spade pre-empt but was obviously a splinter Opener: Qx KJ10xxx Axx Qx Responder: - AQxxx KJxxx KJx Regards, Chip From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 12:51:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:09:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18515 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:08:49 +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 11fv6J-000Kdg-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:08:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:13:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: After 93C References: <000f01bf1f0a$04e34340$ce307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <000f01bf1f0a$04e34340$ce307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >A national body feels that its national appeals committee has made a mistake >in interpreting the regulations for a national competition. > >Does the national body have the right to overturn a decision taken by the >national appeals committee? LAW 93 - PROCEDURES OF APPEAL C. Appeal to National Authority After the preceding remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may be taken to the national authority. We have had this problem with Denmark, and with Sweden, who do not differentiate between the NAC [national appeals committee] and the NA [national authority]. [Sorry: Denmark have changed their procedures.] If the procedure is for an appeal to go to the NAC, then the NA can overturn it. If the procedure is for an appeal to go to a local appeal committee, then to the NAC acting as the NA, then there is no further appeal. Look. The Law book gives a well-defined path to make decisions. First. The TD gives a ruling. Second. An AC gives a decision. Third. The NA gives a further decision. PWD -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 13:01:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:01:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18756 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:01:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveira.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.75.106]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA31818 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:01:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991025225915.012df204@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:59:15 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. In-Reply-To: <003a01bf1f22$147934a0$55aa93c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:48 PM 10/25/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ In the Code of Practice you will find it said twice > that habit is to be identified when an occurrence > is so frequent that it can be anticipated. My > original draft only said it once; the group (and > Mr. Polisner in particular) thought it worth saying > twice. What is habitual is method. I wonder what > results this test would produce if applied to any > partnership you might be thinking of? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ "...can be anticipated..." is a distressingly ambiguous turn of phrase. Does it mean "is apt to be, in the context of this partnership", or "might theoretically be divined, given a comprehensive catalog of partnership experience"? It seems that the plurality view in this thread is to favor the latter interpretation. I'm certainly not Zia, by a very long shot, although I like to think I'm not truly horrid either. But I could no more give you a reliable description of the 4-4 minor suit bidding proclivities of any of my regular partners than I could fly. I suppose they must have some, as do I. Presumably, they would be more or less consistent in their treatment of particular holdings, given similar conditions, and so these treatments can be called "habitual", and by the above reasoning, can be considered part of the "systems" that most SO's insist we use in common. Thus, by this reasoning, our failure to elucidate and reconcile the differences in these sub-conscious tendencies should be regarded as an offense. If this truly is what the Laws and regulations mean, then the Law is an ass. Despite my occasional denigration of the thought processes of the Lawmakers/regulators, I prefer to think that nobody would be so foolish as to put this kind of structure into place. Indeed, L40E1 specifically reserves for me the right to differ with my partner in matters of style and judgement, and I will stand on that principle in defending the right to open whichever minor suit strikes my fancy, without any concern that a different approach by partner puts us in violation of these regulations. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 13:17:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:17:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18807 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:17:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveira.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.75.106]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA19326 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:17:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991025231519.012e3c94@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:15:19 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Blundering through the bidding In-Reply-To: <199910260222.MAA18661@octavia.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:15 PM 10/25/99 -0500, Chip wrote: >Good Evening, > >A local "C" player opened 1 heart and her "B" partner bid 3 spades. The >obligatory inquiry fetched "I think it's a spade pre-empt". The opener then >bid 4 spades and her partner now bid 5 hearts which she raised to 6. The >opponents forgot to take their Ace of clubs so of course it went away. > >As there was no good spade sacrifice for the opponents I ruled that they >were just unlucky but I don't really have a handle on this. It seems that >each player would have bid what they did if no explanations were made so no >foul, no harm. I would really appreciate knowing how to think about this >kind of situation. > >Incidentally I do have the offender's hands but not the opponent's. > >Bidding Review >1h - p - 3s* - p >4s - p - 5h - p >6h - all pass >*explained as a spade pre-empt but was obviously a splinter > >Opener: >Qx >KJ10xxx >Axx >Qx > >Responder: >- >AQxxx >KJxxx >KJx > >Regards, >Chip > Your analysis seems fine to me. There is definitely UI on the hand: responder can sense from the explanation that Opener is, er, confused about the meaning of 3S. But so what? Is passing 4S a LA? Noooo....Does the UI suggest 5H over any particular LA? I don't think so, unless they are playing some funky exclusion-type Blackwood where 4S might have a specific meaning. Responder might have taken a different path, but will make sure the contract gets back to hearts one way or the other. And opener's choice of actions is unrestricted by her own mis-explanation. If responder did not correct the mis-explanation at the end of the auction, then there's a possitility of MI on the hand which could have affected the lead, but again, it's hard to see how this would make any difference. Even if they had never heard of splinter bids, the opponents would have to be complete palookas to continue under the assumption that 3S was a spade pre-empt, as the auction developed. If they were that incompetent, it's hard to see how the correct info would have helped them anyway. But it is at least possible that an analysis of the opposing hands would provide some reasonable basis for concluding that they would have been more likely to cash their club A had they had the correct information. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 14:00:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:09:06 +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 LAA18526 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:08:54 +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 11fv6G-000KdV-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:08:34 +0000 Message-ID: <4DZ10lDXAPF4EwHV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:04:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. References: <019101bf1fb2$ff10e400$24dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <019101bf1fb2$ff10e400$24dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >Am I the only BLMLer who has read Rosenberg's book, with >its fascinating writings about the Laws? > >I think most of the subsequent discussion in this thread has been >so far removed from reality that many of the contributors should >buy Michael's book and see the true context of Michael's words. >Then they would realise what a disservice this unreal discussion >has done. Of course, some contributions, in particular those of >Marv French, Kojak and DWS, have attempted to restore sanity > to the discussion. Buy? I am married to a Librarian! Please give details of this book [preferably including an ISBN] and I shall respectfully request 'er indoors to get a copy. [s] >The Aussie expert's point is practical, not theoretical. The more >detail you give, the more likely you are to give non-matching >explanations, one of which must be *wrong*. Another example of the BL at work. We *must* try on this list to keep this animal in check. >Peter Gill >Sydney Australia. I am disappointed at not being asked to direct in Bermuda. However, I have been asked to direct the Summer Festival in Canberra, Australia in January [summer in Januray?] and also the Gold Coast Congress in February so I hope to make new friends down under this winter [summer?]. PWD -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 14:02:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:09:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18514 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:08:49 +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 11fv6G-000KdT-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:08:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 00:53:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne References: <199910251800.OAA14288@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199910251815.LAA27988@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199910251815.LAA27988@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Actually, I was just about to raise the same point. Several people >have argued that the NOs' score shouldn't be adjusted because the only >damage was self-inflicted; but if that's the case, then we can't >adjust the offenders' score either, can we? What Law would allow us >to do so? > >It seems to me that either there was damage or there wasn't---we can't >rule that damage both existed and didn't exist, except perhaps in a >world created by Lewis Carroll or George Orwell. So based on this, it >seems the only possible results allowed by the Laws (assuming 3NT >couldn't reasonably be set more than one trick) are -150/+150, >-150/+120, -400/+400. -400/+150 and -400/+120 don't seem legal. > >Ruling "score stands" seems to let the offenders get away with >something, but we can still assess a PP, can't we? Why not do the way that is agreed by various NCBOs, the WBFLC, the CoP and Uncle Tom Cobley and all? We have a method of dealing with IWoGA [irrational, wild or gambling action]. If you read L12C2 in one particular way, it does not seem legal. But why argue? What is the point? It has been accepted by all the major authorities, so can BLML please accept it and move on? This is not the same as [for example] the ACBL suggesting that an ArtAS is legal under L12C2 because of the second sentence. this is one where we have an internationally agreed interpretation: please accept it and move on. PWD -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 15:47:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA19150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:47:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19145 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:47:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp233-12.worldonline.nl [195.241.233.12]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA22688; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:45:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003b01bf1f7d$ed88c5c0$0ce9f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:47:06 +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 Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 10/24/99 6:13:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >jfuchs@worldonline.nl writes: > >> >In a message dated 10/24/99 8:27:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >> >jfuchs@worldonline.nl writes: > >Dear Jan, Sorry for the confusion. I just reached for the "reply" key >without looking to see where I was. I should have gone back and found the >original posting. Do I get a PP for that? >Cheers, Kojak > Not at all, Kojak. I never incurred one at BLML myself, and I've done worse things there, like making my reply to your mail sound rather unkind. You are being warned for calling me Jan, though :-) Best wishes, Jac From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 16:09:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:09:20 +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 QAA19205 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:09:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:08:38 -0700 Message-ID: <024401bf1f78$85b60b60$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002e01bf1c60$0e573e60$a55208c3@swhki5i6><012f01bf1d8e$e97e6700$fb095e18@san.rr.com><38141D64.3A4D6893@worldnet.att.net><01cd01bf1f12$f48e44a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:01:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Thanks to Rich for participating on BLML, even though he seems reluctant to > >join us. His opinions are important and welcome, since he is the ACBL > >Appeals Administrator (and very smart besides). > > He impressed me at Lille probably more than anyone else. > > [Uh-oh: I remember that Kojak and Ton read this: present company > excepted, Kojak and Ton, of course.] > > He has explained to me that he is just too busy to get involved in > BLML. He would be a major catch if he joined us. > Same with Chip Martel, too busy, major catch. What I do is forward BLML articles to them that I feel are particularly important, being careful not to overdo it. Maybe one a month at most. I forgot to send something to Chip from this thread, which I had better do forthwith. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 16:30:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:30:04 +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 QAA19268 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:29:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.163] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11g06v-000FLz-00; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:29:34 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bf1f7b$72693840$a35108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:41:57 +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: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: 25 October 1999 21:08 Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. >> >>The ACBL policy is that both members of a partnership must use the same >system >>but they can vary style. This appears to fit into the category of style. >>(The ACBL's example is that if one player plays a 15-17 1NT, so must his >>partner, but if one player never opens 1NT with a five-card major, his >>partner may often open it.) > +=+ The WBF Code of Practice says this: "A player is permitted to make and use judgements about ........ the inclinations ('style') of his partner in matters where the partner's decisions are spontaneous rather than habitual or systemic. A player's habitual practices form part of his method and his partner's awareness of them is legitimate; but such method is subject to any regulations governing partnership agreements and to the requisite disclosure." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 16:30:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:30:01 +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 QAA19255 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:29:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.163] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11g06y-000FLz-00; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:29:36 +0100 Message-ID: <001701bf1f7b$73c9b2a0$a35108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: The third horseman. Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:26:37 +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; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:29:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.163] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11g06u-000FLz-00; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:29:32 +0100 Message-ID: <001401bf1f7b$719fcdc0$a35108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: "Adam Beneschan" Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:18:22 +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 Discussion List Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: 25 October 1999 21:38 Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne > >The problem is that "damage" isn't defined, and we haven't really >agreed on what it means. I asked about this recently on BLML. Some >have the opinion that "damage" is defined by L12, i.e. you apply the >standards of L12 to determine whether there was damage. But I don't >believe everyone sees things this way. If you don't adopt this >definition, then Steve is right and you never apply L12 if you >determine (from whatever other definition of "damage" you adopt) that >there was no damage. > +=+ In the papers that have been authorized in recent times there are two relevant positions: 1. 'Damage' for a non-offending side is defined as obtaining a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the irregularity. [Code of Practice] 2. 'Advantage gained by an offender' is ruled to be an advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction provided it is obtained through the infraction and not solely by the good play of the offenders. [WBFLC minutes 30.8.98] I think we need to bear these two connected statements in mind when considering the position that is being taken up. Also one must discount historical positions to a large extent when new departures are being made in the way rulings are determined and the basis upon which they, and appeals against them, are to be settled. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 16:30:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:30:01 +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 QAA19254 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:29:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.163] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11g06w-000FLz-00; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:29:35 +0100 Message-ID: <001601bf1f7b$73111100$a35108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , Subject: Re: After 93C Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:46:36 +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: 25 October 1999 18:01 Subject: After 93C >A national body feels that its national appeals committee has made a mistake >in interpreting the regulations for a national competition. > >Does the national body have the right to overturn a decision taken by the >national appeals committee? > >Regards >Fearghal. > +=+ The national body has delegated its function to a committee. To answer your question you need to look at the terms of the delegation of the power. This is not a matter of bridge law, except in the broad sense of knowing when the 93C appeal is exhausted - if the committee has final authority to decide the appeal the answer to your question is 'no'. If the power of the committee is qualified then the answer depends on whether the nature of the qualification is such that the 93C process is incomplete - needs ratification or something like that - or is subject to review in certain circumstances. My instincts are that the national appeals committee was presumably appointed as a committee of competent persons, in which case it is risky for the 'national body' (sic) to think it knows better than they do. On the other hand we are talking about regulations made by the national body, so has it not provided for their interpretation in some way? - as, for example, by the NAC? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 18:53:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 18:53:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19435 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 18:53:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:53:17 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA06207 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:49:05 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Blundering through the bidding Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:40:21 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D3@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: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883764344F@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chip wrote: >Good Evening, > >A local "C" player opened 1 heart and her "B" partner bid 3 spades. The >obligatory inquiry fetched "I think it's a spade pre-empt". The opener then >bid 4 spades and her partner now bid 5 hearts which she raised to 6. The >opponents forgot to take their Ace of clubs so of course it went away. > >As there was no good spade sacrifice for the opponents I ruled that they >were just unlucky but I don't really have a handle on this. It seems that >each player would have bid what they did if no explanations were made so no >foul, no harm. I would really appreciate knowing how to think about this >kind of situation. > >Incidentally I do have the offender's hands but not the opponent's. > >Bidding Review >1h - p - 3s* - p >4s - p - 5h - p >6h - all pass >*explained as a spade pre-empt but was obviously a splinter > >Opener: >Qx >KJ10xxx >Axx >Qx > >Responder: >- >AQxxx >KJxxx >KJx > >Regards, >Chip Blundering through the bidding, indeed. Opener bids as if she believes her explanation (4S). Responder has UI that 4S means lots of spades and weak, but has little choice but signing off in 5H, since partner denies club and diamond control (OK, it is stupid to bid 4S in that case, but last I encountered a player making a similar mistake, so apparently it happens from time to time). And since opener didn't have UI, she can bid what she wants. By the way, after 5H everybody at the table probably has a sneaking suspicion that 3S wasn't a preempt... So the bidding at least seems to be OK. However, without the opponents' hands and without knowing the vulnerability I cannot judge whether the opponents missed a sacrifice, or otherwise have been damaged by the bidding. Regardless of the ruling, however, I request this pair to review the bidding sequence. To me it is clear that responder tries to play a convention which opener doesn't understand. The explanation of 3S is typical for someone who never heard of splinters. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 19:22:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA19469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:22:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19463 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:21:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd1s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.210] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11g2nS-0003eG-00; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 02:21:39 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: The third horseman. Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:28:26 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf1f94$75245740$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: Grattan Endicott To: Anne Jones Cc: bridge-laws Date: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 7:29 AM Subject: The third horseman. > > >Grattan--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >----- >"I didn't get where I am today without knowing >a real winner when I see one." = David Nobbs. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Hi Anne, > In a private email you asked me >about other appeals at the Premier Div 2 >weekend. Keith Stanley was on site on the >Saturday and he rang me about this one (I >quote such information as I wrote down): > > North > ---------- > x x > Q 9 8 7 x > A x x > x x x > A Q J K x x > A x x J x x > Q J x K T x x x > A x x x K T > T 9 x x x > K T > x x > Q J x x >The auction (N and S silent) had been: > W. E. > 1C (strong) 2D > 2H 3H > 3 NT ends >The Heart bids were neither alerted nor >explained. North did not lead a Heart. The >question put to me by Keith concerned >the basis for a split score, he having >decided there was MI. North's >standard lead from the Heart suit would >be 7. I suggested that since 4-3 break >in Hearts was not material it should be >considered that North held one smaller >card than the 7 and three higher cards, >or a short suit. In the putative situation >North had not led K or Q or T; 7 could >be from a short suit in which case hold >up of ace would be right and play from >dummy immaterial. Otherwise play of >J from dummy right if lead from K Q, >low from dummy right in other situations. >Need to get information on North's >leads from five card suits made up >from K Q T 9 8 7 x and then decide >the probabilities of West's choices of >action. Keith went back to his thoughts >and I have not heard with any certainty >what as'gned score he awarded. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Oh! what fun I missed. I'm about to look up "apocalypse" it's not in my OB! What is however is 5.2.1a. The following are considered natural for alerting purposes. "The bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any other suit; the suit will be 4 cards before opener rebids but may be on 3 cards from then on." Is openers rebid included in "before"? I would have ruled "Not alertable" "No MI" DWS am I right or am I wrong again? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 19:23:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA19484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:23:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19479 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:23:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:23:04 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA06306 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:23:58 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'bridge-laws'" Subject: RE: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:15:01 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D4@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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837643424@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > North > ---------- > Q. > void > T 9 > Q.5. > A.9.3 K.J.T.2 > 6. 9. > 5. void > void void > > 7 6 5 4 > void > void > 9 > >West is declarer in a Heart contract. The lead is in >the West hand. Declarer needs to make all five tricks >for his contract. West does not lay down either top >Spade; instead he lays down his hand and says to >South: "I've no choice, I play you for the Queen of >Spades" (he knows North has at most two cards in >the suit). The Director is called and rules that it >would be irrational for a player of this class to ruff >the diamond and take a first round finesse in Spades, >so the contract is made. N/S are appealing. > >I pick up the telephone for a consultation with >another panel referee; he says the first round >finesse is inferior - no problem - but that it is >careless rather than irrational. This could be a >bit marginal, I think, so I make another call to >another panel member. "I think it's careless >rather than irrational", he says. I have not told >either of them that I have a hearsay report that >suggests two other Wests - in whatever situations - >have lost the first round finesse to the Q. They >only know the cards, the statement, and the >nature of the tournament. > >So, on the appeal form I record my colleagues' >opinions, and add: 'I think this losing play is on >the very edge of irrationality for this class of >player, but it probably just qualifies as careless'. >(I am thinking it would be irrational for a player >truly of international class not to cash Spade K >or else to ruff a diamond and then cash Spade K.) >We allow the appeal. NS +100 instead of NS - 1510. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ If this player is so competent, why didn't he cash the spade king first, or at least say that he would do so? If he is so sure that South has the queen of spades, he might as well forget to cash the spade king first and cross over with a diamond ruff. Just careless in my opinion. A careful claimer would have cashed the spade king before claiming. So I agree with the appeal committee. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 20:58:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA19624 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:58:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.92]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.5/64) id 5297200 ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 06:50:27 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991026065810.0085e710@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 06:58:10 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Cc: bills@cshore.com In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991025225915.012df204@pop.mindspring.com> References: <003a01bf1f22$147934a0$55aa93c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I'm certainly not Zia, by a very long shot, although I like to think I'm >not truly horrid either. But I could no more give you a reliable >description of the 4-4 minor suit bidding proclivities of any of my regular >partners than I could fly. I suspect this may have less to do with ability, per se, than with the manner in which a partnership conducts its postmortems. My regular partners and I review the hand records of every board we play together, discussing not just what did happen but what might have happened under different scenarios. After 6000 boards of postmortems, even minutiae of partner's bidding style become quite apparent. Without knowing Rosenberg's rules, it would be wild speculation for me to venture whether Rosenberg's minor 4-4 tendencies would be apparent in this context. However, if it were my partner's tendency to open his weaker minor when planning a 2NT rebid, e.g., I would know it. As an aside, while I'd like to think that I'm reasonably perceptive, one of my newer partners puts me to shame. After <1000 boards, he has an uncanny ability to relate accurately my bidding idiosyncracies, including those of which I was previously unaware. Return to lurk status. ;) Cheers, Bill Segraves Guiford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 21:26:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:26:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA19720 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:26:33 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id qSLQa03805 (4380); Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.523a4532.2546e96f@aol.com> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:24:31 EDT Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 10/25/99 9:53:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > [Uh-oh: I remember that Kojak and Ton read this: present company > excepted, Kojak and Ton, of course.] What does this mean? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 21:28:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:28:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA19737 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:28:14 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id dRJRa26723 (4380); Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:27:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.59635b30.2546ea22@aol.com> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:27:30 EDT Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. 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: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 10/25/99 11:04:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, msd@mindspring.com writes: > If this truly is what the Laws and regulations mean, then the Law is an > ass. Despite my occasional denigration of the thought processes of the > Lawmakers/regulators, I prefer to think that nobody would be so foolish as > to put this kind of structure into place. Indeed, L40E1 specifically > reserves for me the right to differ with my partner in matters of style and > judgement, and I will stand on that principle in defending the right to > open whichever minor suit strikes my fancy, without any concern that a > different approach by partner puts us in violation of these regulations. > > Mike Dennis Nicely put. I think this whole thread is based on the inability to see the forest for the trees. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 21:34:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:34:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA19755 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:34:21 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id pHTAgX4fa_ (4380); Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:31:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.39765caf.2546eaf4@aol.com> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:31:00 EDT Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. To: bills@cshore.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 10/26/99 7:01:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bills@cshore.com writes: > However, if it were my partner's tendency to open his weaker minor > when planning a 2NT rebid, e.g., I would know it. And I would so inform the opponents when he rebid 2NT that it is possible for him to have 4 - 4 in the minors on this sequence. Nah, don't lurk, get hot man!!! Koajk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 22:57:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:57:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19947 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:56:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id OAA06652; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:56:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JHLEMBTSL4002IRO@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:54:49 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:56:40 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:56:08 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Appeal Committees - Lausanne To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C27C@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 hi, So back from the China Cup? I spoke Anthony Ching about it. All went well I understand. Good question; if I did agree with some statements during the last weeks, please let me know what they were. Nothing read nor written during almost a month. Feel relaxed so, best regards, ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Schoderb@aol.com [mailto:Schoderb@aol.com] > Verzonden: dinsdag 26 oktober 1999 12:25 > Aan: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne > > > In a message dated 10/25/99 9:53:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > > > [Uh-oh: I remember that Kojak and Ton read this: present company > > excepted, Kojak and Ton, of course.] > > What does this mean? Kojak > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 26 23:53:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:53:13 +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 XAA20115 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:53:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldh87.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.197.7]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA07289 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3815B37C.201D76D6@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 06:58:20 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. References: <0.39765caf.2546eaf4@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A few collected comments.... Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/26/99 7:01:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > bills@cshore.com writes: > > > However, if it were my partner's tendency to open his weaker minor > > when planning a 2NT rebid, e.g., I would know it. > > And I would so inform the opponents when he rebid 2NT that it is possible for > him to have 4 - 4 in the minors on this sequence. > No, no. What Bill is saying is that suppose AJxx KQx Jxx AQT may be routinely opened 1D. Or that AQ KQx xxxx AKJx might always be a 1D opener. That's a disclosable tendency, and I can easily see where it would come in. After a 1m opening and 2N rebid, the defense wants to know what the 1C/1D tendencies are with a balanced 19-count. Bill will tell the truth -- with a dead flat hand and 18-19, partner will routinely open his weaker minor. Kojak is suggesting that such a tendency is not disclosable. I find that to be contrary to law. DWS wrote: > Yes, I do. I think the presumption behind this thread is quite > ridiculous. In situations where my partner and I have options, I do not > worry myself trying to work out what he does with particular holdings. Wow! I spend my bridge life trying to construct partner's hand for both bidding and defense. Why on earth have I been worrying myself trying to work out what he does with particular holdings? > Why should Zia waste his time this way? People make it sound as though > he has nothing better to do with his time than work out what MR opens > with 4-4 m-m. I must be misreading this. Compare to: "Why should Zia waste his time this way? People.... opens with 5-5 in the blacks?" Or.. "opens with a balanced 16-count." I have considerations that I take into account when 5-5 in the blacks. They are simple, but eccentric. > I believe that their agreement is that they choose which minor to open > with 4-4 and that is therefore all that is disclosable. So I choose which black suit to open, and that is all that is disclosable? What about if I hold AJ9xx K83 Axx Kx [all hands have been carefully screened to ensure between 10 and 15 cards], playing a US standard style? I have options. I could open 1S or 1N. I'll tell you now that in my partnerships, I strongly prefer one of these, and hate the other. But I'm supposed to tell the opponents "We choose one"? I don't buy any of the arguments made. It isn't impossible, or even all that complicated to explain the tendencies with some degree of precision. As with any bid, explain what you can in a few seconds, and supply more if asked. One more example: Suppose I play with a partner we will call Kaplan. He has a very sophisticated method of evaluating whether a hand is an opener or not. However, such method is quantifiable with a method we will hypothetically call K/R. If asked, must we disclose? My evaluation is very similar, and I tell opponents that we open standardly, but tend to pass more balanced hands and open more distributional hands than normal. If there were a further inquiry, I'd explain that we place a somewhat higher premium on interior spots and prime cards than most. I think I have that obligation. I do not just "choose." Marv wrote: > Yes. This disclosure thing is getting out of hand. Someone has to put a > reasonable lid on it. I think I wrote something like this once. Of course, I was being sarcastic... > > Those with special partnership agreements, such as "We always open [1D ] > [1C] with 4-4 in the minors" should put that on their cc, and should > certainly disclose such things when asked about style. To go further than > that is indeed ridiculous. Ah, those that differentiate based on whatever factors should not tell. Their agreement is not special. Opening 1D on all 4-4s is special? Marv's position on this remains consistent -- Marv's agreements are normal. My agreements are special. :) The idea that we are not obligated to share our methodology for evaluating hands lacks basis in the law. --JRM > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 00:23:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:23:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.nwnexus.com (smtp10.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA20232 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:23:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from king.halcyon.com (bbo@king.halcyon.com [206.63.63.10]) by smtp10.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA15617; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by king.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA20051; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:23:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Schoderb@aol.com cc: bills@cshore.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. In-Reply-To: <0.39765caf.2546eaf4@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/26/99 7:01:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > bills@cshore.com writes: > > > However, if it were my partner's tendency to open his weaker minor > > when planning a 2NT rebid, e.g., I would know it. > > And I would so inform the opponents when he rebid 2NT that it is > possible for him to have 4 - 4 in the minors on this sequence. Really, Kojak? Where does the opponent's supposed general bridge knowledge come in to play anymore? I hope you are not saying that the minute the auction goes 1m-1grape-2NT, that Bill is supposed to waive the alert card around and inform the opponents that he might have 4-4 in the minors and have opened the weaker minor? Is this enough? If you have noticed that he sometimes does this with a solid six card minor and a semi-stop in the other, shouldn't you be required to tell them that too? Otherwise they may lead the bid minor to their distress, and call you to the table for redress! [And if I am the partner, and my partner IS required to give this little speech after this sequence, then I immediately switch to opening the stronger minor and don't tell him! To heck with the lead-inhibiting bid if pard is just gonna tell them what to lead to find my weak spot!!] And if you have observed him do the same with slightly uneven minor-suit distribution and 18-19 points, shouldn't this be part of what you tell them too? Isn't every opponent capable of knowing generally that anyone might produce this sequence on these examples hands and many more? I thought that you were saying that Zia did not need to go into the ten-minute song-and-dance after MR opened one of a minor. Is this sequence any different? Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 00:25:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:25:03 +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 AAA20246 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:24:56 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id dNKUa04501 (4216); Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:24:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.971864c4.2547138f@aol.com> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:24:15 EDT Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. To: jrmayne@mindspring.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 10/26/99 9:54:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jrmayne@mindspring.com writes: > > And I would so inform the opponents when he rebid 2NT that it is possible > for > > him to have 4 - 4 in the minors on this sequence. > > > I'm spending more time correcting my own errors on this than it is worth. There is a phrase missing from my post floowing the word "sequence." It is AND I WOULD INFORM THEM THAT HE USUALLY BIDS THE WEKAER MINOR IN THAT CASE. Does that change your no, no, --- to yes,yes? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 00:26:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:26:33 +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 AAA20263 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:26:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from tripack.ihug.co.nz (p219-tnt4.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.103.219]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id DAA15643 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 03:26:22 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19991027032054.007ff1d0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 03:20:54 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: re: logic of opening bids Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Another thread coming off the original thread caught my eye in Peter Gill's post. (The capitalisation below is mine) --------------------------------------------------------------------- SCREENS There is, however, an important and real problem with *explanations behind screens*, which one of Australia's best players explained to me. With screens, he thinks that practical application of the laws encourages players to minimise their explanations by interpreting "all special information" in L75C in a narrow way, so that their explanations have maximum chance of matching. The more one writes in one's explanation, the more likely one is to differ from partner's explanation. In other words, the ethical players who go out of their way to give full explanations are, in practice, disadvantaged relative to the less ethical players who, based on their personal interpretation of the word "special", stick to one word answers such as *natural*. For example you open 1H, partner raises to 2H, you bid 3C with xx, AQJxx, AQx, Axx, playing behind screens. The less ethical players (in partnership) both describe this as *long suit try*; their explanations match and they are safe from scrutiny. Upon further questioning they both write *3+ clubs*, again safe from scrutiny. They are never questioned after opening leader with Ax, Kxx, Kxxx, Kxxx leads a diamond and 4H makes. A club lead defeats 4H. The partners in the more ethical pair, in the same position, both write long explanations that 3C, while it is a *long suit try*, tends to be a *help suit try* more than a traditional long suit try on 5332 shapes. "IN FACT OUR STYLE ON 5332s IS SUCH THAT IT IS USUALLY BEST TO LEAD THIS SUIT MORE OFTEN THAN NOT", writes the particularly ethical player whose screenmate perchance is NOT on opening lead. The opening leader has been told by dummy that "3C is a long suit try; with a 4+ suit we almost always make the try in that suit, without a four card suit we bid one of our three card suits, depending on our individual preferences." A diamond is led. The TD rules that had the Opening Leader had the full information which his partner had, he probably would have led a club. --------------------------------------------------------------------- How do you know that it will pay to lead a help suit try more often than not? If declarer has Axx then surely it makes a big difference whether partner has accepted on a maximum despite holding a depressing xxx in the help suit try, or whether they have accepted with a minimum because they like the look of their K109x in the help suit. If I was declarer waiting for the opening lead, and looking at my Axx, I would have no idea, before seeing dummy, whether I would be rooting for the leader to choose this suit. Advising opponents what you think their best 'long run' action will be strikes me as being particularly stupid rather than particularly ethical. Patrick Carter. Auckland New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 00:36:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:36:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA20325 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:36:20 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 3BQRa02561 (4216); Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:35:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.15237d14.25471630@aol.com> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:35:28 EDT Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. To: bbo@halcyon.com CC: bills@cshore.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 10/26/99 10:23:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bbo@halcyon.com writes: > I thought that you were saying that Zia did not need to go into the > ten-minute song-and-dance after MR opened one of a minor. Is this > sequence any different? > Yes, that is still my contention. I would not suggest waving the alert card or volunteering information. My example may be flawed, but all I've tried to say is that there are instances(in this case the rebid of 2NT may be the flag) where my partner may have knowledge of my tendencies and where some explanation is appropriate. (Of course, you are right about changing my evaluation of the factors the moment he lets the cat out of the bag by doing the opposite.) So on balance, and to avoid the scenario you propose, it's best to say nothing till asked, and then be very careful to leave the opponents with the feeling that you have no firm, direct, knowledge of what partner is doing. And try to do it in less than 10 minutes. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 01:06:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 01:06:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from emu.prod.itd.earthlink.net (emu.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.31]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA20415 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 01:06:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP224.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.240]) by emu.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03681 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991026100413.00a45850@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:04:48 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: RE: Blundering through the bidding Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies to Martin for duplicated messages ... >To me it is clear that responder tries to play a convention which >opener doesn't understand. The explanation of 3S is typical for >someone who never heard of splinters. ... or who's just tired. Last year I was playing with a partner of two years; we've played splinters from the get-go. First session, second board, I open 1H, LHO overcalls 2D, pard bids 3S with something like KJTxxxx x Qxx Qx. Fine. Second session, second board, I open 1H, LHO overcalls 2D, pard bids 3S with [void] Axxx AKx KJ97xx. Oops. Missed a biddable grand. This particular partner has mild insomnia and has trouble staying alert in the evening session (more so than most people's partners, I mean). In discussions later he had no recollection of the hand from the first session. These things happen. If the hands were reversed and I'd bid 4S to show the spade shortness, my exhausted pard might have given the explanation the C player did in the example hand. He was flight C at the time but only a few months from getting his gold card. 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 Wed Oct 27 03:04:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 03:04:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA20851 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 03:04:11 +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 11gA0v-000GGH-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:04:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:44:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: The third horseman. References: <01bf1f94$75245740$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf1f94$75245740$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf1f94$75245740$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >-----Original Message----- >From: Grattan Endicott >To: Anne Jones >Cc: bridge-laws >Date: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 7:29 AM >Subject: The third horseman. > > >> >> >>Grattan>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- >>----- >>"I didn't get where I am today without knowing >>a real winner when I see one." = David Nobbs. >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>Hi Anne, >> In a private email you asked me >>about other appeals at the Premier Div 2 >>weekend. Keith Stanley was on site on the >>Saturday and he rang me about this one (I >>quote such information as I wrote down): >> >> North >> ---------- >> x x >> Q 9 8 7 x >> A x x >> x x x >> A Q J K x x >> A x x J x x >> Q J x K T x x x >> A x x x K T >> T 9 x x x >> K T >> x x >> Q J x x >>The auction (N and S silent) had been: >> W. E. >> 1C (strong) 2D >> 2H 3H >> 3 NT ends >>The Heart bids were neither alerted nor >>explained. North did not lead a Heart. The >>question put to me by Keith concerned >>the basis for a split score, he having >>decided there was MI. North's >>standard lead from the Heart suit would >>be 7. I suggested that since 4-3 break >>in Hearts was not material it should be >>considered that North held one smaller >>card than the 7 and three higher cards, >>or a short suit. In the putative situation >>North had not led K or Q or T; 7 could >>be from a short suit in which case hold >>up of ace would be right and play from >>dummy immaterial. Otherwise play of >>J from dummy right if lead from K Q, >>low from dummy right in other situations. >>Need to get information on North's >>leads from five card suits made up >>from K Q T 9 8 7 x and then decide >>the probabilities of West's choices of >>action. Keith went back to his thoughts >>and I have not heard with any certainty >>what as'gned score he awarded. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >Oh! what fun I missed. I'm about to look >up "apocalypse" it's not in my OB! >What is however is 5.2.1a. The following >are considered natural for alerting purposes. >"The bid of a suit which shows that suit and >says nothing about any other suit; the suit >will be 4 cards before opener rebids but may >be on 3 cards from then on." >Is openers rebid included in "before"? >I would have ruled "Not alertable" "No MI" >DWS am I right or am I wrong again? >Anne > > Remember this was played with screens Anne - 2H was alerted by West to South as relay - but not by East to North - hence the raise to 3H - After 3NT and before the opening lead East told North that 2H usually showed 5 Hearts but sometimes 4 - consequently North led a non-heart and the contract easily made. North-South asked for a ruling It was not clear which explanation was systemic and therefore I ruled MI by East to North and believed that the standard lead would be the H7 - Various lines are now possible - playing the HJ at Trick 1 fails - as East West were "offenders" I ruled 3NT-1 - quite properly East-West appealed. Declarer a good player argued on two grounds that he should be allowed to make 3NT - (1) North had not overcalled 1C with a H bid so HKQxxx and AD were unlikely - (2) playing small from dummy with the intention of blocking the suit when South held Honourx was the correct play Mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 03:04:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 03:04:20 +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 DAA20850 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 03:04:10 +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 11gA0s-000GGJ-0K; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:03:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 18:01:25 +0100 To: David Burn Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? References: <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn>, David Burn writes >I started with this case. > >The bidding proceeds: > >West North East South >1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H > >Now, suppose that NS play this auction: > >West North East South >Pass 1NT Dble 2H > >as a transfer to spades, and that neither of them has ever forgotten >that they do this. Suppose North in the first auction alerts 2H. "What >does that mean?" says West. "Well", says North, "if you hadn't opened >1S, I would know that he had spades, but now I am not sure." West >passes, and so does everybody else; South has hearts; EW claim that >had they known this, one of them would have bid 2S for a better score >than they received defending 2H. North's hand was: AQx Kxx Axxxx Kx > >I have received confirmation from Michael and Herman that their >respective positions are roughly as I stated them. Michael and others >believe that provided North has told West all relevant agreements, >experience and so forth, EW have no claim of damage through MI. >Herman, essentially, does not believe this. > >The difficulty I have with Michael's view, which appears to be the >majority position and is certainly supported by the Laws and by a body >of cases, is this. The effect of North's explanation on West was to >create the impression that South perhaps had spades; if that were so, >then West did not want to bid spades. In terms of what West actually >did, the effect was the same as if North had assured West that South >had spades. Despite having given this explanation to West, North then >proceeded to act on the assumption that South had hearts. > >Now, suppose that North were an out-and-out villain. Wishing to play >in 2H, and not to hear 2S from either opponent, what would a >villainous North do? He would do exactly as this North did: create the >impression that his side had a lot of spades, and then pass out 2H. He >might claim afterwards, of course, that he "took the view that South >had forgotten", and those who support Michael's side would have to >accept this testimony. > >Whatever we require of the Laws, it seems to me obvious that they >should simply not permit a player to act in this fashion. Of course, >nobody would accuse this particular North of being a villain - but >that is not what we do when we apply the Laws. We say to North: "You >have done - not doubt for the best of reasons and with the purest of >hearts - something that may have been done by a villain in different >circumstances; therefore, we will rule against you." If the Laws are >to meet the basic requirement of making nefarious conduct >unprofitable, then they are bound to penalise those who are not >nefarious but merely incompetent - nobody ever revokes on purpose, but >we dock them the same two tricks as we would have done if they had. >This seems to me a necessary price to pay for the elimination of >conduct that is truly nefarious. > >It occurs to me also that had this incident occurred when screens were >in use, there would not (perhaps) have been a problem. South would >have told West that he had hearts; West would have bid 2S, and at any >rate the table would have made more progress towards the result that >one instinctively feels is the "right" one on the deal. When the tray >arrived at the other side, of course, North might tell East that South >had spades, but the likely outcome is that North would look at West's >2S bid and - with empirical justification - decide that South's memory >was at fault. It seems to me that a requirement we might place on the >Laws is that they operate in the same fashion whatever the conditions >of contest - that is, if under certain conditions West would be in >possession of the "correct" information, he should be deemed to >possess it under all conditions. > >The difficulty arises, of course, from the fact that the Laws create a >requirement for a pair to disclose their methods even though they may >be incapable of doing so (because, temporarily, they do not know what >their methods are). However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to >view the matter in this light: if a player creates a doubt in his >opponent's mind (because of a doubt in the player's own mind), and if >the opponent is thereby caused to act in a manner disadvantageous to >his side, the Laws should provide the opponent with some redress. >Perhaps we should create the infraction of "Inadequate Information". >All those in favour, say aye-aye. > >David Burn > > Having (after 2 1/2 years of coaching by DWS) finally managed to thread BLML (let no one call me a computer geek) instead of reading the postings I've tended to sit back and admire my handiwork and now I'm about a week behind with 250 messages to read - so sorry it's taken me so long to say Aye Aye I think the current distinction in the Law Book between MI and a misbid is too generous to those who cause havoc at the green tables. There is somehow an assumption that if it is written down that makes it our system whatever bids or call we make. I used to make this point with the following absurd case: Suppose DWS agrees to play with me at the Year End Congress and I say "Let's play The Polish Club" "Don't know it" he grumbles. "I'll buy you it for Christmas. We'll play everything in the book" December 27th duly comes and Board 1. David opens 2D "5 card major, another 5 card suit 7-11 points" I say. (Let's assume it's legal). It turns out that David has a weak 2 in Diamonds. The opposition miss an easy slam. The pigs are summoned. "Oh it's a misbid" I quoth. "We've agreed to play everything in the book - look David's got a copy." David produces from his briefcase a copy of Greg Matula's book still wrapped in Christmas gift wrap. "Page 143 I think" I say. "Correct explanation" - no adjustment :)" Now clearly it's absurd for me to claim that this is our agreed system if David hasn't even looked at Page 1 - let alone Page 143. Yet players do this all the time - "It's on our Convention Card" "I've got the System notes in the car" Often the convention card - even more often the system file, has been written by one player and there is no true joint ownership of the system. If I don't know the system then when I make a bid, I believe that what I mean becomes our system and the opponents are entitled to know this. If they are damaged by my incompetence then they not I should receive the benefit of the doubt. In a recent tournament a nice Icelander's strong Club was overcalled by a bid showing Hearts and Clubs (The player in fact had H + Ds) When the opponents reached 4H, the strong Club bidder was content to double holding AKQ of Clubs and believing these to be good defensively) Sadly they were not and -790 was chalked up when 4S would have been +620. Misbid not MI - no adjustment (the convention card was well filled in and showed that the bid did show C + H as explained but not as held) - I think players are entitled to redress in these situations. mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 03:04:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 03:04:31 +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 DAA20858 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 03:04:21 +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 11gA0y-000GGF-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:04:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:33:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: The third horseman. References: <001701bf1f7b$73c9b2a0$a35108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <001701bf1f7b$73c9b2a0$a35108c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001701bf1f7b$73c9b2a0$a35108c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott writes > > >Grattan---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >----- >"I didn't get where I am today without knowing >a real winner when I see one." = David Nobbs. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Hi Anne, > In a private email you asked me >about other appeals at the Premier Div 2 >weekend. Keith Stanley was on site on the >Saturday and he rang me about this one (I >quote such information as I wrote down): > > North > ---------- > x x > Q 9 8 7 x > A x x > x x x > A Q J K x x > A x x J x x > Q J x K T x x x > A x x x K T > T 9 x x x > K T > x x > Q J x x >The auction (N and S silent) had been: > W. E. > 1C (strong) 2D > 2H 3H > 3 NT ends >The Heart bids were neither alerted nor >explained. North did not lead a Heart. The >question put to me by Keith concerned >the basis for a split score, he having >decided there was MI. North's >standard lead from the Heart suit would >be 7. I suggested that since 4-3 break >in Hearts was not material it should be >considered that North held one smaller >card than the 7 and three higher cards, >or a short suit. In the putative situation >North had not led K or Q or T; 7 could >be from a short suit in which case hold >up of ace would be right and play from >dummy immaterial. Otherwise play of >J from dummy right if lead from K Q, >low from dummy right in other situations. >Need to get information on North's >leads from five card suits made up >from K Q T 9 8 7 x and then decide >the probabilities of West's choices of >action. Keith went back to his thoughts >and I have not heard with any certainty >what as'gned score he awarded. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keith's ruling was 50% of 3NT making ten tricks and 50% of 3NT -1 -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 03:47:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 03:20:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com [139.134.5.174]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA20944 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 03:20:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ta444619 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 03:16:42 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-94-21.tmns.net.au ([139.134.94.21]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Rustic-MailRouter V2.5 9/806090); 27 Oct 1999 03:16:41 Message-ID: <016a01bf2064$be994f40$fbdc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: logic of opening bids Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 03:18:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Patrick Carter of New Zealand wrote: >Another thread coming off the original thread caught my eye in Peter Gill's >post. (The capitalisation below is mine) > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>SCREENS >>There is, however, an important and real problem with *explanations >>behind screens*, which one of Australia's best players explained to >>me. *snip* >>For example you open 1H, partner raises to 2H, you bid 3C with >>xx, AQJxx, AQx, Axx, playing behind screens. >>The less ethical players (in partnership) both describe this as >>*long suit try*; their explanations match and they are safe from >>scrutiny. Upon further questioning they both write *3+ clubs*, >>again safe from scrutiny. They are never questioned after opening >>leader with Ax, Kxx, Kxxx, Kxxx leads a diamond and 4H makes. >>A club lead defeats 4H. >>The partners in the more ethical pair, in the same position, both >>write long explanations that 3C, while it is a *long suit try*, tends >>to be a *help suit try* more than a traditional long suit try on 5332 >>shapes. "IN FACT OUR STYLE ON 5332s IS SUCH THAT IT IS >>USUALLY BEST TO LEAD >>THIS SUIT MORE OFTEN THAN NOT", writes the particularly ethical >>player whose screenmate perchance is NOT on opening lead. >>The opening leader has been told by dummy that "3C is a long >>suit try; with a 4+ suit we almost always make the try in that suit, >>without a four card suit we bid one of our three card suits, depending >>on our individual preferences." A diamond is led. >>The TD rules that had the Opening Leader had the full information >>which his partner had, he probably would have led a club. >> >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >How do you know that it will pay to lead a help suit try more often than not? > >If declarer has Axx then surely it makes a big difference whether partner >has accepted on a maximum despite holding a depressing xxx in the help suit >try, or whether they have accepted with a minimum because they like the >look of their K109x in the help suit. If I was declarer waiting for the >opening lead, and looking at my Axx, I would have no idea, before seeing >dummy, whether I would be rooting for the leader to choose this suit. > >Advising opponents what you think their best 'long run' action will be >strikes me as being particularly stupid rather than particularly ethical. > > In the above scenario DECLARER wrote the capitalised explanation to his RHO, i.e. he was not trying to influence the opening lead but rather to give his screenmate a good idea of what he held without awkwardly writing down specific holdings. His actual decision may have been to repeat what his partner had said in their system discussion. He was trying to express that "with DAQx and CAxx I'd bid 3C", without telling his opponent his actual hand. Dummy was in a bit of a quandary and may have held back a bit because he didn't want to be seen to be telling his RHO what to lead. Dummy thought that his explanation gave his RHO the opportunity to ask for more detail if necessary. Oh how he wished he were one of the other pair who keep their explanations short. Sorry to omit all this detail before, but 90+% of BLMLers would surely think that my posting was too long anyway. So this unusually worded explanation seems OK to me, "me" being someone who was ruled against under L73F2 last time I gave a NZ team too much (!) information in my explanation behind screens at Australia's Summer Festival. So I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about screen explanations, and was most interested when the expert explained the above situation to me. I may be Australian but we're not all as stupid as we look. I will send you privately a great NZ joke about us stupid Aussies. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 07:04:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 07:04:36 +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 HAA21569 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 07:04:26 +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 OAA18342; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:03:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199910262103.OAA18342@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:18:22 PDT." <001401bf1f7b$719fcdc0$a35108c3@swhki5i6> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:03:36 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > +=+ In the papers that have been > authorized in recent times there are > two relevant positions: > 1. 'Damage' for a non-offending side > is defined as obtaining a table result > less favourable than would have been > the expectation in the instant prior to > the irregularity. [Code of Practice] > 2. 'Advantage gained by an offender' > is ruled to be an advantage in the table > score whether consequent or subsequent > to the infraction provided it is obtained > through the infraction and not solely by > the good play of the offenders. > [WBFLC minutes 30.8.98] Thanks for the info. Part of the problem with a couple of my recent posts was that I wasn't fully aware of the new interpretation that came from Lille. I probably should have been; no doubt it was discussed on BLML, but I didn't pay close enough attention to it. To pursue #1 a bit further: The CoP uses a term "expectation" that's different from the terms used in L12C. Law 12C says we adjust the score to the "most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." Assuming the non-offenders did not subsequently take a wild, gambling or irrational action, should we assume that the phrase "expectation in the instant prior to the irregularity" is equivalent to the result that would be assigned to the non-offenders by applying 12C? It makes sense to me that it should, but it's not completely clear from the wording---was that the intent? P.S. Please respond to me by e-mail as well as to BLML. Later today, I will need to unsubscribe from this list for a couple weeks. -- thanks, Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 07:37:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 07:37:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA21635 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 07:37:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg2g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.80]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAB17787 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:36:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991026173409.012e954c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:34:09 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of proof for misbid? In-Reply-To: References: <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:01 PM 10/26/99 +0100, Michael Amos wrote: >In article <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn>, David Burn > writes >>I started with this case. >> >>The bidding proceeds: >> >>West North East South >>1S (4+S) 1NT Dble 2H >> >>Now, suppose that NS play this auction: >> >>West North East South >>Pass 1NT Dble 2H >> >>as a transfer to spades, and that neither of them has ever forgotten >>that they do this. Suppose North in the first auction alerts 2H. "What >>does that mean?" says West. "Well", says North, "if you hadn't opened >>1S, I would know that he had spades, but now I am not sure." West >>passes, and so does everybody else; South has hearts; EW claim that >>had they known this, one of them would have bid 2S for a better score >>than they received defending 2H. North's hand was: AQx Kxx Axxxx Kx >> >>I have received confirmation from Michael and Herman that their >>respective positions are roughly as I stated them. Michael and others >>believe that provided North has told West all relevant agreements, >>experience and so forth, EW have no claim of damage through MI. >>Herman, essentially, does not believe this. >> >>The difficulty I have with Michael's view, which appears to be the >>majority position and is certainly supported by the Laws and by a body >>of cases, is this. The effect of North's explanation on West was to >>create the impression that South perhaps had spades; if that were so, >>then West did not want to bid spades. In terms of what West actually >>did, the effect was the same as if North had assured West that South >>had spades. Despite having given this explanation to West, North then >>proceeded to act on the assumption that South had hearts. >> >>Now, suppose that North were an out-and-out villain. Wishing to play >>in 2H, and not to hear 2S from either opponent, what would a >>villainous North do? He would do exactly as this North did: create the >>impression that his side had a lot of spades, and then pass out 2H. He >>might claim afterwards, of course, that he "took the view that South >>had forgotten", and those who support Michael's side would have to >>accept this testimony. >> >>Whatever we require of the Laws, it seems to me obvious that they >>should simply not permit a player to act in this fashion. Of course, >>nobody would accuse this particular North of being a villain - but >>that is not what we do when we apply the Laws. We say to North: "You >>have done - not doubt for the best of reasons and with the purest of >>hearts - something that may have been done by a villain in different >>circumstances; therefore, we will rule against you." If the Laws are >>to meet the basic requirement of making nefarious conduct >>unprofitable, then they are bound to penalise those who are not >>nefarious but merely incompetent - nobody ever revokes on purpose, but >>we dock them the same two tricks as we would have done if they had. >>This seems to me a necessary price to pay for the elimination of >>conduct that is truly nefarious. >> >>It occurs to me also that had this incident occurred when screens were >>in use, there would not (perhaps) have been a problem. South would >>have told West that he had hearts; West would have bid 2S, and at any >>rate the table would have made more progress towards the result that >>one instinctively feels is the "right" one on the deal. When the tray >>arrived at the other side, of course, North might tell East that South >>had spades, but the likely outcome is that North would look at West's >>2S bid and - with empirical justification - decide that South's memory >>was at fault. It seems to me that a requirement we might place on the >>Laws is that they operate in the same fashion whatever the conditions >>of contest - that is, if under certain conditions West would be in >>possession of the "correct" information, he should be deemed to >>possess it under all conditions. >> >>The difficulty arises, of course, from the fact that the Laws create a >>requirement for a pair to disclose their methods even though they may >>be incapable of doing so (because, temporarily, they do not know what >>their methods are). However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to >>view the matter in this light: if a player creates a doubt in his >>opponent's mind (because of a doubt in the player's own mind), and if >>the opponent is thereby caused to act in a manner disadvantageous to >>his side, the Laws should provide the opponent with some redress. >>Perhaps we should create the infraction of "Inadequate Information". >>All those in favour, say aye-aye. >> >>David Burn >> >> >Having (after 2 1/2 years of coaching by DWS) finally managed to thread >BLML (let no one call me a computer geek) instead of reading the >postings I've tended to sit back and admire my handiwork and now I'm >about a week behind with 250 messages to read - so sorry it's taken me >so long to say > >Aye Aye > >I think the current distinction in the Law Book between MI and a misbid >is too generous to those who cause havoc at the green tables. There is >somehow an assumption that if it is written down that makes it our >system whatever bids or call we make. I used to make this point with >the following absurd case: > >Suppose DWS agrees to play with me at the Year End Congress and I say >"Let's play The Polish Club" "Don't know it" he grumbles. "I'll buy >you it for Christmas. We'll play everything in the book" > >December 27th duly comes and Board 1. David opens 2D "5 card major, >another 5 card suit 7-11 points" I say. (Let's assume it's legal). It >turns out that David has a weak 2 in Diamonds. The opposition miss an >easy slam. The pigs are summoned. "Oh it's a misbid" I quoth. "We've >agreed to play everything in the book - look David's got a copy." David >produces from his briefcase a copy of Greg Matula's book still wrapped >in Christmas gift wrap. "Page 143 I think" I say. "Correct explanation" >- no adjustment :)" > >Now clearly it's absurd for me to claim that this is our agreed system >if David hasn't even looked at Page 1 - let alone Page 143. Yet players >do this all the time - "It's on our Convention Card" "I've got the >System notes in the car" Often the convention card - even more often >the system file, has been written by one player and there is no true >joint ownership of the system. If I don't know the system then when I >make a bid, I believe that what I mean becomes our system and the >opponents are entitled to know this. If they are damaged by my >incompetence then they not I should receive the benefit of the doubt. There would be some advantages, I suppose, if language actually exhibited the degree of plasticity you seem ready to grant it, but in the long run, I think we are all better served by words which retain at least some grounding in common definitions. Take the word "system", which has received considerable attention across a number of threads lately. To the rest of the world, this word refers to a set of agreements between two partners about how to bid, including an overall approach, various treatments, and a range of conventions. It need not be written down, although stronger partnerships frequently find it helpful to do so. It _does_ need to be agreed upon, however, whether explicitly or implicitly. To suggest, as you and Herman are wont to do, that "system" means whatever a particular player might happen to intend at any point in time implies, among other things, that there never is such a thing as a misbid, despite the Laws' evident recognition of this concept. Your deliberate misuse of this term serves a deeper purpose, however. You feel aggrieved that the opponents' incompetence might work to your disadvantage, as indeed it might. The technical term for this is "fix". Happens all the time, in other contexts, and it is just part of the game. On average, of course, you will score much higher against opponents who don't know their methods than against opponents who do, but in some comparatively rare circumstances, their incompetence will work to your disadvantage. >In a recent tournament a nice Icelander's strong Club was overcalled by >a bid showing Hearts and Clubs (The player in fact had H + Ds) >When the opponents reached 4H, the strong Club bidder was content to >double holding AKQ of Clubs and believing these to be good defensively) >Sadly they were not and -790 was chalked up when 4S would have been >+620. Misbid not MI - no adjustment (the convention card was well >filled in and showed that the bid did show C + H as explained but not as >held) - I think players are entitled to redress in these situations. > You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but pending a change in the Laws, players in these circumstances have no legal basis for redress. If the systemic agreements have been correctly explained, then they have gotten all that the Laws allow. For my part, I have some hope that the minority opinion voiced by you and Herman in this regard will remain on the fringes in future revisions of the Laws. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 08:33:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:33:00 +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 IAA21782 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:32:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-004.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.196]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA34551; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:32:12 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <001301bf2004$178344a0$c4307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: After 93C Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:47:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: Fearghal O'Boyle Date: 26 October 1999 01:21 Subject: Re: After 93C > >-----Original Message----- >From: Fearghal O'Boyle >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Monday, October 25, 1999 5:56 PM >Subject: After 93C > > >>A national body feels that its national appeals committee has made a >mistake >>in interpreting the regulations for a national competition. >> >>Does the national body have the right to overturn a decision taken by the >>national appeals committee? > >The Constitution of the Welsh Bridge Union states that the Laws and Ethics >Committee is the National Authority referred to in L93C, and hears all >appeals to the National Authority from any event held in Wales.The >committees decision is final under this sub paragraph. >In Wales the answer to your question would be "No" >However, if your constitution does not so define, I suspect that the >National Authority may have a national appeals committee which hears, >reports and advises the National Authority. In this case the National >Authority would have that power. >I am surprised that an interpretation of regulation was dealt with by your >national appeals committee. Did an AC on site hear an appeal against a >ruling that was not appealable? Is there something I have not thought of? >Interpretation of regulation would be a matter for the Tournament Committee >here, and would not come to L&E under L93C. > >Anne > > Thanks for your reply Anne. We Irish are a bit 'ad hoc' in these areas and as such our NAC = our Tournament Committee. The regulation being discussed in our particular case involved the question of whether or not a national team final permitted a team of 5 players. The NA said it didn't so they sent the matter to the NAC/TC for clarification. The NAC/TC said 5 players were permited. The NA said the NAC/TC were wrong and overturned the NAC/TC decision. An Irish solution to an Irish problem? Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 09:05:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:05:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21836 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:05:40 +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 11gFel-000IsM-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:05:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:04:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: After 93C In-Reply-To: <001301bf2004$178344a0$c4307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001301bf2004$178344a0$c4307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>, Fearghal O'Boyle writes > >-----Original Message----- >From: Anne Jones >To: Fearghal O'Boyle >Date: 26 October 1999 01:21 >Subject: Re: After 93C > > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Fearghal O'Boyle >>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>Date: Monday, October 25, 1999 5:56 PM >>Subject: After 93C >> >> >>>A national body feels that its national appeals committee has made a >>mistake >>>in interpreting the regulations for a national competition. >>> >>>Does the national body have the right to overturn a decision taken by the >>>national appeals committee? >> >>The Constitution of the Welsh Bridge Union states that the Laws and Ethics >>Committee is the National Authority referred to in L93C, and hears all >>appeals to the National Authority from any event held in Wales.The >>committees decision is final under this sub paragraph. >>In Wales the answer to your question would be "No" >>However, if your constitution does not so define, I suspect that the >>National Authority may have a national appeals committee which hears, >>reports and advises the National Authority. In this case the National >>Authority would have that power. >>I am surprised that an interpretation of regulation was dealt with by your >>national appeals committee. Did an AC on site hear an appeal against a >>ruling that was not appealable? Is there something I have not thought of? >>Interpretation of regulation would be a matter for the Tournament Committee >>here, and would not come to L&E under L93C. >> >>Anne >> >> >Thanks for your reply Anne. >We Irish are a bit 'ad hoc' in these areas and as such our NAC = our >Tournament Committee. > >The regulation being discussed in our particular case involved the question >of whether or not a national team final permitted a team of 5 players. >The NA said it didn't so they sent the matter to the NAC/TC for >clarification. The NAC/TC said 5 players were permited. > >The NA said the NAC/TC were wrong and overturned the NAC/TC decision. > > >An Irish solution to an Irish problem? > >Regards, >Fearghal. > what I'm wondering is whether the NA legitimately can send the ruling back to the NAC for further consideration, expressing the view that all facts have not been taken into account? I'm sure that they can't just overturn the NAC's decision however. 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 Oct 27 09:56:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:56:28 +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 JAA21962 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:56:16 +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 QAA20894; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:55:26 -0700 Message-Id: <199910262355.QAA20894@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Will be off BLML for a couple weeks Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:55:28 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For anyone who cares: I will be unsubscribing from this list shortly. The reason is that our company is moving to a new office, and one of the things that had to be done in order to move all our computers was to relocate the mail server to a temporary system. I can still receive mail at adam@irvine.com on this temporary system, but it will be a problem to have all the traffic on this mailing list going there. However, someone can still send e-mail to me in case there's some very important information I need to know, such as for example the U.S. launching a nuclear missile strike on Law 25B or something. I'm hoping to be back November 8 or thereabouts. Later, -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 10:24:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:24:57 +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 KAA22079 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:24:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22667 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:24:40 +0200 Received: from ip224.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.224), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb22663; Wed Oct 27 02:24:31 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "'bridge-laws'" Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:24:31 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837643424@xion.spase.nl> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D4@xion.spase.nl> In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D4@xion.spase.nl> 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 KAA22080 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:15:01 +0200, "Martin Sinot" wrote: >If he >is so sure that South has the queen of spades, he might >as well forget to cash the spade king first and cross over >with a diamond ruff. Yes, if we has sure. If he had said "I know you have the Queen of Spades and I finesse it", I would agree and give the SQ a trick. But what he said was "I've no choice, I play you for the Queen of Spades" which IMO clearly shows that he is not certain about the queen's whereabouts, but it trying to play for the best odds. So I would consider it irrational not to cash the SK first. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 10:42:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:22:39 +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 KAA22044 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:22:28 +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 11gGqw-000CeX-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:22:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:48:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C27C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C27C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >Kojak wrote >Good question; if I did agree with some statements during the last weeks, >please let me know what they were. Nothing read nor written during almost a >month. Feel relaxed so, >> What does this mean? Kojak I wrote that Rich Colker impressed me more than anyone else at Lille. I then wrote: [Uh-oh: I remember that Kojak and Ton read this: present company excepted, Kojak and Ton, of course.] -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 11:42:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:22:38 +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 KAA22042 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:22:27 +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 11gGqw-000CeY-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:22:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:58:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. References: <0.39765caf.2546eaf4@aol.com> <3815B37C.201D76D6@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3815B37C.201D76D6@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: > What about if I hold AJ9xx K83 Axx Kx [all hands have been carefully >screened to ensure between 10 and 15 cards], playing a US standard >style? I have options. I could open 1S or 1N. I'll tell you now that in >my partnerships, I strongly prefer one of these, and hate the other. But >I'm supposed to tell the opponents "We choose one"? If you normally open 1nt because you are worried about rebids over 1NT if you open 1S [an argument I have read many times over the years] and you hate to open 1S that is a disclosable tendency, of course. And that has nothing to do with the original question. If when you hold a 4-4 in the minors you always open the weaker because of the lead that is a disclosable tendency, of course. And that has nothing to do with the original question. If you and your partner have no explicit agreement as to what you open with a 4-4 in the minors and you follow no obvious choice which partner would pick up then you have no implicit agreement either and that is not disclosable. That is the original question. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 12:10:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:22:38 +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 KAA22043 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:22:27 +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 11gGqw-000CeZ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:22:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:07:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The third horseman. References: <01bf1f94$75245740$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf1f94$75245740$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Grattan wrote: >>The auction (N and S silent) had been: >> W. E. >> 1C (strong) 2D >> 2H 3H >> 3 NT ends >>The Heart bids were neither alerted nor >>explained. North did not lead a Heart. The >>question put to me by Keith concerned >>the basis for a split score, he having >>decided there was MI. North's >>standard lead from the Heart suit would >>be 7. I suggested that since 4-3 break >>in Hearts was not material it should be >>considered that North held one smaller >>card than the 7 and three higher cards, >>or a short suit. In the putative situation >>North had not led K or Q or T; 7 could >>be from a short suit in which case hold >>up of ace would be right and play from >>dummy immaterial. Otherwise play of >>J from dummy right if lead from K Q, >>low from dummy right in other situations. >>Need to get information on North's >>leads from five card suits made up >>from K Q T 9 8 7 x and then decide >>the probabilities of West's choices of >>action. Keith went back to his thoughts >>and I have not heard with any certainty >>what as'gned score he awarded. >Oh! what fun I missed. I'm about to look >up "apocalypse" it's not in my OB! >What is however is 5.2.1a. The following >are considered natural for alerting purposes. >"The bid of a suit which shows that suit and >says nothing about any other suit; the suit >will be 4 cards before opener rebids but may >be on 3 cards from then on." >Is openers rebid included in "before"? >I would have ruled "Not alertable" "No MI" >DWS am I right or am I wrong again? I think you have misread the sequence. In the given sequence I do not believe the 2H bid to be natural thus it is alertable. Remember the 1C opening is strong. The OB was changed because there are positions where a suit is bid naturally but may be three cards. It does not mean that bids which are clearly artificial should not be alerted. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 14:47:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:47:37 +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 OAA22559 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:47:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa051992 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:44:06 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-95-239.tmns.net.au ([139.134.95.239]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Sexy-MailRouter V2.5 7/1838125); 27 Oct 1999 14:44:06 Message-ID: <01d101bf20c4$c401e2c0$0361868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:46:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote (I've reinserted his first sentence which wasn't in Jesper's post): >>If this player is so competent, why didn't he cash the >>spade king first, or at least say that he would do so? If he >>is so sure that South has the queen of spades, he might >>as well forget to cash the spade king first and cross over >>with a diamond ruff. Just careless in my opinion. A >>careful claimer would have cashed the spade king before >>claiming. So I agree with the appeal committee. Jesper Dybdal wrote: >If he had said "I know you have the Queen of Spades and I finesse >it", I would agree and give the SQ a trick. > >But what he said was "I've no choice, I play you for the Queen of >Spades" which IMO clearly shows that he is not certain about the >queen's whereabouts, but is trying to play for the best odds. > >So I would consider it irrational not to cash the SK first. > I think either ruling is reasonable. Both arguments are persuasive. With the lead in the WEST hand, IN PRACTICE I think *almost all* declarers would play spades next, not diamonds. That's what my experience (a few hundred thousand hands) says people do. However L70A says "any *doubtful* points SHALL be resolved against the claimer". I think I'd give declarer his contract, and ensure that EW were listening when advising them of their right to appeal my ruling. If the lead were in the East hand (admittedly not Grattan's original question) I'd probably rule the other way, swayed by the point in Martin's first sentence above, by the *doubt* factor and possibly by: David Burn wrote on 24/10/99 at 2:32 Re: Appeals Committee Lausanne: >>>Mind you, anything that stops people making bum claims >>> is to be applauded, so perhaps... At the table or on an AC, I doubt if I could quickly gather my thoughts about the mode of crossing to dummy, and I have no idea what I'd have done. If I tossed a coin, I'd do so in private! Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 18:53:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:53:19 +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 SAA22945 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:53:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.172.93.176] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11gOpK-0000rm-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:53:02 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bf2058$ba241140$b05dac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <01d101bf20c4$c401e2c0$0361868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:53:22 +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 Peter wrote: > Martin Sinot wrote (I've reinserted his first sentence which wasn't in > Jesper's post): > >>If this player is so competent, why didn't he cash the > >>spade king first, or at least say that he would do so? If he > >>is so sure that South has the queen of spades, he might > >>as well forget to cash the spade king first and cross over > >>with a diamond ruff. Just careless in my opinion. A > >>careful claimer would have cashed the spade king before > >>claiming. So I agree with the appeal committee. > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >If he had said "I know you have the Queen of Spades and I finesse > >it", I would agree and give the SQ a trick. > > > >But what he said was "I've no choice, I play you for the Queen of > >Spades" which IMO clearly shows that he is not certain about the > >queen's whereabouts, but is trying to play for the best odds. > > > >So I would consider it irrational not to cash the SK first. > > > > I think either ruling is reasonable. Both arguments are persuasive. > > With the lead in the WEST hand, IN PRACTICE I think *almost all* > declarers would play spades next, not diamonds. That's what my > experience (a few hundred thousand hands) says people do. > However L70A says "any *doubtful* points SHALL be resolved > against the claimer". > I think I'd give declarer his contract, and ensure that EW were > listening when advising them of their right to appeal my ruling. > > If the lead were in the East hand (admittedly not Grattan's original > question) I'd probably rule the other way, swayed by the point in > Martin's first sentence above, by the *doubt* factor and > possibly by: > > David Burn wrote on 24/10/99 at 2:32 Re: Appeals Committee Lausanne: > >>>Mind you, anything that stops people making bum claims > >>> is to be applauded, so perhaps... > > At the table or on an AC, I doubt if I could quickly gather my > thoughts about the mode of crossing to dummy, and I have no > idea what I'd have done. If I tossed a coin, I'd do so in private! > > Peter Gill > Australia. It has often occurred to me that somebody (or preferably some body) should produce a set of detailed guidelines as to what is and is not considered "irrational" play for the purposes of contested claims. Obviously, there would be an amount of disagreement in marginal cases, but I think that a list could be constructed that would be accepted by players. Anything would be better than the current situation, in which everything is judged on a case-by-case basis, and huge swings depend on no more than which particular judge hears the case. Moreover, players would no longer have to make their own decisions about what constituted valid grounds for contesting a claim. From those who considered that it would not be rational to ruff a diamond and run SJ, as opposed to crossing to SK, the "non-offending" side received a considerable amount of wholly undeserved opprobrium for unsportsmanlike conduct. I think that if I had held the singleton SQ, I might just have conceded the contract - but this was a round robin event, so the result of our match would have an effect on the standings of all teams involved. Would I be failing in my "duty to the rest of the field" if I raised no objection to declarer's claim? Players should simply not have to make such decisions, and nor should Directors or ACs. The matter should be determined by simple reference to a set of standards, based on previous cases. "Consistency is all I ask..." (Tom Stoppard, 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead') David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 20:54:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:54:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from jaguars.cableinet.net (jaguars-int.cableinet.net [193.38.113.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA23145 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:54:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 25310 invoked from network); 27 Oct 1999 09:34:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.146.185) by jaguars with SMTP; 27 Oct 1999 09:34:28 -0000 Message-ID: <3816D86B.981A6753@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:48:12 +0100 From: masterit Reply-To: masterit@cableinet.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: directing Subject: standard of proof for misbid? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but pending a change in the Laws, players in these circumstances have no legal basis for redress. If the systemic agreements have been correctly explained, then they have gotten all that the Laws allow. For my part, I have some hope that the minority opinion voiced by you and Herman in this regard will remain on the fringes in future revisions of the Laws. Mike Dennis amen lnb From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 20:55:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:55:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23153 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:55:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-21-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.21.85]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA01340 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:55:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3816D1ED.E6875896@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:20:29 +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: <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <199909282259.SAA02821@cfa183.harvard.edu> <94rLbQBY9h83EwxA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990930090704.006fda88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991001090414.006fed88@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004093335.007107a8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991004164034.0070f7a4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991005104610.0079ce30@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991006140303.0079f160@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19991007115003.007a1140@eiu.edu> <37FDD982.E5920C60@village.uunet.be> <37FDF17B.3680E531@meteo.fr> <37FF09B7.4E235AE1@village.uunet.be> <002c01bf1291$a6c5c500$93ee7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19991012124045.0079da00@eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19991013164318.013d79c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3805C62D.CA826129@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991015234603.013e4f50@pop.mindspring.com> <001301bf18f3$ac06a760$483c63c3@davidburn> <3.0.1.32.19991026173409.012e954c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > Take the word "system", which has received considerable attention across a > number of threads lately. To the rest of the world, this word refers to a > set of agreements between two partners about how to bid, including an > overall approach, various treatments, and a range of conventions. It need > not be written down, although stronger partnerships frequently find it > helpful to do so. It _does_ need to be agreed upon, however, whether > explicitly or implicitly. Indeed. That is our contention. System needs to be disclosed, even if not "agreed" explicitely. System is "that which _should_ be agreed". > To suggest, as you and Herman are wont to do, > that "system" means whatever a particular player might happen to intend at > any point in time implies, among other things, that there never is such a > thing as a misbid, despite the Laws' evident recognition of this concept. > You have misunderstood. If the playes want to make us believe that the players intentions do not match the system, they are free to provide evidence to that effect. In the absence of such evidence, the intention is deemed system, and, to use the legal phrase, "agreement". > Your deliberate misuse of this term serves a deeper purpose, however. You > feel aggrieved that the opponents' incompetence might work to your > disadvantage, as indeed it might. The technical term for this is "fix". > Happens all the time, in other contexts, and it is just part of the game. > On average, of course, you will score much higher against opponents who > don't know their methods than against opponents who do, but in some > comparatively rare circumstances, their incompetence will work to your > disadvantage. > Well, if a player does not know, and guesses wrong, I will in most instances not be damaged more by the MI than by his own misunderstanding. But if a player guesses right, and he still says "I don't know", then I want to be protected by being able to get a ruling on MI. Which results in my advice to players to always state something, even if it is only a guess. And not to tell your opponent that you are merely guessing. And yes, there are lots of examples where that advice is not the best one, but I think it is the best advice in such cases as "I'm not sure whether we actually play this convention in this situation, so I shall be guessing". > >In a recent tournament a nice Icelander's strong Club was overcalled by > >a bid showing Hearts and Clubs (The player in fact had H + Ds) > >When the opponents reached 4H, the strong Club bidder was content to > >double holding AKQ of Clubs and believing these to be good defensively) > >Sadly they were not and -790 was chalked up when 4S would have been > >+620. Misbid not MI - no adjustment (the convention card was well > >filled in and showed that the bid did show C + H as explained but not as > >held) - I think players are entitled to redress in these situations. > > > > You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, but pending a change in the > Laws, players in these circumstances have no legal basis for redress. I agree wholeheartedly. If there is proof of a misbid, then there is no MI. If > the systemic agreements have been correctly explained, then they have > gotten all that the Laws allow. For my part, I have some hope that the > minority opinion voiced by you and Herman in this regard will remain on the > fringes in future revisions of the Laws. > The second example has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing here. If the pair cannot prove that the bid showed what they said it did, the TD is obliged by TFLB to rule MI. I hope we can agree on that one. > Mike Dennis -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 22:23:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:23:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23402 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:23:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:23:10 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA14712; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:08:19 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'David Burn'" , "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: RE: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:59:11 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D7@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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883764347B@xion.spase.nl> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >It has often occurred to me that somebody (or preferably some body) >should produce a set of detailed guidelines as to what is and is not >considered "irrational" play for the purposes of contested claims. >Obviously, there would be an amount of disagreement in marginal cases, >but I think that a list could be constructed that would be accepted by >players. Anything would be better than the current situation, in which >everything is judged on a case-by-case basis, and huge swings depend >on no more than which particular judge hears the case. > >Moreover, players would no longer have to make their own decisions >about what constituted valid grounds for contesting a claim. From >those who considered that it would not be rational to ruff a diamond >and run SJ, as opposed to crossing to SK, the "non-offending" side >received a considerable amount of wholly undeserved opprobrium for >unsportsmanlike conduct. I think that if I had held the singleton SQ, >I might just have conceded the contract - but this was a round robin >event, so the result of our match would have an effect on the >standings of all teams involved. Would I be failing in my "duty to the >rest of the field" if I raised no objection to declarer's claim? >Players should simply not have to make such decisions, and nor should >Directors or ACs. The matter should be determined by simple reference >to a set of standards, based on previous cases. "Consistency is all I >ask..." (Tom Stoppard, 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead') > >David Burn I agree fully with your suggestion. What we now have is the situation that the table TD accepted the claim, the AC rejected it, but different table TDs or another AC might decide otherwise (or worse, TDs are flipping coins to decide whether to accept or reject a claim...). This is not a healthy situation. Players have the right to be judged in a consistent way, so a set of guidelines would certainly be helpful. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 22:23:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:23:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23404 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:23:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:23:10 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA14707 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:07:09 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: RE: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:57:59 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D6@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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883764347B@xion.spase.nl> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >It has often occurred to me that somebody (or preferably some body) >should produce a set of detailed guidelines as to what is and is not >considered "irrational" play for the purposes of contested claims. >Obviously, there would be an amount of disagreement in marginal cases, >but I think that a list could be constructed that would be accepted by >players. Anything would be better than the current situation, in which >everything is judged on a case-by-case basis, and huge swings depend >on no more than which particular judge hears the case. > >Moreover, players would no longer have to make their own decisions >about what constituted valid grounds for contesting a claim. From >those who considered that it would not be rational to ruff a diamond >and run SJ, as opposed to crossing to SK, the "non-offending" side >received a considerable amount of wholly undeserved opprobrium for >unsportsmanlike conduct. I think that if I had held the singleton SQ, >I might just have conceded the contract - but this was a round robin >event, so the result of our match would have an effect on the >standings of all teams involved. Would I be failing in my "duty to the >rest of the field" if I raised no objection to declarer's claim? >Players should simply not have to make such decisions, and nor should >Directors or ACs. The matter should be determined by simple reference >to a set of standards, based on previous cases. "Consistency is all I >ask..." (Tom Stoppard, 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead') > >David Burn I agree fully with your suggestion. What we now have is the situation that the table TD accepted the claim, the AC rejected it, but different table TDs or another AC might decide otherwise (or worse, TDs are flipping coins to decide whether to accept or reject a claim...). This is not a healthy situation. Players have the right to be judged in a consistent way, so a set of guidelines would certainly be helpful. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 27 23:36:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:36:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA23614 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:36:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from tripack.ihug.co.nz (p227-tnt8.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.138.227]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id CAA06100 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 02:36:15 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19991028023048.007efde0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 02:30:48 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: careless v irrational Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: It has often occurred to me that somebody (or preferably some body) should produce a set of detailed guidelines as to what is and is not considered "irrational" play for the purposes of contested claims. Obviously, there would be an amount of disagreement in marginal cases, but I think that a list could be constructed that would be accepted by players. Anything would be better than the current situation, in which everything is judged on a case-by-case basis, and huge swings depend on no more than which particular judge hears the case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The problem with a set of detailed guidelines is that there is a sliding scale to be applied to all the various cases based on the ability of the claimer in question. for example the case presented in "on the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing" I suspect that some people might rule differently depending on whether the declarer was an expert or an average club player. What is needed is an acceptable expectancy of success that the director or appeal committee can use as a guideline. e.g. if you think this claimer would make the claimed number of tricks 99 times out of 100, but one time out of 100 he might have a brainstorm....be irrational...then that would be deemed acceptable. Perhaps some other number is appropriate here. If I had to consider my own decisions in this area honestly, then perhaps I am about the 97 or 98 times per hundred mark, but then that is just what appeals to my own personal sense of justice and fair play. The problem with the words careless and irrational are that they are not quantifiable. Under the current conditions if you had one director who said "if it would be made 9 times out of 10 that's good enough for me" and another who adopted the position that he would only allow claims where he believed the contract would be made at least 999 times per thousand, you would be unable to say that either of them was interpreting the law incorrectly, yet their positions are a long way apart. Patrick Carter Auckland New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 00:47:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:47:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe2.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.106]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA23797 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:47:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 44651 invoked by uid 65534); 27 Oct 1999 14:46:31 -0000 Message-ID: <19991027144631.44650.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.114.158] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <199910221841.TAA24723@tempest.npl.co.uk><012e01bf1d8e$e922d980$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L21B Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:44:49 -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: Sunday, October 24, 1999 8:46 PM Subject: Re: L21B > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:49:54 -0700, "Marvin L. French" > > wrote: > > > >>Immediate questioning is iinappropriate for at least three reasons: > >>(1) pllayers may not know offhand what they would have done, perhaps > >>needing some thinking time; Why is this? They have already taken action based on MI. It surely is not difficult to state if and what they would substitute given the chance, including those calls that are too late to change. How much damage can there be if a player considers at length, with no determination, that he may be best off where he has arrived? > >>(2) such answers are unreliable, given the potential for bias; Why would the answers sooner be unreliable due to bias more so than answers later? The bias really comes in after the hand is double dummy. Statements are the starting point for determining the if/ how of any damage. Getting the information as close to the point of infraction gives the best and fairest reliability. > >>and (3) it unfairly wastes time in this time-driven game. The game has already been delayed, to not find out immediately is to have it decided by the AC. > > > >And (4) it places the NOS in the position of having to spend > >mental energy on making bidding decisions twice in slightly > >different contexts, thus also ensuring that their concentration > >for playing the contract is disturbed. Top players may be able > >to handle that, but many of the rest of us would run a large risk > >of playing the hand badly when we came back to the table. > > > >That is not a reasonable way to treat a non-offending side. > > Furthermore, it is not a decision made in the right way. Players make > decisions sitting at the table after consideration. When you take them > away from the table and ask them such a question the obvious answer is > "I don't know". To be forced to take a decision that they might or > might not have taken at the table under different circumstances is not > at all fair L21B3 accounts for the case by the application of L40C when it is too late to change a call . The time to ascertain if the damage of 'I was deprived of the opportunity to call based on correct information' is before any further action has taken place. It is unsuitable to reveal those thoughts to the rest of the table, therefore the conference is best taken away from the table. To fail to confer immediately is dereliction. You say that " When you take them away from the table and ask them such a question the obvious answer is "I don't know". " I say that if I am on the panel and the player says "I don't know" he has answered the question and I have adequate facts to judge that they would not have taken different action. And if they say they probably would, I would want to know what it is. I cannot believe that the hardship is so great that the director should be prevented from establishing the facts at the earliest possible time, as the nature of these facts is to quickly grow stale. > I am sick and tired of the principle that bridge rulings against > offenders are acceptable but in favour of non-offenders are not: it does > nothing for the game of bridge apart from bringing it into disrepute. When an infraction takes place and it is remedied in accordance with the law it is not ruling against the OS or ruling for the NOS- it is a correct ruling. What I am tired of is rulings for one side as well as rulings against one side. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 28 01:14:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:14:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA23876 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:14:15 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id cNFBa19446 (3706); Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.91f13267.2548707d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:13:01 EDT Subject: Re: careless v irrational To: tripack@ihug.co.nz, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 10/27/99 9:38:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tripack@ihug.co.nz writes: > The problem with the words careless and > irrational are that they are not quantifiable. You have hit the crux of the matter on this point, yet so many of BLMLer's feel that they CAN quantify the meanings. Oh to be that young and all knowing again!!! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 01:18:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:18:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA23893 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:18:39 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id iLLZa14299 (3706); Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:17:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.d0854b74.2548719f@aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:17:51 EDT Subject: Re: L21B To: axman22@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: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you Roger, you have covered the bases lucidly, succinctly, and sensibly. The whole direction of rulings, appeals, etc., needs to be based on those points you make. Hindsight and double dummy are fine for the BLML, but not for the real game in play. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 03:37:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 03:37:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24562 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 03:37:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.230.169] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11gX0e-0001aL-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:37:16 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bf20a1$f4db4ee0$a9e6abc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.3.32.19991028023048.007efde0@pop.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:37:34 +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 Patrick Carter wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > It has often occurred to me that somebody (or preferably some body) > should produce a set of detailed guidelines as to what is and is not > considered "irrational" play for the purposes of contested claims. > Obviously, there would be an amount of disagreement in marginal cases, > but I think that a list could be constructed that would be accepted by > players. Anything would be better than the current situation, in which > everything is judged on a case-by-case basis, and huge swings depend > on no more than which particular judge hears the case. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > The problem with a set of detailed guidelines is that there is a sliding > scale to be applied to all the various cases based on the ability of the > claimer in question. for example the case presented in "on the wisdom of > cooking a bird on the wing" I suspect that some people might rule > differently depending on whether the declarer was an expert or an average > club player. Oh, quite so. I do not mean to suggest that the "list" be exhaustive and cover all possible cases; that would not be a practicable task. But there are a fair number of positions which might be termed "basic" of which we can say: it would be irrational for *any* class of player to do X or not to do Y, despite what he may have asserted in his statement of claim. > The problem with the words careless and irrational are that they are not quantifiable. Exactly. But what I would like to do is take some steps to quantify them, since I believe that this would serve a useful purpose. What I suggest is a poll, in Bridge World style, from which we might be able to make a start on "the list". If you like, you could try the questions below (assuming a notrump contract in all cases, and that declarer is on lead having made no statement of claim unless otherwise stated): (1) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AKJ of a suit, then it would be careless / irrational to start with the jack, and a defender with the singleton queen should / should not be awarded at least one trick. (2) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AK2 of a suit, then it would be careless / irrational to start with the deuce, and a defender with a card remaining in the suit should / should not be awarded at least one trick. (3) If a declarer claims when his last five cards are AKQJ2 of a suit, then it would be careless / irrational to start with the deuce, and a defender with a card remaining in the suit should / should not be awarded at least one trick. (4) If a declarer claims in this position: K 32 2 None AQ2 A None None then it would be careless / irrational to cash HA first, and a defender with a doubleton heart or any diamond should / should not be awarded at least one trick. (4a) As (4), and assuming that it would not be irrational to cash HA first, then it would be careless / irrational not to play SA next, and declarer should be awarded the rest of the tricks unless an opponent has three spades remaining. (5) If a declarer claims in this position: KJ10 None None None A98 None None None with the lead in the South hand, announcing that he will play West for SQ, then it would be careless / irrational not to cash SA first, and East with the singleton queen should / should not be awarded at least one trick. (6) If a declarer claims in this position: 2 5432 None None AKQJ K None None then it would be careless / irrational to lead HK to the next trick, and a defender with HA should / should not be awarded a heart trick and any other winners that his side could then cash. (7) If a declarer claims in this position: 2 5432 None None AKQJ None 2 None then it would be careless / irrational to lead D2 to the next trick, and a defender with any diamond should / should not be awarded a diamond trick and any other winners that his side could then cash. (8) If a declarer claims in this position: 2 5432 None None KQJ10 A None None then it would be careless / irrational to lead SK to the next trick, and a defender with SA and four minor-suit cards should / should not be awarded the rest of the tricks. (9) If a declarer claims when his last two cards are 42 of a suit, then it would be careless / irrational to lead the deuce, and a defender with the singleton 3 should / should not be awarded at least one trick. (10) If a declarer claims in this position: KQ 432 None None AJ92 A None None announcing that he has "four spade tricks and one heart", then it would be careless / irrational to lead HA to the next trick, and a defender with S10876 should / should not be awarded the last trick. (11) As (10), and assuming that it would not be irrational to lead HA first, it would be careless / irrational not to overtake SQ at trick 11 if S10 did not appear at trick 10, and a defender with a doubleton heart should / should not be awarded at least one trick. (12) As (11), but assuming that S10 did appear on the first round of the suit, it would be careless / irrational not to overtake SQ at trick 11, and a defender with a doubleton heart should / should not be awarded at least one trick. (13) As (10), but assuming that declarer announces that he has "the ace of hearts and four spade tricks". >From this kind of exercise, one could imagine creating a set of basic principles on the lines of: "if a claimer asserts that the rest of his hand is high, it is [or "is not"] rational for him to play his remaining cards in any order". Or: "if the opponents object to a claim on the grounds that the position is blocked, then it is [or "is not"] rational for a claimer to attempt to overcome the blockage by overtaking or crashing a certain winner". Would these principles be useful? I don't know - but they would have enabled us to sort out just about every contested claim that has so far appeared on BLML. David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 04:20:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:20:45 +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 EAA24737 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:20:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:20:27 -0700 Message-ID: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:20:02 -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 have stayed out of this thread for lack of anything intelligent to say. I would like to give one example of the sort of thing that occurs frequently, and ask Mike and Herman (and anyone else, of course) to comment on it. An inexperienced partner and I are playing against an experienced client and pro who are a first-time partnership. In a low partscore battle, everyone having bid something, client reopens the bidding (after two passes) with a double of my partner's 2H. The double is not Alerted by the pro (also a TD), which means it has to be a penalty double according to the ACBL Alert Procedure (partner has previously acted, and it is not an ordinary negative double). Pro takes the double out to her spade suit, and everyone passes. We get a bad result because partner, intimidated by the double of her suit, does not compete further with fair values to do so.Can't remember the exact auction, something like: 1C-1D-1H-1S; P-P-2H-P; P-Dbl-P-2S, all pass. When I see the dummy, it is obvious that the double was meant as "do something," not penalty. I call the TD, and pro explains that she did not Alert the double because they had no agreement about it. She guessed that it was not a penalty double, but it was just a guess, not a partnership agreement, (In the circles these two play in, such an agreement is common but not universal) Now, I knew what the double meant, because client was the sort who would make such a double and there was some body language besides. However, I could not question pro about it because that would be illegal, solely for partner's benefit, I having no intention of competing further in any case. Moreover, it is my belief that a call should not be questioned when the absence of an Alert (by an experienced player) itself explains the call. Otherwise why have Alerts, whose general purpose is to distinguish between a default meaning and another meaning? Oops, I'm digressing. The TD ruled no redress, there was no understanding, etc. There is something wrong about that ruling, but I am not sure what the pro should have done. Many will say that her proper course was to Alert and explain "Although we have no partnership agreement about the double, a non-penalty meaning is so usual that I am taking it for that." Okay, so then we bid on and find it *was* a penalty double with a trump stack. Again the TD may rule no redress, since the pro honestly explained the situation. Or, the client now knows that the double was interpreted correctly, not pulled because of poor defensive values, and makes some use of that UI later. My preference is that the pro should not Alert, and should take it as a penalty double even if pretty sure it isn't one. The absence of an understanding is itself an understanding that calls will have the default meaning (when there is one, as in this case), which the partnership must employ. An acceptable alternative is for the pro to Alert the double, explain with no waffling that it is non-penalty, and accept the consequences. One consequence might be redress for us if she is wrong and we are damaged, or a PP if she is right, for failure to properly disclose a partnership agreement on the cc. (No warning, for a pro/TD) Let's not quibble about whether the double is indeed Alertable, that's a separate thread. Assume that it is, for the sake of this discussion. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 04:40:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:40:24 +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 EAA24955 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:40:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:40:06 -0700 Message-ID: <04ea01bf20aa$a3574d40$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D7@xion.spase.nl> Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:39:40 -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 Martin Sinot wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > >It has often occurred to me that somebody (or preferably some body) > >should produce a set of detailed guidelines as to what is and is not > >considered "irrational" play for the purposes of contested claims. > >Obviously, there would be an amount of disagreement in marginal cases, > >but I think that a list could be constructed that would be accepted by > >players. Anything would be better than the current situation, in which > >everything is judged on a case-by-case basis, and huge swings depend > >on no more than which particular judge hears the case. > > > >Moreover, players would no longer have to make their own decisions > >about what constituted valid grounds for contesting a claim. From > >those who considered that it would not be rational to ruff a diamond > >and run SJ, as opposed to crossing to SK, the "non-offending" side > >received a considerable amount of wholly undeserved opprobrium for > >unsportsmanlike conduct. I think that if I had held the singleton SQ, > >I might just have conceded the contract - but this was a round robin > >event, so the result of our match would have an effect on the > >standings of all teams involved. Would I be failing in my "duty to the > >rest of the field" if I raised no objection to declarer's claim? > >Players should simply not have to make such decisions, and nor should > >Directors or ACs. The matter should be determined by simple reference > >to a set of standards, based on previous cases. "Consistency is all I > >ask..." (Tom Stoppard, 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead') > > > >David Burn > > I agree fully with your suggestion. What we now have is the situation > that the table TD accepted the claim, the AC rejected it, but different > table TDs or another AC might decide otherwise (or worse, TDs are > flipping coins to decide whether to accept or reject a claim...). This > is not a healthy situation. Players have the right to be judged in a > consistent way, so a set of guidelines would certainly be helpful. Surely there has to be some difference in the guidelines to account for the degree of experience possessed by the claimant. The whole mess is easily solved by a regulation that says one may not claim until one hand or the other has all the winners for the number of tricks claimed, the other hand being inconsequential, or the number of tricks claimed is available via a cross-ruff with high trumps. No crossing to another hand except for that cross-ruff. But now, I can't come up with the proper ruling if the regulation is not followed! Probably an *extreme* ruling in accordance with the Laws, with any possbile stupid play mandated. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 05:51:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 05:51:06 +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 FAA25178 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 05:50:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (ip46.kansas-city4.mo.pub-ip.psi.net [38.27.35.46]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14741 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991027143520.00a70c90@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:49:04 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. In-Reply-To: <04ea01bf20aa$a3574d40$fb095e18@san.rr.com> References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D7@xion.spase.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >The whole mess is easily solved by a regulation that says one may >not claim until one hand or the other has all the winners for the >number of tricks claimed, the other hand being inconsequential, or >the number of tricks claimed is available via a cross-ruff with high >trumps. No crossing to another hand except for that cross-ruff. Humpf. But I *like* claiming in situations like the following from a recent tournament (spades are trump, all drawn; opps experienced). Needing all the tricks but one: xx -- -- xxx x -- -- AJTx I lead a small club from dummy; when RHO follows low, I play the jack and claim five of the last six tricks. Opps look for a second, nod and put their cards away. I don't get a lot of little thrills from the game, so I want to keep that one. One of my dreams is to claim a slam against an expert pair on a double squeeze at or before trick five. Someday ... (I agree that the careless/irrational question is a sticky one, but surely discouraging claims would be a high price to pay.) 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 Thu Oct 28 05:57:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 05:57:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA25203 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 05:57:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from salsa (salsa.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.112]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA17772 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:57:06 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991028085702.009565f0@chance.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@chance.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:57:02 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Another fine (Law 25) mess Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oh, just trolling with the subject line. Directing the intermediate division at the Otago Bridge Club, I was called into the Senior Reserve room by a rather perplexed director-in-training there. South is dealer and east (her RHO if I have my compass points correct) has just opened 1c out of turn. The twist in the tale is that south has passed (written bidding), but immediately on finishing the stroke (pass is denoted / or \ for those unfamiliar with written bidding) has gasped something to the effect of "Oh my goodness, I was dealer". All at the table seem to agree that the pass was "inadvertent". North, is acting a bit bridge-lawyerishly and wants south to be able to withdraw her condoning pass in order to enforce the opening bid out of turn penalties. So the argument goes along these lines: " I want to withdraw my inadvertent call " " And replace it with what? " " A pass " " But your inadvertent call *was* a pass. " " Yes but my new pass is after I withdraw my condonation* of the bid out of turn. " (* Ok I made it up.) Believe it or not I actually think the law is quite clear -- it refers specifically to "substituting an intended call ..." so there's really no issue. The pass has condoned the opening bid out of turn, south may change her call (if we're being slightly generous) to say an overcall of 1s, or a weak jump overcall of 2d or whatever. But somehow it was amusing ... it reminds me in an odd way of a passage in one of Sonny Moyse's "Bridge with Jackie" series, where she threatens to resign from the Cavendish -- a membership which she holds automatically as his spouse. --------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Albert Ph: (64)-03-479-7778 Senior Teaching Fellow Fax: (64)-03-479-8427 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 06:00:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 06:00:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe8.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.112]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA25222 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 06:00:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 40586 invoked by uid 65534); 27 Oct 1999 19:59:46 -0000 Message-ID: <19991027195946.40585.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.112.95] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.3.32.19991028023048.007efde0@pop.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:59:27 -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 would think that an interesting conclusion would be reached if it is considered what the mechanics are that permit a claim to work . Namely, when declarer takes three finesses and the cards are placed so they cannot fail, declarer will score up the tricks. Alternately, declarer claims he will take those same three finesses and he has every expectation that the same tricks will accrue because of the rules governing play. Consider a spade contract at T2 where dummy holds the top six spades and declarer the top six hearts. By specifying that spades are played first and then the hearts, those twelve tricks will be had and it is a certainty. On what basis? By following the instructions, it is impossible for a defender to win a trick because of the rules governing play. The rules do not let the defender rename the trump suit to diamonds or require that diamonds are led instead of trump. No, declarer called for trump so it must be trump that are played. The claim establishes the order that the cards are played against all comers. Conversely, it would be unwise to claim when one is unwilling to prove it against all comers. A claimer who does not claim that the order of play of certain cards is relevant by default claims the order does not matter. After all, are we to presume that claimer does not mean what he says? Most certainly not, his claim is predicated on it meaning exactly what he says and not something else. Why is this so? Because he knows that doubtful points are resolved against him, that's why. A player who fails to resolve doubtful points in a timely fashion is foolish to acquire them unless he is certain that they will be adjudicated in his favor. To this end there is a disposition among many to place themselves in an errant claimer's shoes and solve his problem while ignoring the shoes of the other side for which the benefit of the doubt is by law to be given. To this end the laws say that irrational adjudicated lines are not doubtful points. As the proper standard by which a claim is judged is the certainty that it will be achieved, the standard that makes an adjudication irrational is the certainty that it will not achieve the claim. Now consider a hand that is hopeless, except if a certain player has an exact distribution holding the precise two spots out of eight. Would it be irrational to undertake to play for such a lie even though it is perhaps but one in a thousand? I think not as one in a thousand or one in a million is infinitely better than no chance at all. It is here that a flawed claim takes the shape of a hopeless contract and the clutching at straws becomes relevant. So when it only takes one false step to break a claim, any play that can not be proven to fail based only on current knowledge must be one that is considered as a test to break the claim. To that end, if claimer specifically excluded it from consideration, as by his claim statement it would not be considered for the purpose of breaking the claim. In plain words, for an unstated line, if there is one chance it can succeed it is not irrational. Conversely, if it can be proven that a lie of the cards cannot be profitable it would be irrational to play for it. [A well known example being a defender who discards proves a two way finesse.] Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Patrick To: Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 8:30 AM Subject: careless v irrational > David Burn wrote: > > It has often occurred to me that somebody (or preferably some body) > should produce a set of detailed guidelines as to what is and is not > considered "irrational" play for the purposes of contested claims. > Obviously, there would be an amount of disagreement in marginal cases, > but I think that a list could be constructed that would be accepted by > players. Anything would be better than the current situation, in which > everything is judged on a case-by-case basis, and huge swings depend > on no more than which particular judge hears the case. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The problem with a set of detailed guidelines is that there is a sliding > scale to be applied to all the various cases based on the ability of the > claimer in question. for example the case presented in "on the wisdom of > cooking a bird on the wing" I suspect that some people might rule > differently depending on whether the declarer was an expert or an average > club player. > > What is needed is an acceptable expectancy of success that the director or > appeal committee can use as a guideline. e.g. if you think this claimer > would make the claimed number of tricks 99 times out of 100, but one time > out of 100 he might have a brainstorm....be irrational...then that would be > deemed acceptable. > > Perhaps some other number is appropriate here. If I had to consider my own > decisions in this area honestly, then perhaps I am about the 97 or 98 times > per hundred mark, but then that is just what appeals to my own personal > sense of justice and fair play. The problem with the words careless and > irrational are that they are not quantifiable. Under the current conditions > if you had one director who said "if it would be made 9 times out of 10 > that's good enough for me" and another who adopted the position that he > would only allow claims where he believed the contract would be made at > least 999 times per thousand, you would be unable to say that either of > them was interpreting the law incorrectly, yet their positions are a long > way apart. > > Patrick Carter > Auckland > New Zealand > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 06:54:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 06:54:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com [139.134.5.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA25350 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 06:54:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka107702 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 06:51:01 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-220-177.tmns.net.au ([139.134.220.177]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Logical-MailRouter V2.5 1/1505325); 28 Oct 1999 06:51:01 Message-ID: <029d01bf214b$d024ce00$b1dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 06:53:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv French wrote: >The whole mess is easily solved by a regulation that says one may >not claim until one hand or the other has all the winners for the >number of tricks claimed, the other hand being inconsequential, or >the number of tricks claimed is available via a cross-ruff with high >trumps. No crossing to another hand except for that cross-ruff. > Don't forget to modify L74B4 at the same time: "a player should refrain from....playing on although he knows all the tricks are his, for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent...." Now there's a Law that I've never seen used in a ruling. I prefer David Burn's approach, taking into account its limitations, some of which were described by Pat Carter. Peter Gill. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 07:30:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 07:30:28 +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 HAA25421 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 07:30:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.37] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11gae3-00038O-00; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:30:11 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bf20c2$6dc16b80$255108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Cc: Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:13:55 +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: Bridge Laws Discussion List Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: 26 October 1999 22:35 Subject: Re: Appeal Committees - Lausanne > >Thanks for the info. Part of the problem with a couple of my recent > Assuming the non-offenders did not >subsequently take a wild, gambling or irrational action, should we >assume that the phrase "expectation in the instant prior to the >irregularity" is equivalent to the result that would be assigned to >the non-offenders by applying 12C? It makes sense to me that it >should, but it's not completely clear from the wording---was that the >intent? > +=+ In an unguarded moment I would say that is probably so. The idea at root is that offenders are not to be let off the hook by some subsequent bit of stupidity on the part of the NOS, who must nevertheless pay the price of the stupidity. (2) I can take this moment to say something general about comments I have seen regarding the CoP. The point has not been grasped at all well by some that the CoP supplies the context in which an AC is to make its judgments; it marks out the field of play but does not itself run with the ball. The judgment of what the implications of the CoP are in any given case are specifically the responsibility of the AC, always allowing that in the aftermath the 'Group' (not the WBFLC) will be seeking to select the best judged applications of its principles to publish in the 'jurisprudence' - i.e. in example decisions accumulating in an expanding appendix to the CoP. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 07:49:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 07:49:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25464 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 07:49:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from toliman.cc.umanitoba.ca (wolkb@toliman.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.19]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA10551 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:49:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from wolkb@localhost) by toliman.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA12143 ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:49:12 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:49:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Barry Wolk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: careless v irrational Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: [snip first eight examples] > (9) If a declarer claims when his last two cards are 42 of a suit, > then it would be careless / irrational to lead the deuce, and a > defender with the singleton 3 should / should not be awarded at least > one trick. Boy, does that ever remind me of something! It happened to me soon after I switched from rubber to duplicate, around 1965. And it's something you never forget. I was defending a 1NT contract, and on lead at trick 12, with exactly those last two cards. I knew declarer had the only other outstanding card in that suit. So I led the 2 from 4-2, waiting to see who would win trick 13. Declarer won trick 12 with the three!! Well, was I irrational, or just careless? :-) However, we are discussing ruling on a claim. If declarer said his 4-2 were good, we don't know whether he miscounted, or whether he knew that the 3 was still outstanding. And the standard ACBL approach for these rulings is that, if claimer says all his cards in one suit are winners, it is assumed that these cards will be played from the top down. This is stated explicitly in the file http://rgb.anu.edu.au/Bridge/Clubs-and-Bodies/ACBL/Tech/Rulings/R-CLAIMS Now, why can't I find that file on the ACBL web site? -- Barry Wolk Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 08:34:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:34:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25541 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:34:51 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id qBVSa29649 (3974); Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:34:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.986141b7.2548d7df@aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:34:07 EDT Subject: Re: the year zero To: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, << I should have guessed. It is a modern idea that zero is a number. when I was young no-one would ever start a count of anything at zero, but computers have changed that somewhat. >> And that may be why there's the misconstruction that after December 31st we are entering a new millennium :-) Karen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 09:07:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:07:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA25609 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:07:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from tripack.ihug.co.nz (p427-tnt4.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.104.187]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id MAA24084 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:07:07 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19991028120136.007ece30@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:01:36 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: inadvertently condoning Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: Believe it or not I actually think the law is quite clear -- it refers specifically to "substituting an intended call ..." so there's really no issue. The pass has condoned the opening bid out of turn, south may change her call (if we're being slightly generous) to say an overcall of 1s, or a weak jump overcall of 2d or whatever. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think this is missing the point. Inadvertency is supposed to cover a situation where you intended to call something and due to a temporary malfunction between the brain and the hand (or mouth) you wrote (or said) something different to that which you intended. In this case you intended to write pass and that is exactly what you did, so therefore that was not inadvertent. The fact that your RHO has opened out of turn and your pass has now unintentionally condoned that does not mean that your call was inadvertent. (It is true that an unethical player might be granted inadvertency here by claiming that they had seen the 2NT all along and then accidentally passed, although their immediate comments at the table might give them away) To use another example - If you think you are dealer and pass, but as you finish the stroke of the pass you notice that it was in fact your partner who was the dealer and he has opened 2NT this does not make your pass inadvertent, it just means you made a mistake. In neither case would I allow a correction due to inadvertency under Law 25A. In both cases the option to change call under Law 25B2(b)(2) would be available, but due to the 40% maximum allowed in that case, it seems likely that it would only be seriously considered in my second example. Patrick Carter Auckland New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 09:24:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:24:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA25655 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:23:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.171.254.220] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11gcPy-0001Ts-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:23:46 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bf20d2$5bf3f980$dcfeabc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:24:03 +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 Barry Wolk wrote: > However, we are discussing ruling on a claim. If declarer said > his 4-2 were good, we don't know whether he miscounted, or whether > he knew that the 3 was still outstanding. And the standard ACBL > approach for these rulings is that, if claimer says all his cards > in one suit are winners, it is assumed that these cards will be > played from the top down. This is stated explicitly in the file > > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/Bridge/Clubs-and-Bodies/ACBL/Tech/Rulings/R-CLAI MS > > Now, why can't I find that file on the ACBL web site? > -- I don't know. But it's certainly a step in the right direction. Such a "standard approach" is exactly what I believe ought to be created and applied. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 09:29:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:29:46 +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 JAA25680 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:29:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA14036 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:29:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA16786 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:29:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910272329.TAA16786@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: careless v irrational X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Burn wrote: > It has often occurred to me that somebody (or preferably some body) > should produce a set of detailed guidelines as to what is and is not > considered "irrational" play for the purposes of contested claims. Add my voice to the endorsements. I'm especially in agreement with the part (snipped) about players knowing when to contest a claim. > From: Patrick > The problem with a set of detailed guidelines is that there is a sliding > scale to be applied to all the various cases based on the ability of the > claimer in question. Put me down as disagreeing that the claimer's (perceived) ability should have much influence on the decision. Ideally it should have none, but perhaps we can never reach the ideal. > What is needed is an acceptable expectancy of success that the director or > appeal committee can use as a guideline. e.g. if you think this claimer > would make the claimed number of tricks 99 times out of 100, but one time > out of 100 he might have a brainstorm. And I think this is the wrong approach entirely. The issue is not what a particular claimer would have done but rather whether the claim is correct or not. In cases where there is a flaw, I have suggested that the question should be whether the flaw is in the _claim_ or in the _claim statement_. Other people wish to take a stricter approach, denying the claim if there is a flaw in either. For example: > From: "Roger Pewick" > ... The claim establishes the order that the cards are played > against all comers. Well, yes, if the order is specified. Often it isn't. Is that because claimer had no order in mind or because the necessary order is obvious? > A claimer who does not claim that the order of play of certain cards is > relevant by default claims the order does not matter. Many would be unhappy with the above, although it is certainly a possible and logical rule. > As the proper standard by which a claim is judged is the certainty that it > will be achieved, the standard that makes an adjudication irrational is the > certainty that it will not achieve the claim. This seems to be saying that if there is any legal play of the cards, consistent with the claim statement, by which the claim fails, then the claim is disallowed. That's not how I read L70, but I suppose it's a possible reading. What I'd really like is some way to clarify ambiguous claim statements. In practice, as an opponent, I often say something like "I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you explain what line you are proposing?" Some will say this is too easy on mistaken claimers, allowing them to rectify an earlier oversight, but I haven't found it a problem. Is it reasonable to have an official procedure like this? (The "be severe with claimers" crowd need not respond; I know what your answer will be!) I think so, but we don't have one now. Absent a way to question the claimer, we are left with judging where the flaw lies. This may seem like mind reading -- which regular readers will know I abhor -- but I don't think it really is. I'm probably explaining badly, but let's try David B.'s examples. > (1) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AKJ of a suit, > then it would be careless / irrational to start with the jack Irrational. Yes, on a bad day, some declarer might do it, but it is _far_ more likely that declarer thought the order of cashing tricks was obvious and didn't see the need to mention it. Flawed claim _statement_, but claim allowed. > (2) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AK2 of a suit, > then it would be careless / irrational to start with the deuce Same. > (3) If a declarer claims when his last five cards are AKQJ2 of a suit, > then it would be careless / irrational to start with the deuce, Same. > (4) If a declarer claims in this position: > > K > 32 > 2 > None > > AQ2 > A > None > None > > then it would be careless / irrational to cash HA first, Same. Possibly someone would consider ruling otherwise at the beginner's table, but I think we should avoid that. In practice, people who don't think the order is obvious don't claim. > (5) If a declarer claims in this position: > > KJ10 > None > None > None > > A98 > None > None > None > > with the lead in the South hand, announcing that he will play West for > SQ, then it would be careless / irrational not to cash SA first, Same. > (6) If a declarer claims in this position: > > 2 > 5432 > None > None > > AKQJ > K > None > None > > then it would be careless / irrational to lead HK to the next trick, Ah, now we are getting somewhere! If declarer has claimed all the tricks or made no statement, the most likely explanation is that he thinks all his cards are good. This is a *flawed claim*, not a flawed claim statement. Declarer's mental picture of the hand was wrong, at least as far as we can tell on the evidence we have. It is barely possible that there will be contrary evidence from the earlier order of play, but on the facts above, *careless* would be my ruling. The defense gets H-A plus whatever tricks they can cash when H-A wins. On the other hand, if declarer says "you get the heart ace" or "conceding one trick" or words to that effect, this is NOT a statement that he will lead hearts next. Clearly his mental picture of the hand is not flawed. It would be irrational to lead the heart K _first_, and defenders get only one trick. (Again, I suppose there is always the possibility that other evidence would change the ruling, but it seems unlikely.) > (7) If a declarer claims in this position: > > 2 > 5432 > None > None > > AKQJ > None > 2 > None > > then it would be careless / irrational to lead D2 to the next trick, Same as 6, but here the earlier play would have higher weight. If declarer could reasonably have thought the D-2 might be good, then it's only careless to lead it. If such a belief was unreasonable, then leading D-2 would be irrational. > (8) If a declarer claims in this position: > > 2 > 5432 > None > None > > KQJ10 > A > None > None > > then it would be careless / irrational to lead SK to the next trick, > and a defender with SA and four minor-suit cards should / should not > be awarded the rest of the tricks. Same. Based on the earlier play and on declarer's statement, what was his mental picture of the hand? If he could have believed that the spades were good, then leading them is only careless. > (9) If a declarer claims when his last two cards are 42 of a suit, > then it would be careless / irrational to lead the deuce, Irrational. We are back to example 1. > (10) If a declarer claims in this position: > > KQ > 432 > None > None > > AJ92 > A > None > None > > announcing that he has "four spade tricks and one heart", then it > would be careless / irrational to lead HA to the next trick Same as example 4. Enumerating the tricks is NOT a statement of the order in which they are to be played. > (13) As (10), but assuming that declarer announces that he has "the > ace of hearts and four spade tricks". Same. --- OK, even if you disagree with my answers, I hope you can see that working from a single basic principle at least _gives_ a clear result in all cases. Can someone else do as well from simple premises? > From this kind of exercise, one could imagine creating a set of basic > principles... Yes, exactly. And from those principles, claimers will know exactly how specific they need to be in their claim statements, and opponents will know when it is reasonable to challenge a claim. I have some question as to whether the rules should be applied worldwide or whether there is room for national/regional/SO variation, but that's a minor issue. Given modern communication, SO's will tend to converge pretty rapidly on a single set of rules, at least if they are reasonable and simple ones. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 09:53:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:53:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from jaguars.cableinet.net (jaguars-int.cableinet.net [193.38.113.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA25762 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:53:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 4002 invoked from network); 27 Oct 1999 22:33:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.146.140) by jaguars with SMTP; 27 Oct 1999 22:33:33 -0000 Message-ID: <3817910F.FDD4B6ED@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:55:59 +0100 From: masterit Reply-To: masterit@cableinet.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: directing Subject: (no subject) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Don't forget to modify L74B4 at the same time: "a player should refrain from....playing on although he knows all the tricks are his, for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent...." Now there's a Law that I've never seen used in a ruling. too true a common occurence though not a common factor in rulings From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 10:28:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:28:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25889 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:28:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc5s05a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.117.198] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11gdQe-000167-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:28:32 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:18:13 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf20d1$8b03d0c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 7:38 PM Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? >I have stayed out of this thread for lack of anything intelligent to >say. I would like to give one example of the sort of thing that >occurs frequently, and ask Mike and Herman (and anyone else, of >course) to comment on it. > >An inexperienced partner and I are playing against an experienced >client and pro who are a first-time partnership. In a low partscore >battle, everyone having bid something, client reopens the bidding >(after two passes) with a double of my partner's 2H. The double is >not Alerted by the pro (also a TD), which means it has to be a >penalty double according to the ACBL Alert Procedure (partner has >previously acted, and it is not an ordinary negative double). Pro >takes the double out to her spade suit, and everyone passes. We get >a bad result because partner, intimidated by the double of her suit, >does not compete further with fair values to do so.Can't remember >the exact auction, something like: > >1C-1D-1H-1S; P-P-2H-P; P-Dbl-P-2S, all pass. > >When I see the dummy, it is obvious that the double was meant as "do >something," not penalty. I call the TD, and pro explains that she >did not Alert the double because they had no agreement about it. She >guessed that it was not a penalty double, but it was just a guess, >not a partnership agreement, (In the circles these two play in, >such an agreement is common but not universal) > >Now, I knew what the double meant, because client was the sort who >would make such a double and there was some body language besides. >However, I could not question pro about it because that would be >illegal, solely for partner's benefit, I having no intention of >competing further in any case. Moreover, it is my belief that a call >should not be questioned when the >absence of an Alert (by an experienced player) itself explains the >call. Otherwise why have Alerts, whose general purpose is to >distinguish between a default meaning and another meaning? Oops, >I'm digressing. > >The TD ruled no redress, there was no understanding, etc. > >There is something wrong about that ruling, but I am not sure what >the pro should have done. Many will say that her proper course was >to Alert and explain "Although we have no partnership agreement >about the double, a non-penalty meaning is so usual that I am taking >it for that." Okay, so then we bid on and find it *was* a penalty >double with a trump stack. Again the TD may rule no redress, since >the pro honestly explained the situation. Or, the client now knows >that the double was interpreted correctly, not pulled because of >poor defensive values, and makes some use >of that UI later. > >My preference is that the pro should not Alert, and should take it >as a penalty double even if pretty sure it isn't one. The absence of >an understanding is itself an understanding that calls will have the >default meaning (when there is one, as in this case), which the >partnership must employ. > >An acceptable alternative is for the pro to Alert the double, >explain with no waffling that it is non-penalty, and accept the >consequences. One consequence might be redress for us if she is >wrong and we are damaged, or a PP if she is right, for failure to >properly disclose a partnership agreement on the cc. (No warning, >for a pro/TD) > >Let's not quibble about whether the double is indeed Alertable, >that's a separate thread. Assume that it is, for the sake of this >discussion. I am of the opinion that this double should be alerted. When asked the explanation should be "It could be take out or penalties. We have no agreement" When a bid may mean one of two things, and one of those things is alertable, then I think you should alert. If asked how you are going to take it you should say(very nicely) "None of your business." I am sure that the one thing you should not do is tell the opps how you are going to take it. The problem with this is that once you have alerted it, the opps have reason to believe that you have discussed the call and that it is alertable. Hence you are telling them that with no questions they can assume it is not for penalties. Should "we have no agreement but I am trying to be helpful without giving UI" always mean that they are on a good board? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 10:28:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:28:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25891 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:28:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc5s05a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.117.198] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11gdQg-000167-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:28:34 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:19:59 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf20da$2b4d2a60$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 Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 7:08 PM Subject: Re: careless v irrational >(1) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AKJ of a suit, >then it would be careless / _irrational_ to start with the jack, and a >defender with the singleton queen should / _should not_ be awarded at >least one trick. > >(2) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AK2 of a suit, >then it would be careless /_ irrational_ to start with the deuce, and a >defender with a card remaining in the suit should / _should not_ be >awarded at least one trick. > >(3) If a declarer claims when his last five cards are AKQJ2 of a suit, >then it would be careless / _irrational_ to start with the deuce, and a >defender with a card remaining in the suit should / _should_ not be >awarded at least one trick. > >(4) If a declarer claims in this position: > >K >32 >2 >None > >AQ2 >A >None >None > >then it would be careless / _irrational_ to cash HA first, and a >defender with a doubleton heart or any diamond should / _should not _be >awarded at least one trick. > >(4a) As (4), and assuming that it would not be irrational to cash HA >first, then it would be careless / _irrational _not to play SA next, and >declarer should be awarded the rest of the tricks unless an opponent >has three spades remaining. > >(5) If a declarer claims in this position: > >KJ10 >None >None >None > >A98 >None >None >None > >with the lead in the South hand, announcing that he will play West for >SQ, then it would be careless /_ irrational_ not to cash SA first, and >East with the singleton queen should / _should not_ be awarded at least >one trick. > >(6) If a declarer claims in this position: > >2 >5432 >None >None > >AKQJ >K >None >None > >then it would be _careless _/ irrational to lead HK to the next trick, >and a defender with HA _should_ / should not be awarded a heart trick >and any other winners that his side could then cash. > >(7) If a declarer claims in this position: > >2 >5432 >None >None > >AKQJ >None >2 >None > >then it would be careless / _irrational_ to lead D2 to the next trick, >and a defender with any diamond should / _should not_ be awarded a >diamond trick and any other winners that his side could then cash. > >(8) If a declarer claims in this position: > >2 >5432 >None >None > >KQJ10 >A >None >None > >then it would be _careless_ / irrational to lead SK to the next trick, >and a defender with SA and four minor-suit cards _should_ / should not >be awarded the rest of the tricks. > >(9) If a declarer claims when his last two cards are 42 of a suit, >then it would be careless / _irrational_ to lead the deuce, and a >defender with the singleton 3 should / _should not_ be awarded at least >one trick. > >(10) If a declarer claims in this position: > >KQ >432 >None >None > >AJ92 >A >None >None > >announcing that he has "four spade tricks and one heart", then it >would be _careless_ / irrational to lead HA to the next trick, and a >defender with S10876 _should _/ should not be awarded the last trick. > >(11) As (10), and assuming that it would not be irrational to lead HA >first, it would be careless / _irrational_ not to overtake SQ at trick >11 if S10 did not appear at trick 10, and a defender with a doubleton >heart should / _should not_ be awarded at least one trick. > >(12) As (11), but assuming that S10 did appear on the first round of >the suit, it would be careless /_ irrational_ not to overtake SQ at >trick 11, and a defender with a doubleton heart should / _should not_ be >awarded at least one trick. > >(13) As (10), but assuming that declarer announces that he has "the >ace of hearts and four spade tricks". Careless. Should lose one trick. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 10:34:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:34:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25921 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:34:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from p67s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.104] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11gdWG-0001ga-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:34:20 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Another fine (Law 25) mess Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:41:21 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf20dd$278a4ea0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Michael Albert To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:17 PM Subject: Another fine (Law 25) mess >Oh, just trolling with the subject line. > >Directing the intermediate division at the Otago Bridge Club, I was called >into the Senior Reserve room by a rather perplexed director-in-training there. > >South is dealer and east (her RHO if I have my compass points correct) has >just opened 1c out of turn. The twist in the tale is that south has passed >(written bidding), but immediately on finishing the stroke (pass is denoted >/ or \ for those unfamiliar with written bidding) has gasped something to >the effect of "Oh my goodness, I was dealer". > >All at the table seem to agree that the pass was "inadvertent". But when you arrived you ruled that it was not? >North, is >acting a bit bridge-lawyerishly and wants south to be able to withdraw her >condoning pass in order to enforce the opening bid out of turn penalties. L10C2. Too much consultation has occurred. >So the argument goes along these lines: No it doesn't get this far :-) > >" I want to withdraw my inadvertent call " > >" And replace it with what? " > >" A pass " > >" But your inadvertent call *was* a pass. " > >" Yes but my new pass is after I withdraw my condonation* of the bid out of >turn. " > >(* Ok I made it up.) > >Believe it or not I actually think the law is quite clear -- it refers >specifically to "substituting an intended call ..." so there's really no >issue. The pass has condoned the opening bid out of turn, south may change >her call (if we're being slightly generous) to say an overcall of 1s, or a >weak jump overcall of 2d or whatever. No. If you are going to rule 25B, then she can request to change it to a Pass, and if this is not accepted she can change it to a pass at the cost of A- on the board.(and maybe a fine for Norths' advice). > >But somehow it was amusing ... Law25 has been amusing me for a long time. You will not that I rarely miss an opportunity to get involved. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 11:09:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:09:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26050 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:09:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from salsa (salsa.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.112]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA02665; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:09:10 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991028140907.00962100@chance.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@chance.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:09:07 +1300 To: Patrick , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Re: inadvertently condoning In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19991028120136.007ece30@pop.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Michael Albert wrote: > >Believe it or not I actually think the law is quite clear -- it refers >specifically to "substituting an intended call ..." so there's really no >issue. The pass has condoned the opening bid out of turn, south may change >her call (if we're being slightly generous) to say an overcall of 1s, or a >weak jump overcall of 2d or whatever. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > And Patrick replied (quite sensibly too): >I think this is missing the point. Inadvertency is supposed to cover a >situation where you intended to call something and due to a temporary >malfunction between the brain and the hand (or mouth) you wrote (or said) >something different to that which you intended. > >In this case you intended to write pass and that is exactly what you did, >so therefore that was not inadvertent. The fact that your RHO has opened >out of turn and your pass has now unintentionally condoned that does not >mean that your call was inadvertent. (It is true that an unethical player >might be granted inadvertency here by claiming that they had seen the 2NT >all along and then accidentally passed, although their immediate comments >at the table might give them away. > To quibble slightly: "I (only it wasn't me, but anyhow) intended to pass as first to speak. I intended something quite different over an opening bid out of turn. My brain didn't catch up with my fine motor control in time that's all." But largely, I agree with Patrick's argument. It's essentially how I ruled in any case. But his later comments did remind me of an event from some months ago in which I was personall involved. S W N E 1h p 2nt * p * No chance to call Here partner's pass was a brain malfunction attempting to alert my 2n. If partner only realises this *after* a director call has woken him up to what happened -- is it still inadvertent? (In the normal sense of English, the pass was clearly inadvertent, something else entirely was intended. But in the sense of the law?) --------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Albert Ph: (64)-03-479-7778 Senior Teaching Fellow Fax: (64)-03-479-8427 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 12:12:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:12:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26198 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:12:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11gf2z-000LjK-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 02:12:14 +0000 Message-ID: <6RcahtBj14F4EwWq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:40:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D7@xion.spase.nl> <04ea01bf20aa$a3574d40$fb095e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <04ea01bf20aa$a3574d40$fb095e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >The whole mess is easily solved by a regulation that says one may >not claim until one hand or the other has all the winners for the >number of tricks claimed, the other hand being inconsequential, or >the number of tricks claimed is available via a cross-ruff with high >trumps. No crossing to another hand except for that cross-ruff. What mess? Just because we have a few difficulties in a few rulings does not mean that we want to do this. The vast majority of claims go unchallenged. Only one of my claims has been challenged in the last three years or so - and I challenged it. If we follow your regulation then you would be boring the pants of everyone with an extraordinary increase in wasted time. All sorts of good claims would not be permitted. There is no mess to speak of in that we have a few difficult claims. I am happy that we should discuss them to try and get those claims right, and our rulings consistent, but do not create a problem to solve one that does not exist. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 12:12:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:12:36 +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 MAA26202 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:12:29 +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 11gf2z-000LjL-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 02:12:14 +0000 Message-ID: <+hRb9yBU24F4Ew1w@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:41:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <0.91f13267.2548707d@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <0.91f13267.2548707d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >In a message dated 10/27/99 9:38:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >tripack@ihug.co.nz writes: > >> The problem with the words careless and >> irrational are that they are not quantifiable. > >You have hit the crux of the matter on this point, yet so many of BLMLer's >feel that they CAN quantify the meanings. Oh to be that young and all >knowing again!!! Kojak All the same, any attempt to approach such quantification would do no harm. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 12:55:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:55:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26327 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:55:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from grabiner (dialup-20-41-bg.wcnet.org [205.133.172.41]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA10163 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:55:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991027225418.007a5630@mail.wcnet.org> X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:54:18 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. In-Reply-To: <6RcahtBj14F4EwWq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <04ea01bf20aa$a3574d40$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D7@xion.spase.nl> <04ea01bf20aa$a3574d40$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:40 AM 10/28/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > What mess? Just because we have a few difficulties in a few rulings >does not mean that we want to do this. The vast majority of claims go >unchallenged. Only one of my claims has been challenged in the last >three years or so - and I challenged it. You must play in a club of very high standard. I often have a claim contested with the words "play it out" when my statement is something like, "I'll draw the last trump, throw two clubs on dummy's hearts, and my hand will be good." From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 13:01:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:01:44 +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 NAA26349 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:01:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveica.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.138]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA17968 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:01:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:39:43 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Points to consider: 1. Did this pair have an agreement about the meaning of this double? Herman says yes, absolutely, and the sufficient proof is that the pro did in fact take out what was after all intended as a takeout double. For me, that is far from dispositive, although it is certainly suggestive. In my own understanding of "agreement", I would say that the evidence that this is a first-time partnership, together with my judgement that there was almost certainly no discussion of this or similar sequences, means that there was no explicit agreement. Was there implicit agreement, derivable either from previous experience in related sequences (extremely unlikely) or from other explicit agreements the partnership did have? This last question is the most difficult, because it requires us to distinguish that which can be derived from general bridge knowledge from that which is based on some special partnership circumstances. You state that "in the circles in which these two play", this double would be treated as basically competitive/takeout. Well, these are not very rarefied circles-- I would certainly treat the double this way, absent discussion, and would expect most, if not all, of our BLML colleagues to read it the same way. Thus it seems fair to assume that the pro made his good guess based on general bridge knowledge (as indeed you did as well) coupled with a prudent weighing of the risks and benefits of the alternatives. In fact, it would have been a very deep position for the pro to pass this double, holding less than long/strong hearts. Thus the fact that the pro got it right is only slightly suggestive of any special agreement, and I would rule that there was no such understanding. 2. I seriously doubt that this type of balancing double is alerted any significant percentage of the time. I wouldn't dare quibble with your extensive knowledge of the ACBL alert regs on this point, but as I have suggested in the past, these are sufficiently arcane that fewer than one player in 50 would have any chance of describing them correctly, and the sequence you have offered seems like another good example of the confusion engendered by these regulations. 3. The problem of whether to alert in the face of uncertainty is a difficult one for me. As I have said in the past, I think the proper explanation (when asked) in these circumstances is to disclose such agreements as might be relevant, and make clear that you have no explicit agreement about how such agreements apply in the present case. It seems to me that either alerting or not alerting carries an implicit message about how you intend to treat partner's bid, which may color the opponents' perception of your explanation. But I suppose for me the answer lies in the degree to which such unusual agreements as you do have might bear on the present sequence. Thus the transfer/not transfer problem discussed earlier certainly does have _potentially_ relevant alertable agreements, even if you judge that they should not apply in the given sequence, whereas in the present case there are no particularly relevant explicit agreements, so no alert. 4. It is another (very old) thread, but I can't help but take a shot at your puritanical refusal to ask about the meaning of the double. Whether the explanation would have helped or not I can't say, but it couldn't have hurt, and there is _nothing illegal_ about it. In fact, you didn't know, for sure, what was intended by the double, at least not until the pro took it out. At that point, even your inexperienced partner might have tumbled to the fact that the double wasn't for penalties, although if she was a complete novice, perhaps she was unaware of her perogatives. So such damage as was (arguably) caused by the failure to alert was exacerbated by two factors: your partner's unfamiliarity with the normal contemporary treatment of low-level doubles in competitive auctions, and your unwillingness to exercise your legal right to enquire about a meaning you strongly suspected, but which was contrary to what you consider to be the "default" meaning, based on alert regulations. I don't believe that these factors have any real legal significance in ruling on this situation, but if I'm honest, I'll have to admit that my thinking on the other questions may be colored by my awareness of these issues. Mike Dennis At 11:20 AM 10/27/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >I have stayed out of this thread for lack of anything intelligent to >say. I would like to give one example of the sort of thing that >occurs frequently, and ask Mike and Herman (and anyone else, of >course) to comment on it. > >An inexperienced partner and I are playing against an experienced >client and pro who are a first-time partnership. In a low partscore >battle, everyone having bid something, client reopens the bidding >(after two passes) with a double of my partner's 2H. The double is >not Alerted by the pro (also a TD), which means it has to be a >penalty double according to the ACBL Alert Procedure (partner has >previously acted, and it is not an ordinary negative double). Pro >takes the double out to her spade suit, and everyone passes. We get >a bad result because partner, intimidated by the double of her suit, >does not compete further with fair values to do so.Can't remember >the exact auction, something like: > >1C-1D-1H-1S; P-P-2H-P; P-Dbl-P-2S, all pass. > >When I see the dummy, it is obvious that the double was meant as "do >something," not penalty. I call the TD, and pro explains that she >did not Alert the double because they had no agreement about it. She >guessed that it was not a penalty double, but it was just a guess, >not a partnership agreement, (In the circles these two play in, >such an agreement is common but not universal) > >Now, I knew what the double meant, because client was the sort who >would make such a double and there was some body language besides. >However, I could not question pro about it because that would be >illegal, solely for partner's benefit, I having no intention of >competing further in any case. Moreover, it is my belief that a call >should not be questioned when the >absence of an Alert (by an experienced player) itself explains the >call. Otherwise why have Alerts, whose general purpose is to >distinguish between a default meaning and another meaning? Oops, >I'm digressing. > >The TD ruled no redress, there was no understanding, etc. > >There is something wrong about that ruling, but I am not sure what >the pro should have done. Many will say that her proper course was >to Alert and explain "Although we have no partnership agreement >about the double, a non-penalty meaning is so usual that I am taking >it for that." Okay, so then we bid on and find it *was* a penalty >double with a trump stack. Again the TD may rule no redress, since >the pro honestly explained the situation. Or, the client now knows >that the double was interpreted correctly, not pulled because of >poor defensive values, and makes some use >of that UI later. > >My preference is that the pro should not Alert, and should take it >as a penalty double even if pretty sure it isn't one. The absence of >an understanding is itself an understanding that calls will have the >default meaning (when there is one, as in this case), which the >partnership must employ. > >An acceptable alternative is for the pro to Alert the double, >explain with no waffling that it is non-penalty, and accept the >consequences. One consequence might be redress for us if she is >wrong and we are damaged, or a PP if she is right, for failure to >properly disclose a partnership agreement on the cc. (No warning, >for a pro/TD) > >Let's not quibble about whether the double is indeed Alertable, >that's a separate thread. Assume that it is, for the sake of this >discussion. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 13:08:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:08:41 +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 NAA26371 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:08:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id aa926302 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:05:18 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-222-171.tmns.net.au ([139.134.222.171]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Legendary-MailRouter V2.5 5/2290132); 28 Oct 1999 13:05:17 Message-ID: <011b01bf2180$195cb5e0$bcdf868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Dick Cummings Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:07:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0118_01BF2145.6BE08700" 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_0118_01BF2145.6BE08700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dick Cummings died on Wednesday morning, aged 67. =20 After 20 years of success at World Championships including two=20 Bronze Medals, Dick Cummings and Tim Seres were described by=20 Alan Truscott at the 1981 Bermuda Bowl as "the world's most=20 experienced pair".=20 Dick edited the WBF News, served on WBFand ABF ACs, wrote a daily bridge column for twenty years until yesterday and taught bridge, but most of all he set a shining example of the standards of behaviour expected at the bridge table. He will be greatly missed by the bridge community. =20 =20 His son-in-law Peter Newman contibutes to BLML Peter Gill Australia. ------=_NextPart_000_0118_01BF2145.6BE08700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dick Cummings died on Wednesday morning, aged = 67.
 
After 20 years of success at World = Championships=20 including two
Bronze Medals, Dick Cummings and Tim Seres = were=20 described by
Alan Truscott at the 1981 Bermuda Bowl as = "the=20 world's most
experienced pair".
 
Dick edited the WBF News, served on = WBFand ABF ACs, = wrote
a daily bridge column for=20 twenty years until yesterday and = taught
bridge, but most = of all=20 he set a shining example of the = standards
of behaviour expected at the=20 bridge table. He will be greatly
missed by the bridge community.  =
 
His son-in-law Peter Newman contibutes to=20 BLML
 
Peter Gill
Australia.
 
------=_NextPart_000_0118_01BF2145.6BE08700-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 13:09:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:09:14 +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 NAA26385 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:09:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveica.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.138]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA03359 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:08:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991027230632.012f83cc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:06:32 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Another fine (Law 25) mess In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991028085702.009565f0@chance.otago.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:57 AM 10/28/99 +1300, Michael wrote: >Oh, just trolling with the subject line. > >Directing the intermediate division at the Otago Bridge Club, I was called >into the Senior Reserve room by a rather perplexed director-in-training there. > >South is dealer and east (her RHO if I have my compass points correct) has >just opened 1c out of turn. The twist in the tale is that south has passed >(written bidding), but immediately on finishing the stroke (pass is denoted >/ or \ for those unfamiliar with written bidding) has gasped something to >the effect of "Oh my goodness, I was dealer". > >All at the table seem to agree that the pass was "inadvertent". North, is >acting a bit bridge-lawyerishly and wants south to be able to withdraw her >condoning pass in order to enforce the opening bid out of turn penalties. >So the argument goes along these lines: Whatever the players may agree to, the facts you present indicate that the call was _not_ inadvertent. Pass is the call she intended to make, and if there is any doubt, she later cleared up the mystery by asking to repeat her pass. No L25 case here, IMO. South accepted Easts BOOT, and the bidding procedes from that point. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 14:20:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:20:38 +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 OAA26574 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:20:30 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 1FMNa01793 (3977); Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:19:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.9727cf75.254928d6@aol.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:19:34 EDT Subject: Re: Dick Cummings To: GillP@bigpond.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 Just a quick memory - I played for Canada in the Open Teams at Monte Carlo in (I think) 1974. My very first session on viewgraph ever was against Dick Cummings and Tim Seres. I carried away a sense of awe at their ability and a sense of completely having been charmed by those two gentlemen. They couldn't have been nicer, kinder or tougher opponents. I had hoped they would live forever - in my heart they do. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 14:42:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:42:46 +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 OAA26622 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:42:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:42:13 -0700 Message-ID: <050101bf20fe$bd2713a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" References: <199910221841.TAA24723@tempest.npl.co.uk><012e01bf1d8e$e922d980$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <19991027144631.44650.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: L21B Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:41:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > >"Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > >>Immediate questioning is iinappropriate for at least three reasons: > > >>(1) players may not know offhand what they would have done, perhaps > > >>needing some thinking time; > > Why is this? They have already taken action based on MI. It surely is > not difficult to state if and what they would substitute given the chance, > including those calls that are too late to change. How much damage can > there be if a player considers at length, with no determination, that he > may be best off where he has arrived? It slows the game needlessly when it is too late to change a call. The Laws do not require players to be sure of what they would have done absent an infraction, just read L12C2, a 1/3 chance suffices. But TDs require a certain answer, off the cuff. Not fair. > > > >>(2) such answers are unreliable, given the potential for bias; > > Why would the answers sooner be unreliable due to bias more so than > answers later? The bias really comes in after the hand is double dummy. > Statements are the starting point for determining the if/ how of any damage. > Getting the information as close to the point of infraction gives the best and > fairest reliability. Bias comes immediately in most cases, consciously or unconsciously, when a player says the call would be different. There will be no "later answers" if the TD/AC can decide on damage without the player's input. Nothing in the Laws requires such input. TDs/ACs are perfectly capable of judging whether a time delay in the input (if input is needed) is likely to have affected it. On the other hand, it may take a player quite a bit of time to answer such a hypothetical question honestly. > > > >>and (3) it unfairly wastes time in this time-driven game. > > The game has already been delayed, to not find out immediately is to > have it decided by the AC. Why an AC? The TD allows a change of call (no conference needed) and says "bid on" if no change of call is made. During a break, during some other lull, or after the last round, s/he inquires about the results and either makes a ruling on the spot or goes away for thinking time, perhaps to consult with others. There is absolutely no need to call the players away from the table, which is often very time-consuming, and no Law that says a matter must go to an AC if the TD does not settle it immediately. Besides, more often than not there is no change of call, no damage, and the consultations are a complete waste of time. > > > > > > >And (4) it places the NOS in the position of having to spend > > >mental energy on making bidding decisions twice in slightly > > >different contexts, thus also ensuring that their concentration > > >for playing the contract is disturbed. Top players may be able > > >to handle that, but many of the rest of us would run a large risk > > >of playing the hand badly when we came back to the table. > > > > > >That is not a reasonable way to treat a non-offending side. > > > > Furthermore, it is not a decision made in the right way. Players > > make decisions sitting at the table after consideration. When you take > > them away from the table and ask them such a question the obvious answer is > > "I don't know". To be forced to take a decision that they might or > > might not have taken at the table under different circumstances is not > > at all fair > > L21B3 accounts for the case by the application of L40C when it is too > late to change a call . The time to ascertain if the damage of 'I was > deprived of the opportunity to call based on correct information' is before any > further action has taken place. Damage often may not be ascertained until the deal has been completed, but I assume you mean it is best to have a player to decide on what an action would have been before knowing the rest of the deal. There is something to that, but I don't think it is enough of a problem to warrant the current procedure. Consider that a player's partner will know (by the time used, head shake, or nod) whether an unchangeable call would have been different, which is unacceptable UI. Presumably a potential change of call is treated first, but the UI can be used for other purposes (e.g., in the play). > It is unsuitable to reveal those thoughts > to the rest of the table, therefore the conference is best taken away > from the table. To fail to confer immediately is dereliction. No thoughts are revealed to the rest of the table, what are you talking about? The TD just asks, when applicable, "Do you want to change your call because of the infraction?" No thoughts are revealed, the player either says no or changes the call. If there can be no change of call, or none is made, the deal proceeds immediately with no delay. > > You say that " When you take them away from the table and ask them such > a question the obvious answer is "I don't know". " I say that if I am on > the panel and the player says "I don't know" he has answered the question > and I have adequate facts to judge that they would not have > taken different action. On the panel? I thought you were the TD! A player might well say "I don't know" when s/he isn't sure, what's wrong with that? And then the TD or AC must rule per L12C2, considering whether there was a 1/3 chance that the player might have taken an alternative action. Don't they have brains? Must all answers be binary? Have you stopped beating your wife? > And if they say they probably would, I would want > to know what it is. I cannot believe that the hardship is so great that > the director should be prevented from establishing the facts at the earliest > possible time, as the nature of these facts is to quickly grow stale. The earliest time should come at the completion of the round, if the round has not been called, or at the earliest lull in the action. That may be inconvenient for the TD, but time taken away from the players concerned is unfair to them, and if it results in a delayed start of the next round at two tables, it is unfair to others also. > > > I am sick and tired of the principle that bridge rulings against > > offenders are acceptable but in favour of non-offenders are not: it > > does nothing for the game of bridge apart from bringing it into disrepute. > When an infraction takes place and it is remedied in accordance with the > law it is not ruling against the OS or ruling for the NOS- it is a > correct ruling. What I am tired of is rulings for one side as well as rulings > against one side. There is absolutely nothing in the Laws that hints at taking players away from the table during a deal, so why do you say "in accordance with the law"? In fact, L40C doesn't even suggest that the TD consult with the NOS about damage, although s/he may wish to do so. Most of the time it isn't necessary, and a player always has the right to argue the case if the ruling doesn't suit. It is human nature for players to argue a weak case vehemently before a ruling is made, hoping to influence it, but to quietly accede to the ruling if it comes first. I say make the ruling first, then listen to arguments. As a TD, DWS should be complimented on not having the bias toward convenience exhibited by many TDs. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 14:57:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:57:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac20.navix.net (iac20.navix.net [207.91.5.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26668 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:57:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras18p46.navix.net [207.91.7.48]) by iac20.navix.net (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA01148 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:40:59 -0500 Message-ID: <3817D473.CBC1A5AF@navix.net> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:43:31 -0500 From: Norman Hostetler Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: the year zero References: <0.986141b7.2548d7df@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk KRAllison@aol.com wrote: > David, > > << I should have guessed. It is a modern idea that zero is a number. > when I was young no-one would ever start a count of anything at zero, > but computers have changed that somewhat. > >> > And that may be why there's the misconstruction that after December 31st we > are entering a new millennium :-) > > Karen Karen--everyone starts from zero when determining her or his age--even when you were young, I'll bet. Norm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 15:11:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA26716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:11:21 +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 PAA26711 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:11:14 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id pMLLa09341 (3973) for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:10:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.81445039.254934c7@aol.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:10:31 EDT Subject: Re: the year zero 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 26 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, Norm, << Karen--everyone starts from zero when determining her or his age--even when you were young, I'll bet. >> I'm just glad I wasn't born in China where you're considered to be one year old when you are born!! Karen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 15:14:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA26730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:14:31 +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 PAA26725 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:14:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:13:57 -0700 Message-ID: <053201bf2103$2b3d0120$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <029d01bf214b$d024ce00$b1dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:07:46 -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 Peter Gill wrote: > Marv French wrote: > >The whole mess is easily solved by a regulation that says one may > >not claim until one hand or the other has all the winners for the > >number of tricks claimed, the other hand being inconsequential, or > >the number of tricks claimed is available via a cross-ruff with high > >trumps. No crossing to another hand except for that cross-ruff. > > > Don't forget to modify L74B4 at the same time: "a player should > refrain from....playing on although he knows all the tricks are his, > for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent...." > Now there's a Law that I've never seen used in a ruling. > Failing to claim when having all the tricks, but needing to cross back and forth to cash them, is not "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent." The proposed regulation would not have any affect on L74B4. I did not say one shouldn't claim when holding all the tricks, only that all the tricks claimed must be in one hand (except for the high trump crossruff). I love to claim myself, especially before actually executing a squeeze, or when endplaying an opponent. However, I have come to realize that I have wasted more time by claiming in violation of my proposed regulation, much more time, than has been saved by such claims. Defenders have to look back and forth between my hand and dummy, checking not only the winners but the communication, and often dispute a perfectly valid claim. Then the TD must be called, etc. So, I don't claim any more unless my hand or dummy has all the tricks I am claiming, high crossruff excepted. It saves time, and most opponents like that procedure. It takes very little time, after all, to make one hand high. Against strong players I might show my hand and say, "I am not claiming, but to save time you may want to concede." Let's not forget that many invalid claims go unnoticed, especially the sort that involve communication. The winners may be there, but they can't be cashed. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 15:46:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA26807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:46:05 +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 PAA26802 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:45:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:44:11 -0700 Message-ID: <054e01bf2107$641eefe0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <0.986141b7.2548d7df@aol.com> Subject: Re: the year zero Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:35:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Karen Allison wrote: > David, > > << I should have guessed. It is a modern idea that zero is a number. > when I was young no-one would ever start a count of anything at zero, > but computers have changed that somewhat. > >> > And that may be why there's the misconstruction that after December 31st we > are entering a new millennium :-) > The misconstruction has occurred every hundred years, nothing modern. Most people have never realized that you must finish one century (or decade, or millenium) before you start another. I have several sons-in-law who think I am daft to deny that the millenium is ending this year, and they can't tell a bit from a byte.. Our San Diego Union-Tribune ombudsman says that the media must go along with popular thinking, forgetting that the media are mainly responsible for the persistence of the error. DWS had a great solution: Celebrate the new millenium twice, enjoying two parties instead of just one. It's nice that we now have a one-question IQ test. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 16:22:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:22:04 +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 QAA26892 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:21:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.99.56.73] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11giwS-0004Iw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 07:21:44 +0100 Message-ID: <002501bf210c$be731340$493863c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <0.986141b7.2548d7df@aol.com> Subject: Re: the year zero Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 07:21:59 +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 Karen wrote: > And that may be why there's the misconstruction that after December 31st we > are entering a new millennium :-) It's not a misconstruction at all. We are entering a new millennium after December 31st. We are also entering a new millennium after October 28th, or April 1st 2000, or at any other moment of our lives. Not very many of these millennia are terribly significant, but there seems little reason to cast aspersions on those who wish to regard as more significant than others the particular millennium which begins on the day when the thousands digit of the year changes. For myself, I hope to celebrate a new millennium in 2007, when Law 25B is removed from the statute books. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 18:55:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 18:55:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27151 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 18:55:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:55:06 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA19910 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:36:40 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Another fine (Law 25) mess Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:27:11 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D9@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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837643499@xion.spase.nl> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Whatever the players may agree to, the facts you present indicate that the >call was _not_ inadvertent. Pass is the call she intended to make, and if >there is any doubt, she later cleared up the mystery by asking to repeat >her pass. > >No L25 case here, IMO. South accepted Easts BOOT, and the bidding procedes >from that point. > >Mike Dennis Agreed. South's remark shows that she passed East's 1C out of turn, then woke up. East is lucky today. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 20:50:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:50:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27359 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:50:14 +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 11gn80-0005ER-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:49:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 03:33:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <199910272329.TAA16786@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910272329.TAA16786@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> David Burn wrote: >> It has often occurred to me that somebody (or preferably some body) >> should produce a set of detailed guidelines as to what is and is not >> considered "irrational" play for the purposes of contested claims. > >Add my voice to the endorsements. I'm especially in agreement with the >part (snipped) about players knowing when to contest a claim. > >> From: Patrick >> The problem with a set of detailed guidelines is that there is a sliding >> scale to be applied to all the various cases based on the ability of the >> claimer in question. > >Put me down as disagreeing that the claimer's (perceived) ability >should have much influence on the decision. Ideally it should have >none, but perhaps we can never reach the ideal. We are trying to decide whether a claim is flawed or merely a claim statement is flawed, to use your words. How can we not include all the facts? If you look at your later words you refer at one stage to beginners. Suppose we consider A92 KJT3 x x x -- -- -- with hearts trumps, and declarer says playing South for the SQ. Do we consider that a total beginner would always check for singleton Q North? No. Aha, you say, but no beginner would claim. So next we talk about what an expert would do. We must remember the breadth of people in-between. One of my problems with BLML is that I consider too many posts forget the average player - and she is not an expert! Let me tell you a story. Bill Gates approached a woman at a party: "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" he asked. "Certainly" she smiled at him. "Would you sleep with me for $5?" he asked. "What do you think I am?" she snarled. "We've already established that," said Bill, "now we are haggling over the price." People are not the same, with different ideas, abilities and so on. You may not like it, but while ruling the game of bridge involves exercising judgement, TDs and ACs will have to allow for the differences between players. How much is she worth? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 20:50:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:50:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27353 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:50:11 +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 11gn85-0000Nv-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:50:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 03:35:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <01bf20d1$8b03d0c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf20d1$8b03d0c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >I am of the opinion that this double should be alerted. When asked >the explanation should be "It could be take out or penalties. We >have no agreement" >When a bid may mean one of two things, and one of those things >is alertable, then I think you should alert. >If asked how you are going to take it you should say(very nicely) > "None of your business." >I am sure that the one thing you should not do is tell the opps how >you are going to take it. >The problem with this is that once you have alerted it, the opps have >reason to believe that you have discussed the call and that it is >alertable. Hence you are telling them that with no questions they > can assume it is not for penalties. Absolutely not. If you alert then you are saying "it is worth asking": nothing more. >Should "we have no agreement but I am trying to be helpful without >giving UI" always mean that they are on a good board? No, why? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 20:50:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:50:21 +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 UAA27354 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:50:11 +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 11gn82-000BKn-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:49:59 +0000 Message-ID: <3iJp9MA0g7F4EwEB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 03:43:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: inadvertently condoning References: <3.0.3.32.19991028120136.007ece30@pop.ihug.co.nz> <3.0.1.32.19991028140907.00962100@chance.otago.ac.nz> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991028140907.00962100@chance.otago.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: >>Michael Albert wrote: >> >>Believe it or not I actually think the law is quite clear -- it refers >>specifically to "substituting an intended call ..." so there's really no >>issue. The pass has condoned the opening bid out of turn, south may change >>her call (if we're being slightly generous) to say an overcall of 1s, or a >>weak jump overcall of 2d or whatever. >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >And Patrick replied (quite sensibly too): > >>I think this is missing the point. Inadvertency is supposed to cover a >>situation where you intended to call something and due to a temporary >>malfunction between the brain and the hand (or mouth) you wrote (or said) >>something different to that which you intended. >> >>In this case you intended to write pass and that is exactly what you did, >>so therefore that was not inadvertent. The fact that your RHO has opened >>out of turn and your pass has now unintentionally condoned that does not >>mean that your call was inadvertent. (It is true that an unethical player >>might be granted inadvertency here by claiming that they had seen the 2NT >>all along and then accidentally passed, although their immediate comments >>at the table might give them away. This is right. What did he intend to call at the moment he passed? Pass. So it is not a L25A case. >To quibble slightly: > >"I (only it wasn't me, but anyhow) intended to pass as first to speak. I >intended something quite different over an opening bid out of turn. My >brain didn't catch up with my fine motor control in time that's all." That has no relevance. All that matters is what call the player intended at the moment he made the call. He intended to pass - no L25A. >But largely, I agree with Patrick's argument. It's essentially how I ruled >in any case. But his later comments did remind me of an event from some >months ago in which I was personall involved. > >S W N E >1h p 2nt * >p > >* No chance to call > >Here partner's pass was a brain malfunction attempting to alert my 2n. If >partner only realises this *after* a director call has woken him up to what >happened -- is it still inadvertent? What did he intend at the moment he passed: he intended to alert. So it is a L25A case and may be changed. >(In the normal sense of English, the pass was clearly inadvertent, >something else entirely was intended. But in the sense of the law?) The Law allows you to change an inadvertent call - and this one is. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 21:12:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:12:44 +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 VAA27428 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:12:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-185.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.185]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17915 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:12:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38182A91.6734E04C@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:50:57 +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: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <01bf20d1$8b03d0c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > I am of the opinion that this double should be alerted. When asked > the explanation should be "It could be take out or penalties. We > have no agreement" Wrong - they were on the same track all the time. I don't believe they had no agreement. They were uncertain if they had an agreement, but since they did in fact have the same idea, I rule "agreement". > When a bid may mean one of two things, and one of those things > is alertable, then I think you should alert. No you should not. By alerting, you have described it in the "alertable" manner. If the opponents ask nothing, and it turns out it is the natural meaning, you have misinformed. > If asked how you are going to take it you should say(very nicely) > "None of your business." You need not answer "how are you going to take it", since that question should not have to be asked in the first place. You should not divulge that you do not know. You should tell them what it means, and if you don't know, that may well be "how you are taking it". > I am sure that the one thing you should not do is tell the opps how > you are going to take it. The how will you tell them what it means ? Which you DO have to tell them. And don't say that you genuinely not know. That is no excuse. > The problem with this is that once you have alerted it, the opps have > reason to believe that you have discussed the call and that it is > alertable. Hence you are telling them that with no questions they > can assume it is not for penalties. Which indeed it is. > Should "we have no agreement but I am trying to be helpful without > giving UI" always mean that they are on a good board? > Anne So you are of the opinion that this situation was allright ? A meant it as take-out, B took it as take-out, B explained it as penalties and you are NOT ruling against A-B ? Sorry Anne, not where I am directing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 21:12:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:12:46 +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 VAA27436 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:12:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-185.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.185]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17923 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:12:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38182C0E.8EFBADEC@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:57:18 +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: <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > Points to consider: > 1. Did this pair have an agreement about the meaning of this double? Herman > says yes, absolutely, and the sufficient proof is that the pro did in fact > take out what was after all intended as a takeout double. For me, that is > far from dispositive, although it is certainly suggestive. In my own > understanding of "agreement", I would say that the evidence that this is a > first-time partnership, together with my judgement that there was almost > certainly no discussion of this or similar sequences, means that there was > no explicit agreement. Was there implicit agreement, derivable either from > previous experience in related sequences (extremely unlikely) or from other > explicit agreements the partnership did have? > > This last question is the most difficult, because it requires us to > distinguish that which can be derived from general bridge knowledge from > that which is based on some special partnership circumstances. You state > that "in the circles in which these two play", this double would be treated > as basically competitive/takeout. Well, these are not very rarefied > circles-- I would certainly treat the double this way, absent discussion, > and would expect most, if not all, of our BLML colleagues to read it the > same way. Thus it seems fair to assume that the pro made his good guess > based on general bridge knowledge (as indeed you did as well) coupled with > a prudent weighing of the risks and benefits of the alternatives. In fact, > it would have been a very deep position for the pro to pass this double, > holding less than long/strong hearts. Thus the fact that the pro got it > right is only slightly suggestive of any special agreement, and I would > rule that there was no such understanding. > How is this possible. You say twelve times that they uderstand one another, and then you conclude that there is no understanding. You say that everyone would agree that this double is take-out, and then you allow them to explain it as penalty ? You have to be joking !!!!! Remember that marv interpreted it as take-out, but his inexperienced partner did not. General bridge knowledge is only non-disclosable if it is indeed general. Since the fourth man did not have the knowledge, it is not general, so you cannot hide behind it. The call was generally accepted as alertable, and yet it was not alerted. Clear MI to me. > 2. I seriously doubt that this type of balancing double is alerted any > significant percentage of the time. I wouldn't dare quibble with your > extensive knowledge of the ACBL alert regs on this point, but as I have > suggested in the past, these are sufficiently arcane that fewer than one > player in 50 would have any chance of describing them correctly, and the > sequence you have offered seems like another good example of the confusion > engendered by these regulations. > Well, suppose the players were absolutely certain of the meaning of the double, yet did not alert it. Would you rule? Besided, Marv asked us not to discuss the alert regs, which are ACBL-specific anyway. > 3. The problem of whether to alert in the face of uncertainty is a > difficult one for me. As I have said in the past, I think the proper > explanation (when asked) in these circumstances is to disclose such > agreements as might be relevant, and make clear that you have no explicit > agreement about how such agreements apply in the present case. It seems to > me that either alerting or not alerting carries an implicit message about > how you intend to treat partner's bid, which may color the opponents' > perception of your explanation. But I suppose for me the answer lies in the > degree to which such unusual agreements as you do have might bear on the > present sequence. Thus the transfer/not transfer problem discussed earlier > certainly does have _potentially_ relevant alertable agreements, even if > you judge that they should not apply in the given sequence, whereas in the > present case there are no particularly relevant explicit agreements, so no > alert. > The alert is just part of the explanation. dWs : you figure out what (you think) it means, and alert accordingly. Should really not be dWs at all, but basic principle. > 4. [snip - irrelevant to our discussion] -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 21:12:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:12:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27427 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:12:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-185.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.185]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17907 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:12:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:44:42 +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: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > I have stayed out of this thread for lack of anything intelligent to > say. I would like to give one example of the sort of thing that > occurs frequently, and ask Mike and Herman (and anyone else, of > course) to comment on it. > Clear case IMO, and probably in Mike's as well. > An inexperienced partner and I are playing against an experienced > client and pro who are a first-time partnership. In a low partscore > battle, everyone having bid something, client reopens the bidding > (after two passes) with a double of my partner's 2H. The double is > not Alerted by the pro (also a TD), which means it has to be a > penalty double according to the ACBL Alert Procedure (partner has > previously acted, and it is not an ordinary negative double). Pro > takes the double out to her spade suit, and everyone passes. We get > a bad result because partner, intimidated by the double of her suit, > does not compete further with fair values to do so.Can't remember > the exact auction, something like: > > 1C-1D-1H-1S; P-P-2H-P; P-Dbl-P-2S, all pass. > > When I see the dummy, it is obvious that the double was meant as "do > something," not penalty. I call the TD, and pro explains that she > did not Alert the double because they had no agreement about it. She > guessed that it was not a penalty double, but it was just a guess, > not a partnership agreement, (In the circles these two play in, > such an agreement is common but not universal) > Well, it was meant as take-out, it was interpreted as take-out, and it was explained as penalty ? And you wouldn't want to rule against such a thing ? [snip, because indeed:] > I'm digressing. > > The TD ruled no redress, there was no understanding, etc. > Wrong ruling. The TD should have ruled according to the footnote : barring evidence to the contrary (and not even the pro offered any such), the explanation is to be considered MI, not misbid. > There is something wrong about that ruling, but I am not sure what > the pro should have done. Many will say that her proper course was > to Alert and explain "Although we have no partnership agreement > about the double, a non-penalty meaning is so usual that I am taking > it for that." Which would have been a correct explanation. > Okay, so then we bid on and find it *was* a penalty > double with a trump stack. Or a wrong one, in that case. > Again the TD may rule no redress, since > the pro honestly explained the situation. But, if it turns out it was penalty, the pro had NOT correctly assessed the situation. So the TD would rule MI then too. > Or, the client now knows > that the double was interpreted correctly, not pulled because of > poor defensive values, and makes some use > of that UI later. > A totally different scenario, and a ruling we have no problem with. > My preference is that the pro should not Alert, and should take it > as a penalty double even if pretty sure it isn't one. Of course not. He should determine what would be the most logical meaning within the system he had 'agreed', and explain that one, and stick to it. > The absence of > an understanding is itself an understanding that calls will have the > default meaning (when there is one, as in this case), which the > partnership must employ. > Yes, but above you said that the default meaning would have been take-out. The default meaning in a particular environment is not necessarily the non-alertable one (which is a continent-wide constant in your case). > An acceptable alternative is for the pro to Alert the double, > explain with no waffling that it is non-penalty, and accept the > consequences. That is the dWs. It will produce exactly the same ruing as the first one you mentioned. > One consequence might be redress for us if she is > wrong and we are damaged, or a PP if she is right, for failure to > properly disclose a partnership agreement on the cc. (No warning, > for a pro/TD) > I would not give a PP for getting a situation wrong. I would not even give a PP for telling the meaning in a voice that suggests you are certain, when it turns out you are wrong nevertheless. > Let's not quibble about whether the double is indeed Alertable, > that's a separate thread. Assume that it is, for the sake of this > discussion. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 28 22:57:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:57:23 +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 WAA27750 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:57:16 +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 IAA15305 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991028085808.0071cdf0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:58:08 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: careless v irrational In-Reply-To: <000701bf20a1$f4db4ee0$a9e6abc3@davidburn> References: <3.0.3.32.19991028023048.007efde0@pop.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:37 PM 10/27/99 +0100, David wrote: >(1) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AKJ of a suit, >then it would be careless / irrational to start with the jack, and a >defender with the singleton queen should / should not be awarded at >least one trick. Irrational, should not. >(2) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AK2 of a suit, >then it would be careless / irrational to start with the deuce, and a >defender with a card remaining in the suit should / should not be >awarded at least one trick. Irrational, should not. >(3) If a declarer claims when his last five cards are AKQJ2 of a suit, >then it would be careless / irrational to start with the deuce, and a >defender with a card remaining in the suit should / should not be >awarded at least one trick. Irrational, should not. >(4) If a declarer claims in this position: > >K >32 >2 >None > >AQ2 >A >None >None > >then it would be careless / irrational to cash HA first, and a >defender with a doubleton heart or any diamond should / should not be >awarded at least one trick. Close. This might be one of those "class of player involved" decisions. >(4a) As (4), and assuming that it would not be irrational to cash HA >first, then it would be careless / irrational not to play SA next, and >declarer should be awarded the rest of the tricks unless an opponent >has three spades remaining. Irrational. >(5) If a declarer claims in this position: > >KJ10 >None >None >None > >A98 >None >None >None > >with the lead in the South hand, announcing that he will play West for >SQ, then it would be careless / irrational not to cash SA first, and >East with the singleton queen should / should not be awarded at least >one trick. Irrational, should not. >(6) If a declarer claims in this position: > >2 >5432 >None >None > >AKQJ >K >None >None > >then it would be careless / irrational to lead HK to the next trick, >and a defender with HA should / should not be awarded a heart trick >and any other winners that his side could then cash. Careless, should. >(7) If a declarer claims in this position: > >2 >5432 >None >None > >AKQJ >None >2 >None > >then it would be careless / irrational to lead D2 to the next trick, >and a defender with any diamond should / should not be awarded a >diamond trick and any other winners that his side could then cash. Careless, should. >(8) If a declarer claims in this position: > >2 >5432 >None >None > >KQJ10 >A >None >None > >then it would be careless / irrational to lead SK to the next trick, >and a defender with SA and four minor-suit cards should / should not >be awarded the rest of the tricks. Careless, should. >(9) If a declarer claims when his last two cards are 42 of a suit, >then it would be careless / irrational to lead the deuce, and a >defender with the singleton 3 should / should not be awarded at least >one trick. Irrational, should not. >(10) If a declarer claims in this position: > >KQ >432 >None >None > >AJ92 >A >None >None > >announcing that he has "four spade tricks and one heart", then it >would be careless / irrational to lead HA to the next trick, and a >defender with S10876 should / should not be awarded the last trick. Irrational, should not. >(11) As (10), and assuming that it would not be irrational to lead HA >first, it would be careless / irrational not to overtake SQ at trick >11 if S10 did not appear at trick 10, and a defender with a doubleton >heart should / should not be awarded at least one trick. Irrational, should not. >(12) As (11), but assuming that S10 did appear on the first round of >the suit, it would be careless / irrational not to overtake SQ at >trick 11, and a defender with a doubleton heart should / should not be >awarded at least one trick. Irrational, should not. >(13) As (10), but assuming that declarer announces that he has "the >ace of hearts and four spade tricks". Close. Parsing the English strictly, this should be equivalent to (10), but that's not the way most people speak. I lean towards careless, should, unless I know that this particular player is extraordinarily careful in his speech and wouldn't say "and" when he meant "then" (as most people do). >>From this kind of exercise, one could imagine creating a set of basic >principles on the lines of: "if a claimer asserts that the rest of his >hand is high, it is [or "is not"] rational for him to play his >remaining cards in any order". Or: "if the opponents object to a claim >on the grounds that the position is blocked, then it is [or "is not"] >rational for a claimer to attempt to overcome the blockage by >overtaking or crashing a certain winner". Would these principles be >useful? I don't know - but they would have enabled us to sort out just >about every contested claim that has so far appeared on BLML. The ACBL has an established guideline that I agree with and have followed in my answers. It says that when a claimer states that his hand is high, it is not irrational to play his remaining suits in any order, but it is irrational not to play any given suit from the top down. 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 Oct 28 23:22:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:22:13 +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 XAA27849 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:22:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (iits-01-186.sat.idworld.net [209.142.71.186]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22933 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:21:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <38185BEA.52FC4919@txdirect.net> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:21:30 -0600 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: List Departure Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk i am taking some holidays - so i have unsubscribed for the next two weeks. Killer sends regards. -- 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 Oct 29 00:11:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:11:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28024 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:11:37 +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 11gqGw-000J4Y-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:11:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:37:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L21B References: <199910221841.TAA24723@tempest.npl.co.uk> <012e01bf1d8e$e922d980$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <19991027144631.44650.qmail@hotmail.com> <050101bf20fe$bd2713a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <050101bf20fe$bd2713a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >No thoughts are revealed to the rest of the table, what are you talking >about? The TD just asks, when applicable, "Do you want to change your >call because of the infraction?" Since the point of the article was something else I expect Marvin was just a little casual. "If you have probably made the wrong call because of the misinformation [failure to alert, etc] then you may change it: do wou wish to do so?" -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 00:11:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:11:55 +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 AAA28035 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:11:46 +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 11gqH5-0004IM-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:11:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:45:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Points to consider: >4. It is another (very old) thread, but I can't help but take a shot at >your puritanical refusal to ask about the meaning of the double. Whether >the explanation would have helped or not I can't say, but it couldn't have >hurt, and there is _nothing illegal_ about it. Of course it is illegal. You are asking a question for the sole purpose of telling partner something. L73B1 says: Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, or through questions asked or not asked of the opponents, through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. I am surprised that you think you are allowed to communicate with oyur partner "through questions asked of your opponent". -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 00:22:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:22:20 +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 AAA28080 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:22:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA25419; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:22:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA17258; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:22:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:22:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910281422.KAA17258@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, mlfrench@writeme.com Subject: Re: the year zero X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > The misconstruction has occurred every hundred years, nothing modern. If you doubt Marv, see the very long bibliography at http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/scitech/battle.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 00:46:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:11:43 +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 AAA28021 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:11:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11gqGu-000J3b-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:11:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:39:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. References: <04ea01bf20aa$a3574d40$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D7@xion.spase.nl> <04ea01bf20aa$a3574d40$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <6RcahtBj14F4EwWq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.6.32.19991027225418.007a5630@mail.wcnet.org> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991027225418.007a5630@mail.wcnet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 12:40 AM 10/28/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > >> What mess? Just because we have a few difficulties in a few rulings >>does not mean that we want to do this. The vast majority of claims go >>unchallenged. Only one of my claims has been challenged in the last >>three years or so - and I challenged it. > >You must play in a club of very high standard. I often have a claim >contested with the words "play it out" when my statement is something like, >"I'll draw the last trump, throw two clubs on dummy's hearts, and my hand >will be good." Perhaps I was unclear: there have been attempts to make me play the hand out, but never because they are challenging the claim. I tell them I am not allowed to, of course. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 00:52:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA28156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:52:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28151 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:52:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:52:25 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA22813; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:33:51 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'David Burn'" , Subject: RE: careless v irrational Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:23:56 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3DA@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) In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837643484@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >(5) If a declarer claims in this position: > >KJ10 >None >None >None > >A98 >None >None >None > >with the lead in the South hand, announcing that he will play West for >SQ, then it would be careless / irrational not to cash SA first, and >East with the singleton queen should / should not be awarded at least >one trick. Let me modify this case slightly: If a declarer claims in this position, without telling anything further, then it would be careless / irrational not to cash SA or SK first, and either defender with the singleton queen should / should not be awarded at least one trick. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 01:11:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:11:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mcda__s0.mcda.org (gw1.mcda.org [206.196.37.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28222 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:11:24 +1000 (EST) Received: by MCDA__S0 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <4BZ61DQ5>; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:10:02 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Kryst, Jack" To: "'BLML'" Subject: Hairsplitting? Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:09:59 -0500 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When declarer leads from the wrong hand may either opponent accept the lead (assuming no prior discussion or agreement) for the purpose of: 1. misleading declarer as to his holding in the lead suit or; 2. suggesting to partner what his holding may be. May a partnership have a prior understanding regarding the conditions under which a declarer's LOOT will be accepted or rejected? 16C1 would appear to authorize any information for the NOS if the action is withdrawn or am I reading it too broadly? ----jk Senior Budget Analyst Minneapolis Community Development Agency jack.kryst@mcda.org From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 01:29:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:29:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28286 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:29:21 +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 LAA28391 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:29:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA17354 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:29:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:29:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910281529.LAA17354@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: inadvertently condoning X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: MA>Here partner's pass was a brain malfunction attempting to alert my 2n. If MA>partner only realises this *after* a director call has woken him up to what MA>happened -- is it still inadvertent? > From: David Stevenson > What did he intend at the moment he passed: he intended to alert. Yes, in this case the pass was inadvertent. To expand slightly, there are two main issues in normal L25A cases. Was the first call _inadvertent_? And was there an attempt to change it _without pause for thought_? The first question refers to the player's state of mind at _the instant the call was made_. Subsequent events do not matter, although they may provide evidence of what the state of mind was at the relevant instant. The second question refers to the time between the player's _discovery_ of the call and the attempt to change. > So it is a L25A case and may be changed. Alas, this isn't so clear, although I would like it to be so. L25A allows substituting an "intended call" for an inadvertent call. It says nothing about substituting an alert, which isn't a call. (David seems to have found another situation where the instant a call is "made" is critical to the ruling.) Once the pass is made, I don't see how it can be cancelled and the alert substituted, although it would be consistent with the spirit of the laws if that were the ruling. I would not criticize a TD who ruled this way, but I would like to be shown how it is legal. Maybe in 2007 L25A will say "action" in place of "call," although I'm not sure that doesn't create worse problems. Or maybe there will be some other clarification. Or (I hope) I'm overlooking something now. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 01:48:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:03:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28186 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:03:17 +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 LAA27239; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA17330; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:03:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910281503.LAA17330@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: careless v irrational X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SW>Put me down as disagreeing that the claimer's (perceived) ability SW>should have much influence on the decision. Ideally it should have SW>none, but perhaps we can never reach the ideal. > From: David Stevenson > We are trying to decide whether a claim is flawed or merely a claim > statement is flawed, to use your words. How can we not include all the > facts? If you look at your later words you refer at one stage to > beginners. OK, I was exaggerating. But only a little. The current L70 footnote refers to "class of player," so we do have to take ability into account. In my suggested approach, we are trying to decide whether the claimer had a false mental image of the deal. That is, of course, more likely for a beginner than for an expert. Nevertheless, it is easy to overestimate the importance of the skill factor. If you look through my answers to David B.'s examples, only one referenced the skill level of the claimer. That seems about the right fraction: one in ten or twenty cases may hinge on claimer's skill level. In most cases, the ruling should be clear from the cards and the claim statement. In some fraction, the previous play will be a factor. And in some even smaller fraction, claimer's skill will be a factor. I hope we agree it is wrong to _start_ with the skill factor. Rulings that _start with_ "No expert would ever be so careless," or "No beginner would get this position right," are silly, and I don't think these are what David is suggesting. Do people agree with the progression suggested above: cards + claim statement, then previous play, and only then claimer's skill? More important, do people agree that the dichotomy between "flawed claim" and "flawed claim statement" is the key issue? In the long run (i.e. after 2007), I would prefer to find some way to make claimer's skill not a factor at all. That's what my second sentence above was intended to convey. I agree it isn't possible under the current Laws, and perhaps it will never be possible. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 01:52:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:52:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f163.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.163]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA28352 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:52:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 98053 invoked by uid 0); 28 Oct 1999 15:51:46 -0000 Message-ID: <19991028155146.98052.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:51:45 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: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:51:45 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Anne Jones wrote: > > > > I am of the opinion that this double should be alerted. When asked > > the explanation should be "It could be take out or penalties. We > > have no agreement" > >Wrong - they were on the same track all the time. I don't >believe they had no agreement. They were uncertain if they >had an agreement, but since they did in fact have the same >idea, I rule "agreement". > I won't agree or disagree with this; it has been hashed to death by more powerful disputants than your humble author. But you'll probably work out my answer to that argument from the rest of this reply :-) > > When a bid may mean one of two things, and one of those things > > is alertable, then I think you should alert. > In this case I would want to be careful. The double may mean one of two things, yes, but one of them is "penalty or penaltyish", the other is "not (penalty or penaltyish)". There is a lot of gredation in "not (P or Pish)" as the Orange Book goes to a great deal of detail explaining. >No you should not. By alerting, you have described it in >the "alertable" manner. If the opponents ask nothing, and >it turns out it is the natural meaning, you have >misinformed. > Yes, you should. By alerting, you have described it as not "non-alertable". The same alert regs that define a non-alertable balancing double when partner has acted state, right at the top: "When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME." (emphasis in the original) Having played 18-19 point 1NT openers since the new ACBL Alert regs came in, I know that there is often no (or more than one) "alertable" manner. It simply is the set {Not (not alertable)}. When asked, my response as the pro would be "We have not discussed this. In the games that we play, 90% of the players play this as takeout (or optional, or cooperative, or whatever is correct)."(*) As this is not "penalty or penaltyish", IMO it requires an Alert. > > If asked how you are going to take it you should say(very nicely) > > "None of your business." > >You need not answer "how are you going to take it", since >that question should not have to be asked in the first >place. You should not divulge that you do not know. You >should tell them what it means, and if you don't know, that >may well be "how you are taking it". > Strangely enough, I agree with both of those statements (sort of). I am not going to answer "how are you going to take it", and I have already explained everything I know due to agreement (explicit: none, implicit, through logic from explicit agreements or direct partnership experience: none, implicit, through knowledge of partner unavailable to opponents: in alert statement). > > I am sure that the one thing you should not do is tell the opps >how you >are going to take it. > >The how will you tell them what it means ? Which you DO >have to tell them. >And don't say that you genuinely not know. That is no >excuse. > Simple. Divulge my explicit agreements, my implicit agreements, and any knowledge I have of partner's proclivities that isn't "general"; in this case, knowledge of the locals in partner's regular games. And no, I don't have to tell them what it means. I only have to give them all the information I have that will allow me to divine what it means. > > The problem with this is that once you have alerted it, the opps have > > reason to believe that you have discussed the call and that it is > > alertable. Hence you are telling them that with no questions they > > can assume it is not for penalties. > Arguable. I don't believe this, but arguable. I believe that whether the opponents have reason to believe that we have discussed it or not, all they have a right to believe is that we have disclosable knowledge about it that they don't have. Case in point: Assume GB regs, the auction goes (1D)-4D. I'm playing with Anne, and I got off the plane with 90 minutes to get to Bristol. Needless to say, I arrive a bit late. 1) Do I alert it? Of course. No matter what it is, it is almost certainly not natural, therefore alertable. 2) How do I explain it? "Your guess is better than mine; after all, you've played with/against her before. But I'm pretty certain it doesn't mean a long diamond preempt." >Which indeed it is. > Which indeed it turned out to be. > > Should "we have no agreement but I am trying to be helpful without > > giving UI" always mean that they are on a good board? > > Anne > >So you are of the opinion that this situation was allright ? >A meant it as take-out, B took it as take-out, B explained >it as penalties and you are NOT ruling against A-B ? >Sorry Anne, not where I am directing. > But she didn't say that. The pro was not trying to be helpful - he was in violation of the Alert regs, whether we follow your school, my school or Anne's school. In the complementary case (but still with the same knowledge of the games partner plays in), where A meant it as penalties, B took it as penalties, B Alerted and explained it as "no agreement, but 90% of the people in the games A and I play in play this as take-out"...I'd look *really hard* for use of UI (because it looks *really suspicious*). I'd probably still rule against A-B. But I'm not sure. Michael. *)Ok, if I were the pro. That's a laugh. Oh, and given the games I play in, the response would actually be "90% of the people we would consider playing with in the games we play in play it as..." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 02:24:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:24:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA28580 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:24:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from p9as10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.155] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11gsLk-0001Ai-00; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:24:28 -0700 Message-ID: <000401bf2160$c84b0540$9b8a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "David Burn" Cc: "ton kooijman" Subject: Re: the year zero Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:13:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 28 October 1999 07:50 Subject: Re: the year zero > . For myself, I >hope to celebrate a new millennium in 2007, when Law 25B is removed >from the statute books. > >David Burn >London, England > +=+ It has obviously put years on you! But I hope very much the WBFLC will exercise its discretion to review a number of law problems well in advance of the ten year limit. I shall be looking to discuss such matters with ton in advance of Bermuda, with a desire that we at least map out in Bermuda a planned approach and a timetable for relieving the worst aspects of the legacy ton has inherited. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 02:29:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:29:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe21.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.125]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA28606 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:29:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 22999 invoked by uid 65534); 28 Oct 1999 16:28:34 -0000 Message-ID: <19991028162834.22998.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.112.140] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <199910221841.TAA24723@tempest.npl.co.uk><012e01bf1d8e$e922d980$fb095e18@san.rr.com><19991027144631.44650.qmail@hotmail.com><050101bf20fe$bd2713a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: L21B Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:56:12 -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 I think what you say is better contained: "If because of MI you have made a wrong call you may change your last call without penalty. If you do so then your LHO [if applicable] may change his without penalty but subject to L16C2 restrictions [I am somewhat taken aback to notice that possible lead penalties are not part of the ruling]. Further, if it is too late to change a subject call and your side was consequently damaged, you are entitled to an adjusted score. If there is a problem please call me at the end of the hand." So, after defeating 3S by two tricks the postmortem proceeds: If I had overcalled in the second round we would have bid and made 4H because the finesse must be taken and it works. We were damaged by the failure to alert and need to tell the director. To me, this does not seem to be fair play and it is difficult to imagine that rules have been constructed that require it to be so. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 6:37 AM Subject: Re: L21B > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >No thoughts are revealed to the rest of the table, what are you talking > >about? The TD just asks, when applicable, "Do you want to change your > >call because of the infraction?" > > Since the point of the article was something else I expect Marvin was > just a little casual. > > "If you have probably made the wrong call because of the > misinformation [failure to alert, etc] then you may change it: do wou > wish to do so?" > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands > before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 02:50:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:50:37 +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 CAA28644 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:50:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.78.220.177]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19991028164949.XPPG20426@default>; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:49:49 +0000 Message-ID: <002401bf1fd1$1c46ef60$b1dc4e0c@default> From: "JOAN GERARD" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Dick Cummings Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:42:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF1FAF.90F3D520" 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_0021_01BF1FAF.90F3D520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Peter, Thank you so much for leeting everyone know about the death of Dick = Cummings. Iwas actually afraid to open your e-mail when I saw the title. I feared = the worst and indeed it was the worst.=20 The Bridge World has lost one of it's most respected and cared for = players. Both Ron and I are deeply saddened by this loss. Sincerely, Joan Gerard -----Original Message----- From: Peter Gill To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 11:12 PM Subject: Dick Cummings =20 =20 Dick Cummings died on Wednesday morning, aged 67. =20 After 20 years of success at World Championships including two=20 Bronze Medals, Dick Cummings and Tim Seres were described by=20 Alan Truscott at the 1981 Bermuda Bowl as "the world's most=20 experienced pair".=20 =20 Dick edited the WBF News, served on WBFand ABF ACs, wrote a daily bridge column for twenty years until yesterday and taught bridge, but most of all he set a shining example of the standards of behaviour expected at the bridge table. He will be greatly missed by the bridge community. =20 =20 His son-in-law Peter Newman contibutes to BLML =20 Peter Gill Australia. ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF1FAF.90F3D520 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Peter,
Thank you so = much for=20 leeting everyone know about the death of Dick Cummings.
Iwas actually afraid to open your e-mail when I saw = the title.=20 I feared the worst
and indeed it was the worst.
The Bridge World has lost one of it's most respected = and cared=20 for players. Both
Ron and I are deeply saddened by this loss. = Sincerely, Joan=20 Gerard
 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Peter Gill <GillP@bigpond.com>
To:=20 Bridge Laws Mailing List <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 Wednesday, October 27, 1999 11:12 PM
Subject: Dick=20 Cummings

Dick Cummings died on Wednesday morning, = aged=20 67.
 
After 20 years of success at World = Championships=20 including two
Bronze Medals, Dick Cummings and Tim = Seres were=20 described by
Alan Truscott at the 1981 Bermuda Bowl as = "the=20 world's most
experienced pair".
 
Dick edited the WBF News, served on = WBFand ABF ACs, = wrote
a daily bridge column=20 for twenty years until yesterday and=20 taught
bridge, but = most of all=20 he set a shining example of the = standards
of behaviour expected at=20 the bridge table. He will be greatly
missed by the bridge community.  =
 
His son-in-law Peter Newman contibutes to = BLML
 
Peter Gill
Australia.
 
------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF1FAF.90F3D520-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 03:08:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:08:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA28703 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:08:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11gt2V-000Gzm-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:08:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:40:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L21B 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: > >>No thoughts are revealed to the rest of the table, what are you talking >>about? The TD just asks, when applicable, "Do you want to change your >>call because of the infraction?" > > Since the point of the article was something else I expect Marvin was >just a little casual. > > "If you have probably made the wrong call because of the >misinformation [failure to alert, etc] then you may change it: do wou >wish to do so?" > I use "You get your call back if, had you known this [reference to the infraction] , you'd probably have done something different". [NB subjunctive!] 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 Oct 29 03:09:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:09:01 +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 DAA28708 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:08:52 +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 11gt2W-000LW1-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:08:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:33:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991027143520.00a70c90@mail.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <4.2.0.58.19991027143520.00a70c90@mail.earthlink.net>, Brian Baresch writes snip endplay cards > >I lead a small club from dummy; when RHO follows low, I play the jack and >claim five of the last six tricks. Opps look for a second, nod and put >their cards away. buy them a drink after the game and ask them if they have team-mates for the next Nationals :)) > >I don't get a lot of little thrills from the game, so I want to keep that >one. One of my dreams is to claim a slam against an expert pair on a double >squeeze at or before trick five. Someday ... This happened about 15 years ago in a strong game in North London. We were playing 8 board sets and I'd executed a double squeeze on the first board. On the fourth board or so I was studying dummy at trick 3 thinking about the second double squeeze of the set. LHO (who had the hand counted by now) said "well played" and put his hand away. I looked puzzled and he said "John, you've demonstrated that you can play squeezes and if you're thinking (which is highly unusual for me) you're about to play another and it will work." I didn't even claim it - it was conceded! ah well, we were good players then. It may well have been Rigal (who played in the game) who did this. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 03:37:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:37:18 +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 DAA28840 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:37:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:37:04 -0700 Message-ID: <003201bf216a$f22dc8c0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <38185BEA.52FC4919@txdirect.net> Subject: Re: List Departure Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:36:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As I remember, the combination of letters s u b s c r i b e, when concatenated, triggers the majordomo software to flag the message for Markus's attention, which is no doubt annoying. If I am right, it would be better to just say we are leaving the list instead of using a taboo term. Marv (Marvin L. French) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Albert \"BiigAl\" Lochli" To: Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 7:21 AM Subject: List Departure > i am taking some holidays - so i have unsubscribed > for the next two weeks. Killer sends regards. > > -- > 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 Oct 29 03:47:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:19:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA28762 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:18:53 +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 11gtCE-000O61-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:18:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 18:17:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: psyches in Italy MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We had a couple of Italian Pairs in last Friday. One of the Juniors psyched a 4441 NT (with correct points) against them. The Italians seemed to think that this wasn't permitted. I explained it was OK under EBU regulations, and there was no fielding. But I seem to recall that the Continentals have some odd regulations in this area. eg I recall there's a minimum requirement for a pre-empt in France So.. does Italy have a restriction on psyching NTs with singletons? just curious btw I told the Junior it's not cricket to psyche at the visitors, and that this in no way bans him from doing so - it's far stronger than that!. 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 Oct 29 04:09:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 04:09:20 +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 EAA28923 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 04:09:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:09:05 -0700 Message-ID: <004a01bf216f$6acd7740$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com><3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:06:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >Points to consider: > > >4. It is another (very old) thread, but I can't help but take a shot at > >your puritanical refusal to ask about the meaning of the double. Whether > >the explanation would have helped or not I can't say, but it couldn't have > >hurt, and there is _nothing illegal_ about it. > > Of course it is illegal. You are asking a question for the sole > purpose of telling partner something. > > > L73B1 says: > > Partners shall not communicate through > the manner in which calls or plays are > made, through extraneous remarks or > gestures, or through questions asked or > not asked of the opponents, through > alerts and explanations given or not > given to them. > > > I am surprised that you think you are allowed to communicate with oyur > partner "through questions asked of your opponent". > > Thank you, David, right on. I can't resist reiterating the fact that L20F1 and L20F2 require that a player ask for an explanation of the opposing auction, not for the explanation of a particular call. This very unpopular law is not generally observed, but its intent was confirmed (weakly, but confirmed) by the WBFLC's Lille Interpretation #9. Although the WBFLC warned that violation of the Law, a "marginal infringement" (which is like being a little pregnant), brings an increased risk of UI and concomitant relevance of L16, it failed to mention the relevance of L73B1. I like L20F1/L20F2, but they will probably be revised in the future to permit the unlimited questioning of individual calls, to accord with common practice. Since questions that violate L73B1 are never penalized, and misuse of the UI seldom detected or penalized, we can look forward to the continuation of these unethical practices. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 04:43:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:51:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA28665 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:51:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.16] (math-16.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.16]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10081 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:50:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:48:58 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jack Kryst writes: >When declarer leads from the wrong hand may either opponent accept the >lead (assuming no prior discussion or agreement) for the purpose of: >1. misleading declarer as to his holding in the lead suit or; >2. suggesting to partner what his holding may be. > >May a partnership have a prior understanding regarding the conditions >under which a declarer's LOOT will be accepted or rejected? > >16C1 would appear to authorize any information for the NOS if the action >is withdrawn or am I reading it too broadly? You may not have a *conventional* understanding over an opponent's infraction. For example, you may not agree to accept a trump lead from the wrong hand only with an odd number of trumps. L16C1 allows you to draw any natural inference as long as you do not have a conventional agreement; if declarer starts trumps in the wrong hand and you accept, you probably do not have a holding which was exposed to a finesse because of the lead from the wrong hand. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 05:49:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:50:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA28652 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:50:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.16] (math-16.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.16]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10073 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:50:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.19991027225418.007a5630@mail.wcnet.org> <04ea01bf20aa$a3574d40$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D7@xion.spase.nl> <04ea01bf20aa$a3574d40$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <6RcahtBj14F4EwWq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.6.32.19991027225418.007a5630@mail.wcnet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:44:24 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: >David J. Grabiner wrote: >>At 12:40 AM 10/28/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>You must play in a club of very high standard. I often have a claim >>contested with the words "play it out" when my statement is something like, >>"I'll draw the last trump, throw two clubs on dummy's hearts, and my hand >>will be good." > Perhaps I was unclear: there have been attempts to make me play the >hand out, but never because they are challenging the claim. I tell them >I am not allowed to, of course. WHen I make a claim like the one above, I am often challenged by a defender who says, "I have the king of clubs." I refuse to play the hand out, of course, and tell the defender that if he disputes the claim, he should call the director. Often I get a director call from a defender who couldn't translate "I'll throw two clubs on dummy's hearts" to "you won't get your club king." From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 05:49:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 05:49:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA29198 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 05:49:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from salsa (salsa.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.112]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA03464 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:49:36 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991029084937.00955980@chance.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@chance.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:49:37 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Re: inadvertently condoning Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We seem to have moved on to: >>His (P. Carter) later comments did remind me of an event from some >>months ago in which I was personall involved. >> >>S W N E >>1h p 2nt * >>p >> >>* No chance to call >> >>Here partner's pass was a brain malfunction attempting to alert my 2n. If >>partner only realises this *after* a director call has woken him up to what >>happened -- is it still inadvertent? And DWS wrote (with some of my original text embedded): > > What did he intend at the moment he passed: he intended to alert. So >it is a L25A case and may be changed. > >>(In the normal sense of English, the pass was clearly inadvertent, >>something else entirely was intended. But in the sense of the law?) > > The Law allows you to change an inadvertent call - and this one is. > I'm shocked and amazed :) The law refers specifically to "substituting" another call for an inadvertent one. And an alert is not a call. --------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Albert Ph: (64)-03-479-7778 Senior Teaching Fellow Fax: (64)-03-479-8427 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 06:03:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:29:48 +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 DAA28787 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:29:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:29:27 -0700 Message-ID: <002601bf2169$e1a17200$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:27:07 -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 My apologies for a misformatted reply I sent within this thread, just carelessness. If everyone formatted as Grattan does, with very short lines, formatting replies would be less of a problem. That's no excuse for me, and I promise to do better in the future. Herman De Wael wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > The absence of > > an understanding is itself an understanding that calls will have the > > default meaning (when there is one, as in this case), which the > > partnership must employ. > > > > Yes, but above you said that the default meaning would have > been take-out. Didn't say that. Takeout is a common meaning, but penalty is the default meaning per regulation. > The default meaning in a particular environment is not > necessarily the non-alertable one (which is a continent-wide > constant in your case). You misunderstand me. In ACBL-land, if a call is not Alerted then it cannot legally have an Alertable meaning as an agreement. By "default" meaning I mean the one that will be assumed in the absence of an Alert, not necessarily a commonly accepted meaning. If you fail to Alert even a very common call that is Alertable, that is MI. The opponents should not have to ask if you have failed to Alert. If every call is to be questioned, we might as well do away with the Alert Procedure. > > An acceptable alternative is for the pro to Alert the double, > > explain with no waffling that it is non-penalty, and accept the > > consequences. > > That is the dWs. It will produce exactly the same ruing as > the first one you mentioned. Don't understand that. The first ruling, a wrong one, said no damage because there was no partnership understanding, which there was (implicitly). If the pro had Alerted the double as non-penalty (which she assumed), there would have been no ruling. If the pro is wrong, and the double is penalty, then the Alert is MI. Too bad. "I take it to mean," "I think it means," "Alert, I think," etc., are unacceptable statements in a pair game, IMO. The information is worthless and UI to the bidder besides. I want to know what your agreements are, so just state them plainly. If you think it means something, then that is an implicit partnership agreement, and I don't care if you are not sure of it. If you really have no idea, then there is no agreement, so say so: "No agreement." > > One consequence might be redress for us if she is > > wrong and we are damaged, or a PP if she is right, for failure to > > properly disclose a partnership agreement on the cc. (No warning, > > for a pro/TD) > > > > I would not give a PP for getting a situation wrong. I said a PP if she is right, not if she is wrong. If she is wrong, there is no partnership agreement, and people are allowed to make mistakes as to agreements without getting a PP. MI yes, PP no. > I would not even give a PP for telling the meaning in a voice > that suggests you are certain, when it turns out you are > wrong nevertheless. Yes, but if you are right, you have an implicit partnership agreement that the double is non-penalty. There is a place to mark that understanding on the ACBL cc, and failure of a pro/TD player to do so is pure laziness. When a pro plays with a client, it is very important that the cc be completed properly, and there is no excuse (except for a last-minute partnership) for not doing that. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 06:15:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:51:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA28657 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:50:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.16] (math-16.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.16]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10041 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:50:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:29:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: careless v irrational Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (Sent personally by mistake; this should have gone to bridge-laws.) David Burn writes: >(1) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AKJ of a suit, >then it would be careless / irrational to start with the jack, and a >defender with the singleton queen should / should not be awarded at >least one trick. Irrational, because it is common for a declarer to say, "The clubs are now good" when he knows there are clubs out but the missing spots must fall. It's also normal to run a suit from the top. >(2) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AK2 of a suit, >then it would be careless / irrational to start with the deuce, and a >defender with a card remaining in the suit should / should not be >awarded at least one trick. Irrational, as above. >(3) If a declarer claims when his last five cards are AKQJ2 of a suit, >then it would be careless / irrational to start with the deuce, and a >defender with a card remaining in the suit should / should not be >awarded at least one trick. Irrational, as above. >(4) If a declarer claims in this position: > >K >32 >2 >None > >AQ2 >A >None >None > >then it would be careless / irrational to cash HA first, and a >defender with a doubleton heart or any diamond should / should not be >awarded at least one trick. I would say irrational; as long as the entries are clear, declarer should be allowed to use his entries properly. >(4a) As (4), and assuming that it would not be irrational to cash HA >first, then it would be careless / irrational not to play SA next, and >declarer should be awarded the rest of the tricks unless an opponent >has three spades remaining. This depends on the situation. If declarer *has* cashed the HA, he now has to decide whether dummy or his own hand is more likely to have winners. If it is obvious that dummy does not have winners (which appears to be the case here), then it is irrational not to overtake. >(5) If a declarer claims in this position: > >KJ10 >None >None >None > >A98 >None >None >None > >with the lead in the South hand, announcing that he will play West for >SQ, then it would be careless / irrational not to cash SA first, and >East with the singleton queen should / should not be awarded at least >one trick. This is not a valid claim. I don't think a conditional claim is valid anyway, although it does sometimes happen: "I'll take ten tricks and give up the SQ unless it drops, in which case I have eleven." Unless spades are trump, declarer cannot claim in this position because he doesn't know how many tricks he will lose if he loses the finesse. If he does, I think forgetting to cash the SA is careless. >(6) If a declarer claims in this position: > >2 >5432 >None >None > >AKQJ >K >None >None > >then it would be careless / irrational to lead HK to the next trick, >and a defender with HA should / should not be awarded a heart trick >and any other winners that his side could then cash. Careless. If declarer thinks all five of his cards are good, he is equally likely to lead the HK or the SA first. >(7) If a declarer claims in this position: > >2 >5432 >None >None > >AKQJ >None >2 >None > >then it would be careless / irrational to lead D2 to the next trick, >and a defender with any diamond should / should not be awarded a >diamond trick and any other winners that his side could then cash. Careless, assuming that declarer could reasonably have expected the D2 to be good. If it is clear from the earlier play that the D2 couldn't be good (declarer would have had to lose track of eight diamonds, not just one), then it might be assumed that declarer intended to claim four tricks, not five. >(8) If a declarer claims in this position: > >2 >5432 >None >None > >KQJ10 >A >None >None > >then it would be careless / irrational to lead SK to the next trick, >and a defender with SA and four minor-suit cards should / should not >be awarded the rest of the tricks. Careless. This is the reverse of (6); declarer could lead either suit first. >(9) If a declarer claims when his last two cards are 42 of a suit, >then it would be careless / irrational to lead the deuce, and a >defender with the singleton 3 should / should not be awarded at least >one trick. Irrational, by the principle of (1)-(3). >(10) If a declarer claims in this position: > >KQ >432 >None >None > >AJ92 >A >None >None > >announcing that he has "four spade tricks and one heart", then it >would be careless / irrational to lead HA to the next trick, and a >defender with S10876 should / should not be awarded the last trick. Irrational; declarer can be assumed to see his entries when they are obvious. >(11) As (10), and assuming that it would not be irrational to lead HA >first, it would be careless / irrational not to overtake SQ at trick >11 if S10 did not appear at trick 10, and a defender with a doubleton >heart should / should not be awarded at least one trick. Careless if a doubleton heart is possible, otherwise irrational. >(12) As (11), but assuming that S10 did appear on the first round of >the suit, it would be careless / irrational not to overtake SQ at >trick 11, and a defender with a doubleton heart should / should not be >awarded at least one trick. Always irrational; declarer must be allowed to run a suit which he can see is not blocked. >(13) As (10), but assuming that declarer announces that he has "the >ace of hearts and four spade tricks". I don't consider the order in which tricks are stated to necessarily represent the order in which they will be taken; declarer often faces a hand and enurmeates the suits in the order in which they appear on the table. >>From this kind of exercise, one could imagine creating a set of basic >principles on the lines of: "if a claimer asserts that the rest of his >hand is high, it is [or "is not"] rational for him to play his >remaining cards in any order". Or: "if the opponents object to a claim >on the grounds that the position is blocked, then it is [or "is not"] >rational for a claimer to attempt to overcome the blockage by >overtaking or crashing a certain winner". Would these principles be >useful? I don't know - but they would have enabled us to sort out just >about every contested claim that has so far appeared on BLML. > >David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 06:23:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:23:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29306 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:23:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegqd.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.67.77]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18922 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:23:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:20:35 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:45 PM 10/28/99 +0100, David S wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>Points to consider: > >>4. It is another (very old) thread, but I can't help but take a shot at >>your puritanical refusal to ask about the meaning of the double. Whether >>the explanation would have helped or not I can't say, but it couldn't have >>hurt, and there is _nothing illegal_ about it. > > Of course it is illegal. You are asking a question for the sole >purpose of telling partner something. > > > L73B1 says: > > Partners shall not communicate through > the manner in which calls or plays are > made, through extraneous remarks or > gestures, or through questions asked or > not asked of the opponents, through > alerts and explanations given or not > given to them. > > > I am surprised that you think you are allowed to communicate with oyur >partner "through questions asked of your opponent". I think no such thing, and have stated no such thing. I think that I am allowed to ask the opponents what their bids mean, when it is my turn to call. Period. Marvin presumed a meaning for the opponent's bid, and guessed right. But the Laws do not obligate him to rely on his intuition in these circumstances, and he is under no legal compunction to do so. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 06:31:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:31:47 +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 GAA29323 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:31:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:29:57 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991027225418.007a5630@mail.wcnet.org> References: <6RcahtBj14F4EwWq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <04ea01bf20aa$a3574d40$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3D7@xion.spase.nl> <04ea01bf20aa$a3574d40$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:28:49 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:54 PM -0400 10/27/99, David J. Grabiner wrote: >You must play in a club of very high standard. I often have a claim >contested with the words "play it out" when my statement is something like, >"I'll draw the last trump, throw two clubs on dummy's hearts, and my hand >will be good." So do I - usually the "play it out" interrupts my claim statement, then I call the director, and I get an indignant "he didn't make a complete statement!" :-( I've taken to ignoring such requests, completing my statement, and then telling opps they can call the director if they wish to contest. Rude of me, perhaps. :-) 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/AwUBOBiyn72UW3au93vOEQJeIQCfXw3p4k1GKAMOBmbCA/aC126hXesAoJN6 l3ayPoRtUt97qjxotbpcvJGa =fNrB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 06:33:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:33:33 +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 GAA29338 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:33:28 +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 HAA14314; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:32:34 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:31:55 +1100 Message-ID: <01BF21DF.AD6208D0.mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au> From: Mark Abraham To: "'David J. Grabiner'" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:31:54 +1100 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 Friday, October 29, 1999 4:44 AM, David J. Grabiner [SMTP:grabiner@wcnet.org] wrote: > > David Stevenson writes: > > >David J. Grabiner wrote: > >>At 12:40 AM 10/28/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > >>You must play in a club of very high standard. I often have a claim > >>contested with the words "play it out" when my statement is something like, > >>"I'll draw the last trump, throw two clubs on dummy's hearts, and my hand > >>will be good." > > > Perhaps I was unclear: there have been attempts to make me play the > >hand out, but never because they are challenging the claim. I tell them > >I am not allowed to, of course. > > WHen I make a claim like the one above, I am often challenged by a defender > who says, "I have the king of clubs." I refuse to play the hand out, of > course, and tell the defender that if he disputes the claim, he should call > the director. Often I get a director call from a defender who couldn't > translate "I'll throw two clubs on dummy's hearts" to "you won't get your > club king." The obvious corollary is to choose your opponents before you claim :-) Often playing in clubs it is quicker to play the hand until you have only tops remaining in one hand. Occasionally you get away with an undisputed "Crossruffing the rest" but never if they still have an ace they would like to cash! Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 06:51:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:51:41 +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 GAA29426 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:51:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:49:51 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <053201bf2103$2b3d0120$fb095e18@san.rr.com> References: <029d01bf214b$d024ce00$b1dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:41:39 -0400 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:07 AM -0400 10/28/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >I love to claim myself, especially before actually executing a squeeze, >or when endplaying an opponent. However, I have come to realize that I >have wasted more time by claiming in violation of my proposed >regulation, much more time, than has been saved by such claims. No. That defenders can't see that your claim is valid is their fault, not yours. 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/AwUBOBi3Sb2UW3au93vOEQKkawCfb7EActkxw/mjiB3P353ONVUMtOcAn0jH eYCVp6Eed5u6sesZpBNbg0Ku =XhGg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 07:00:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:00:31 +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 HAA29465 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:00:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:00:09 -0700 Message-ID: <007601bf2187$4f346a80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: L21B Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:57:13 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: John (MadDog) David Stevenson wrote: > >Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >>No thoughts are revealed to the rest of the table, what are you > >>talking about? The TD just asks, when applicable, > >> "Do you want to change your call because of the infraction?" > > > > Since the point of the article was something else I expect Marvin was > >just a little casual. Yes, true. > > > > "If you have probably made the wrong call because of the > >misinformation [failure to alert, etc] then you may change it: do wou > >wish to do so?" Exactly right. Be specific, use the wording of the Laws. Or better yet, read the law from the book, even if it requires some interpretation for a player to understand it. > > I use "You get your call back if, had you known this [reference to the > infraction] , you'd probably have done something different". [NB > subjunctive!] chs john Beautiful grammar, but I believe not quite right, at least when a permissible change of call is related to MI. Technically speaking the only basis for changing a call after MI is that the MI was the probable reason for changing it (i.e., not for another reason). If a player would not have changed the call because of the MI, then s/he can't change it because after the MI some other happening (e.g., an opponent's gasp of surprise at the MI) created a desire to change it. That is how I read L21B1, which says "as a result of the misinformation," not "subsequent to the misinformation." In other words, if a TD is pretty sure that the call would not have been changed on the basis of the MI alone, he may rule that a change was not justified. I think he should make this clear during his instruction, adding, "If you change your call, make sure that the misinformation is your only reason for doing so." An extreme example is often a good way to explain a point: A player with a bust hand makes the last pass after a 6S bid, while noticing that the opponents are glaring at each other. Before leading, he is told that a Blackwood response has been misexplained. Had he known that before the pass, he might well have doubled on "table feel," perfectly legal. However, he can't change the pass to a double when given the opportunity to do so, because it would not be "as a result of the misinformation." At least, that's the way I see it. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 07:43:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:03:50 +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 GAA29258 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:03:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([212.1.138.151]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 7977500 ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 19:55:49 -0000 Message-ID: <000201bf217f$51606be0$978a01d4@default> From: "magda.thain" To: Subject: Re: the year zero Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:54:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You get a yellow card for this, Norm. mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 28 October 1999 07:13 Subject: Re: the year zero >>-even when >you were young, I'll bet. > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 07:59:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:59:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29559 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:59:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11gxZX-000963-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:59:04 +0000 Message-ID: <1pFW+6Ap6FG4Ew8u@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:33:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <3.0.3.32.19991028023048.007efde0@pop.ihug.co.nz> <000701bf20a1$f4db4ee0$a9e6abc3@davidburn> <3.0.1.32.19991028085808.0071cdf0@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991028085808.0071cdf0@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >The ACBL has an established guideline that I agree with and have followed >in my answers. It says that when a claimer states that his hand is high, >it is not irrational to play his remaining suits in any order, but it is >irrational not to play any given suit from the top down. The trouble is that this is reasonable with AK2, AKJ, AKQJ2 and so on. But do you really play "from the top down" when cashing three winners [as you believe them to be] when holding J95? Now, some people would definitely not lead the J. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 07:59:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:59:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29551 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:59:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11gxZS-00095g-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:58:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:46:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <3.0.3.32.19991028023048.007efde0@pop.ihug.co.nz> <000701bf20a1$f4db4ee0$a9e6abc3@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000701bf20a1$f4db4ee0$a9e6abc3@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Oh, quite so. I do not mean to suggest that the "list" be exhaustive >and cover all possible cases; that would not be a practicable task. >But there are a fair number of positions which might be termed "basic" >of which we can say: it would be irrational for *any* class of player >to do X or not to do Y, despite what he may have asserted in his >statement of claim. > >> The problem with the words careless and irrational are that they are >not quantifiable. > >Exactly. But what I would like to do is take some steps to quantify >them, since I believe that this would serve a useful purpose. What I >suggest is a poll, in Bridge World style, from which we might be able >to make a start on "the list". If you like, you could try the >questions below (assuming a notrump contract in all cases, and that >declarer is on lead having made no statement of claim unless otherwise >stated): > >(1) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AKJ of a suit, >then it would be careless / irrational to start with the jack, and a >defender with the singleton queen should / should not be awarded at >least one trick. Irrational = should not. >(2) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AK2 of a suit, >then it would be careless / irrational to start with the deuce, and a >defender with a card remaining in the suit should / should not be >awarded at least one trick. Irrational = should not. >(3) If a declarer claims when his last five cards are AKQJ2 of a suit, >then it would be careless / irrational to start with the deuce, and a >defender with a card remaining in the suit should / should not be >awarded at least one trick. Irrational = should not. Note that I do not believe (1)-(3) can be extended to J95, QT84 and the like, which it is careless not irrational to cash in any order. >(4) If a declarer claims in this position: > >K >32 >2 >None > >AQ2 >A >None >None > >then it would be careless / irrational to cash HA first, and a >defender with a doubleton heart or any diamond should / should not be >awarded at least one trick. Irrational = should not. This I consider one of the clearest positions of all. what do you think declarer means otherwise? >(4a) As (4), and assuming that it would not be irrational to cash HA >first, then it would be careless / irrational not to play SA next, and >declarer should be awarded the rest of the tricks unless an opponent >has three spades remaining. Irrational = should not. I don't like the premise, however. >(5) If a declarer claims in this position: > >KJ10 >None >None >None > >A98 >None >None >None > >with the lead in the South hand, announcing that he will play West for >SQ, then it would be careless / irrational not to cash SA first, and >East with the singleton queen should / should not be awarded at least >one trick. Careless = should. I think this is very different from the example recently. Playing East for the queen is very different since it seems so obvious to go across with a top card in this suit. Assume the above suit with an outside entry to dummy, for example. It is careless to run the 9: it is irrational to go to dummy with the outside entry and run the 10. >(6) If a declarer claims in this position: > >2 >5432 >None >None > >AKQJ >K >None >None > >then it would be careless / irrational to lead HK to the next trick, >and a defender with HA should / should not be awarded a heart trick >and any other winners that his side could then cash. Now I think it depends on the claim. If declarer says "I get four spade tricks" then it is irrational to lead the HK. If declarer says "The rest are mine" then it is careless to lead the HK. >(7) If a declarer claims in this position: > >2 >5432 >None >None > >AKQJ >None >2 >None > >then it would be careless / irrational to lead D2 to the next trick, >and a defender with any diamond should / should not be awarded a >diamond trick and any other winners that his side could then cash. Same answer as (6). If declarer is cashing four tricks, then irrational = should not. If declarer is cashing five tricks, then careless = should. >(8) If a declarer claims in this position: > >2 >5432 >None >None > >KQJ10 >A >None >None > >then it would be careless / irrational to lead SK to the next trick, >and a defender with SA and four minor-suit cards should / should not >be awarded the rest of the tricks. Again, we still need to know what he is claiming. If he is claiming one trick, then it is irrational to lead the SK. If he is claiming four or five tricks it is normal to lead the SK, certainly not irrational. >(9) If a declarer claims when his last two cards are 42 of a suit, >then it would be careless / irrational to lead the deuce, and a >defender with the singleton 3 should / should not be awarded at least >one trick. Careless = should. >(10) If a declarer claims in this position: > >KQ >432 >None >None > >AJ92 >A >None >None > >announcing that he has "four spade tricks and one heart", then it >would be careless / irrational to lead HA to the next trick, and a >defender with S10876 should / should not be awarded the last trick. Irrational = should not. >(11) As (10), and assuming that it would not be irrational to lead HA >first, it would be careless / irrational not to overtake SQ at trick >11 if S10 did not appear at trick 10, and a defender with a doubleton >heart should / should not be awarded at least one trick. Irrational = should not. Not keen on the premise, though. >(12) As (11), but assuming that S10 did appear on the first round of >the suit, it would be careless / irrational not to overtake SQ at >trick 11, and a defender with a doubleton heart should / should not be >awarded at least one trick. Irrational = should not. >(13) As (10), but assuming that declarer announces that he has "the >ace of hearts and four spade tricks". Irrational = should not. >From this kind of exercise, one could imagine creating a set of basic >principles on the lines of: "if a claimer asserts that the rest of his >hand is high, it is [or "is not"] rational for him to play his >remaining cards in any order". Or: "if the opponents object to a claim >on the grounds that the position is blocked, then it is [or "is not"] >rational for a claimer to attempt to overcome the blockage by >overtaking or crashing a certain winner". Would these principles be >useful? I don't know - but they would have enabled us to sort out just >about every contested claim that has so far appeared on BLML. I think this sort of exercise is useful. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 08:38:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:38:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29677 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:38:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA18229 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 18:37:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA17790 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 18:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 18:38:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910282238.SAA17790@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: careless v irrational X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > But do you really play "from the top down" when cashing three winners > [as you believe them to be] when holding J95? Now, some people would > definitely not lead the J. I hope we agree that claims are judged on the basis of 'careless v irrational' (as it says in the subject), not on the basis of what some players will actually do if forced to play the hand out. Yes, players _will_ play irrationally if given the chance, but so what? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 09:33:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:33:52 +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 JAA29817 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:33:43 +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 11gz2i-0000hj-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:33:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:55:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 12:45 PM 10/28/99 +0100, David S wrote: >>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>>Points to consider: >> >>>4. It is another (very old) thread, but I can't help but take a shot at >>>your puritanical refusal to ask about the meaning of the double. Whether >>>the explanation would have helped or not I can't say, but it couldn't have >>>hurt, and there is _nothing illegal_ about it. >> >> Of course it is illegal. You are asking a question for the sole >>purpose of telling partner something. >> >> >> L73B1 says: >> >> Partners shall not communicate through >> the manner in which calls or plays are >> made, through extraneous remarks or >> gestures, or through questions asked or >> not asked of the opponents, through >> alerts and explanations given or not >> given to them. >> >> >> I am surprised that you think you are allowed to communicate with oyur >>partner "through questions asked of your opponent". > >I think no such thing, and have stated no such thing. I think that I am >allowed to ask the opponents what their bids mean, when it is my turn to >call. Period. Marvin presumed a meaning for the opponent's bid, and guessed >right. But the Laws do not obligate him to rely on his intuition in these >circumstances, and he is under no legal compunction to do so. Marvin stated specifically that if he had asked it would have been for partner's benefit not his own. That means he is not allowed to ask. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk//qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 09:33:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:33:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29806 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:33:37 +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 11gz2i-0000hk-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:33:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:07:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: inadvertently condoning References: <199910281529.LAA17354@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910281529.LAA17354@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Michael Albert wrote: >MA>Here partner's pass was a brain malfunction attempting to alert my 2n. If >MA>partner only realises this *after* a director call has woken him up to what >MA>happened -- is it still inadvertent? > >> From: David Stevenson >> What did he intend at the moment he passed: he intended to alert. > >Yes, in this case the pass was inadvertent. > >To expand slightly, there are two main issues in normal L25A cases. >Was the first call _inadvertent_? And was there an attempt to change >it _without pause for thought_? > >The first question refers to the player's state of mind at _the instant >the call was made_. Subsequent events do not matter, although they >may provide evidence of what the state of mind was at the relevant >instant. The second question refers to the time between the player's >_discovery_ of the call and the attempt to change. > >> So it is a L25A case and may be changed. > >Alas, this isn't so clear, although I would like it to be so. L25A >allows substituting an "intended call" for an inadvertent call. It >says nothing about substituting an alert, which isn't a call. (David >seems to have found another situation where the instant a call is >"made" is critical to the ruling.) Once the pass is made, I don't see >how it can be cancelled and the alert substituted, although it would be >consistent with the spirit of the laws if that were the ruling. I >would not criticize a TD who ruled this way, but I would like to be >shown how it is legal. It is an obvious interpretation. The EBU has said so. I see no conceivable reason why any other authority would say otherwise. We are trying to rule a game here. We do not want ludicrous interpretations because of some slight mis-wording of a Law. We know that the Law book does not deal with opening leads out of turn unless partner has *also* led in turn. Does that mean we do not deal with opening leads out of turn? No, of course not. We accept an ovious interpretation of the relevant Law. BLML may go into depth sometimes, and even aggravate some of its reader's with seemingly futile arguments. They do no harm so long as we keep our aim in the right direction. Trying to prove that some totally stupid interpretation is actually the correct reading of a Law is unproductive, and should not be what BLML is for. Can we not just accept that if declarer makes an inadvertent call L25A allows it to be changed? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk//qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 09:33:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:33:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29804 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:33:32 +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 11gz2i-0000hl-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:33:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:10:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: >Jack Kryst writes: > >>When declarer leads from the wrong hand may either opponent accept the >>lead (assuming no prior discussion or agreement) for the purpose of: >>1. misleading declarer as to his holding in the lead suit or; >>2. suggesting to partner what his holding may be. >> >>May a partnership have a prior understanding regarding the conditions >>under which a declarer's LOOT will be accepted or rejected? >> >>16C1 would appear to authorize any information for the NOS if the action >>is withdrawn or am I reading it too broadly? > >You may not have a *conventional* understanding over an opponent's >infraction. For example, you may not agree to accept a trump lead from the >wrong hand only with an odd number of trumps. Perhaps you could quote an authority for this assertion. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk//qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 09:33:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:33:46 +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 JAA29805 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:33:37 +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 11gz2t-0000hi-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:33:27 +0000 Message-ID: <7BmVEuBnhNG4Ewe9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:12:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyches in Italy References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >We had a couple of Italian Pairs in last Friday. One of the Juniors >psyched a 4441 NT (with correct points) against them. The Italians >seemed to think that this wasn't permitted. I explained it was OK under >EBU regulations, and there was no fielding. But I seem to recall that >the Continentals have some odd regulations in this area. > >eg I recall there's a minimum requirement for a pre-empt in France > > So.. does Italy have a restriction on psyching NTs with singletons? Yes. there was a thread on RGB which discussed this where Alex Martelli explained that his girlfriend could not think of an opening bid with a 1=4=4=4 for some logical reason that escapes me [she is a near- beginner] so opened 1NT and duly got A-. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk//qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 09:42:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:42:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29866 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:42:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-2-19.access.net.il [213.8.2.19] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA17014 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:42:24 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3818DF6E.BF7E9D00@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:42:38 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Non-Random Deals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One of our top players -Michael Barel asked me the following question (he put it on brg.rec.games list too..) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I am interested in your opinions about a special format of tournaments that became popular around here (Israel) recently. Several times a year our federation has a simultaneous pairs tournament, that is played in the same time in all the clubs and scored as MP across the field. What bothers me about it , is that the hands for these tournament are not really random. Actually the process is like this : they deal 4 sets of random deals boards 1-40 , and then someone , usually a well known player, selects 1 of each 4 deals with the same number i.e. 1 of the 4 hands numbered 1 etc... He does this by selecting the one that looks "most interesting". Most often these are slam hands, or highly competitive ones with wild distributions. What do you think about this procedure of selecting hands for a tournament? Can it be considered legitimate bridge? Surely the known odds for distributions change when the hands are selected like this. Perhaps one should use a different bidding system in such a tournament, better equipped for slam bidding? Would using a system like this be profitable? or ethical? Michael Barel ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ My basic opinion is that the real aim of this arrangement is "business": Play interesting hands , publish clever and special commentaries , etc..... I'll be very thankfully to get your opinions and answers to the questions asked about the possibility to use a "specific oriented bidding system" and the ethical position... Tx Dany Dany From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 10:09:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:09:33 +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 KAA29919 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:09:24 +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 BAA99205 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:08:40 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <00d901bf21a3$e02a07e0$d1307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: careless V irrational Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:23:48 +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 A great idea David - the results of which should prove most interesting and informative. I offer my answers to your poll. David Burn wrote: >Exactly. But what I would like to do is take some steps to quantify them, since I believe that this would serve a useful purpose. What I suggest is a poll, in Bridge World style, from which we might be able to make a start on "the list". If you like, you could try the questions below (assuming a notrump contract in all cases, and that declarer is on lead having made no statement of claim unless otherwise stated): (1) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AKJ of a suit, then it would be careless / irrational to start with the jack, and a defender with the singleton queen should / should not be awarded at least one trick. ***irrational, should not (2) If a declarer claims when his last three cards are AK2 of a suit, then it would be careless / irrational to start with the deuce, and a defender with a card remaining in the suit should / should not be awarded at least one trick. ***irrational, should not (3) If a declarer claims when his last five cards are AKQJ2 of a suit, then it would be careless / irrational to start with the deuce, and a defender with a card remaining in the suit should / should not be awarded at least one trick. ***irrational, should not (4) If a declarer claims in this position: K 32 2 None AQ2 A None None then it would be careless / irrational to cash HA first, and a defender with a doubleton heart or any diamond should / should not be awarded at least one trick. ***irrational, should not (4a) As (4), and assuming that it would not be irrational to cash HA first, then it would be careless / irrational not to play SA next, and declarer should be awarded the rest of the tricks unless an opponent has three spades remaining. ***irrational, should not (5) If a declarer claims in this position: KJ10 None None None A98 None None None with the lead in the South hand, announcing that he will play West for SQ, then it would be careless / irrational not to cash SA first, and East with the singleton queen should / should not be awarded at least one trick. ***careless, should (6) If a declarer claims in this position: 2 5432 None None AKQJ K None None then it would be careless / irrational to lead HK to the next trick, and a defender with HA should / should not be awarded a heart trick and any other winners that his side could then cash. ***careless, should (7) If a declarer claims in this position: 2 5432 None None AKQJ None 2 None then it would be careless / irrational to lead D2 to the next trick, and a defender with any diamond should / should not be awarded a diamond trick and any other winners that his side could then cash. ***careless, should (8) If a declarer claims in this position: 2 5432 None None KQJ10 A None None then it would be careless / irrational to lead SK to the next trick, and a defender with SA and four minor-suit cards should / should not be awarded the rest of the tricks. ***careless, should (9) If a declarer claims when his last two cards are 42 of a suit, then it would be careless / irrational to lead the deuce, and a defender with the singleton 3 should / should not be awarded at least one trick. ***careless, should (10) If a declarer claims in this position: KQ 432 None None AJ92 A None None announcing that he has "four spade tricks and one heart", then it would be careless / irrational to lead HA to the next trick, and a defender with S10876 should / should not be awarded the last trick. ***irrational, should not (11) As (10), and assuming that it would not be irrational to lead HA first, it would be careless / irrational not to overtake SQ at trick 11 if S10 did not appear at trick 10, and a defender with a doubleton heart should / should not be awarded at least one trick. ***careless, should (12) As (11), but assuming that S10 did appear on the first round of the suit, it would be careless / irrational not to overtake SQ at trick 11, and a defender with a doubleton heart should / should not be awarded at least one trick. ***careless, should (13) As (10), but assuming that declarer announces that he has "the ace of hearts and four spade tricks". ***careless, should Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 11:14:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:14:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29998 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:14:25 +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 11h0cL-000BIK-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:14:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:43:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <199910282238.SAA17790@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910282238.SAA17790@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> But do you really play "from the top down" when cashing three winners >> [as you believe them to be] when holding J95? Now, some people would >> definitely not lead the J. > >I hope we agree that claims are judged on the basis of 'careless v >irrational' (as it says in the subject), not on the basis of what some >players will actually do if forced to play the hand out. Yes, players >_will_ play irrationally if given the chance, but so what? It is not irrational to play the 9 from J95. It is irrational to play the 2 from AK2. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk//qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 11:43:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:43:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00184 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:43:36 +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 11h14g-000CdG-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:43:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:42:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >David J. Grabiner wrote: >>Jack Kryst writes: >> >>>When declarer leads from the wrong hand may either opponent accept the >>>lead (assuming no prior discussion or agreement) for the purpose of: >>>1. misleading declarer as to his holding in the lead suit or; >>>2. suggesting to partner what his holding may be. >>> >>>May a partnership have a prior understanding regarding the conditions >>>under which a declarer's LOOT will be accepted or rejected? >>> >>>16C1 would appear to authorize any information for the NOS if the action >>>is withdrawn or am I reading it too broadly? >> >>You may not have a *conventional* understanding over an opponent's >>infraction. For example, you may not agree to accept a trump lead from the >>wrong hand only with an odd number of trumps. > > Perhaps you could quote an authority for this assertion. > Proddy and I have discussed on a number of occasions that the acceptance of an infraction logically must show a minimum hand for such action. Does this fall into the area of "general bridge knowledge" or is it an illegal agreement. Once discussed I don't see how it is possible for us not to *know* it. We alert it, by the way. 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 Oct 29 12:00:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:00:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe3.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.107]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA00220 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:00:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 11052 invoked by uid 65534); 29 Oct 1999 01:59:28 -0000 Message-ID: <19991029015928.11051.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.254.114.178] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <199910281529.LAA17354@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: inadvertently condoning Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:27:24 -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, October 28, 1999 6:07 PM Subject: Re: inadvertently condoning > Steve Willner wrote: > >Michael Albert wrote: > >MA>Here partner's pass was a brain malfunction attempting to alert my 2n. If > >MA>partner only realises this *after* a director call has woken him up to what > >MA>happened -- is it still inadvertent? > > > >> From: David Stevenson > >> What did he intend at the moment he passed: he intended to alert. > > > >Yes, in this case the pass was inadvertent. > > > >To expand slightly, there are two main issues in normal L25A cases. > >Was the first call _inadvertent_? And was there an attempt to change > >it _without pause for thought_? > > > >The first question refers to the player's state of mind at _the instant > >the call was made_. Subsequent events do not matter, although they > >may provide evidence of what the state of mind was at the relevant > >instant. The second question refers to the time between the player's > >_discovery_ of the call and the attempt to change. > > > >> So it is a L25A case and may be changed. > > > >Alas, this isn't so clear, although I would like it to be so. L25A > >allows substituting an "intended call" for an inadvertent call. It > >says nothing about substituting an alert, which isn't a call. (David > >seems to have found another situation where the instant a call is > >"made" is critical to the ruling.) Once the pass is made, I don't see > >how it can be cancelled and the alert substituted, although it would be > >consistent with the spirit of the laws if that were the ruling. I > >would not criticize a TD who ruled this way, but I would like to be > >shown how it is legal. > > It is an obvious interpretation. The EBU has said so. I see no > conceivable reason why any other authority would say otherwise I think that the ACBL application [paper 2-4-97] does a better job than DWS in expressing the view: 'First, in L25A the phrase "until his partner makes a call" allows a player to change an inadvertency even if LHO has called. .. When you deem inadvertent, the first call did not happen.' Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 > Emails to bluejak on OKB > Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk//qu_npoo.htm > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 13:26:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:26:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from iac20.navix.net (iac20.navix.net [207.91.5.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA00360 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:25:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from navix.net (cras36p42.navix.net [205.242.158.45]) by iac20.navix.net (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA30807 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:17:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3819126A.4697A58B@navix.net> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:20:10 -0500 From: Norman Hostetler Reply-To: nh35422@navix.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: the year zero -Reply References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Aavo Heinlo wrote: > Sorry to enter your discussion. > After the 31. Dec of year 1 b.c. came > 1. Jan of year 1 a.c. > There was never a year 0 whatever in > calendar system in use. > Consequences are evident. Of course, there never was a year 1 B.C., either, the modern method of counting years not being adopted for many centuries thereafter. The Roman calendar was dated from the presumed founding of Rome. By the way, 1 A.D. would not have begun on January 1, either. Until the adoption of the Gregorian calander reforms (16th-18th C. in Europe), the day the year changed was March 25, the vernal equinox under the Julian calander. Hence one sees statements like "George Washington was born on February 22, 1732/3." February occured at the end of 1732 under the Julian calander, but, after Great Britain adopted the calendar reforms in the 1750's, the same February came at the beginning of 1733. Norm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 14:47:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:47:37 +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 OAA00482 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:47:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-204-32.s540.tnt3.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.204.32]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA20122 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:47:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:46:53 -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: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 6:44 AM Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > An inexperienced partner and I are playing against an experienced > > client and pro who are a first-time partnership. In a low partscore > > battle, everyone having bid something, client reopens the bidding > > (after two passes) with a double of my partner's 2H. The double is > > not Alerted by the pro (also a TD), which means it has to be a > > penalty double according to the ACBL Alert Procedure (partner has > > previously acted, and it is not an ordinary negative double). Pro > > takes the double out to her spade suit, and everyone passes. We get > > a bad result because partner, intimidated by the double of her suit, > > does not compete further with fair values to do so.Can't remember > > the exact auction, something like: > > > > 1C-1D-1H-1S; P-P-2H-P; P-Dbl-P-2S, all pass. > > > > When I see the dummy, it is obvious that the double was meant as "do > > something," not penalty. I call the TD, and pro explains that she > > did not Alert the double because they had no agreement about it. She > > guessed that it was not a penalty double, but it was just a guess, > > not a partnership agreement, (In the circles these two play in, > > such an agreement is common but not universal) > > > > Well, it was meant as take-out, it was interpreted as > take-out, and it was explained as penalty ? > And you wouldn't want to rule against such a thing ? The double was not explained in any way whatsoever. It was simply not alerted. The failure to alert meant that the partnership had no agreed alertable meaning for the call. That does not stop them from playing bridge, or even from playing partner for a call that would have been alertable had there been a partnership agreement, if they are led to that conclusion by general bridge knowledge and logic. > > > The TD ruled no redress, there was no understanding, etc. > > > > Wrong ruling. > > The TD should have ruled according to the footnote : barring > evidence to the contrary (and not even the pro offered any > such), the explanation is to be considered MI, not misbid. > There was no MI or misbid here, nor reason to presume either. This was nothing more than the absence of agreement. Had the pro offered a speculation about what the double might have meant, there might have been MI. As it is, the pro quite correctly did not pretend there was an agreement where none existed. This was a first time partnership. Do you really think that they discussed the meaning of a balancing double of a balancing bid? Do you think that they had run into this situation on one of their previous boards? The chances of there being an agreement, explicit or implicit, on this auction is almost nil. Step back and take a look at the bridge. LHO overcalled 1D, not 1H. Do you really think he suppressed a heart suit to get a diamond bid in? So, he has at most four hearts (OK, perhaps five really bad ones on a freakish hand). Now, exactly how much of a stack do you need for a two level penalty double, particularly sitting in front of declarer, with dummy marked with side values for entries? IMO something like AQTx is not enough- I'd expect leads from dummy to shred this holding. Best bet is to pass and not reveal the position, if you're going to defend. My guess is that the large majority of players outside of the novice game would not play this double for penalties. The pro took her best guess as to the meaning of the double, and got it right. Just for the sake of argument, let's presume MI (which I don't for a minute believe actually existed). Marv's partner has competed twice in hearts, the second time in the balancing seat. My guess is a five or six card heart suit, with about 9 points (Am I close?). The argument is being made that she could have competed again if told the double was not penalty. She has heard her partner pass both of her bids and already balanced once; just how many times do you expect her to bid the same cards? Was she talked out of rebidding a seven card suit? The final pass was made by Marv, who, from his original post, **knew what the double meant**, alert or no alert. Unless Marv's partner had been underbidding a game invitational hand, the final decision of whether or not to compete further was Marv's, not hers. And Marv was not misinformed. > > There is something wrong about that ruling, but I am not sure what > > the pro should have done. Many will say that her proper course was > > to Alert and explain "Although we have no partnership agreement > > about the double, a non-penalty meaning is so usual that I am taking > > it for that." No, that could have led to a MI ruling. When there is no agreement, the proper course is to make your best guess and keep playing bridge. If asked, the proper description of the call is "no agreement". Anything else leads to a UI, and possible MI ruling. [large section snipped due to complete disbelief on my part that the discussion was even occurring, particularly when it got into PPs] Good grief. This was a first time partnership in a balancing situation. Both the pro and Marv were able to work out the meaning of the call through logic. The pair didn't have an agreement on the low-level balancing double, nor would a first time partnershp normally be expected to have such an agreement (unless they spent a great deal of time preparing for their first session). No alert required. No speculation about the meaning of the double required. No bridge lessons to the opponents required. If asked about the meaning of the double, the correct response is "no agreement". This hand establishes a meaning for the double for the partnership, so they should alert it in the future (at least in the ACBL) The TD got the ruling exactly right. First time partnerships do not have agreements in many situations. A pair should not be penalized simply because it's the first time they've come across a particular situation. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 15:17:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:17:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00545 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:17:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.99.57.193] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11h4PG-0003C5-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:16:54 +0100 Message-ID: <00b501bf21cc$d47d7520$9315063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3819126A.4697A58B@navix.net> Subject: Re: the year zero -Reply Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:17:00 +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 > By the way, 1 A.D. would not have begun on January 1, either. Until the > adoption of the Gregorian calander reforms (16th-18th C. in Europe), the > day the year changed was March 25, the vernal equinox under the Julian > calander. Hence one sees statements like "George Washington was born on > February 22, 1732/3." February occured at the end of 1732 under the > Julian calander, but, after Great Britain adopted the calendar reforms > in the 1750's, the same February came at the beginning of 1733. > > Norm There are those among us who would argue that the "next millennium" will not begin until January 1, 2001. These same people might or might not argue that the year 1970 was part of the decade known as the "Swinging Sixties". The immunity of people who argue about such matters from swift and awful death is a striking proof of God's mercy to them that hate Him. But what has this to do with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge? Unless, of course, it is proposed that the penalty for an undoubled vulnerable undertrick should henceforth be 99 points. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 15:49:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:49:49 +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 PAA00609 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:49:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-252-47.s301.tnt1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.252.47]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id BAA18881 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:49:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000c01bf21d1$56773e40$2ffc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 01:47:36 -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: Hirsch Davis To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 12:46 AM Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Whoops. Got to correct my own error. Comes from posting too late at night. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 6:44 AM > Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? > > > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > 1C-1D-1H-1S; P-P-2H-P; P-Dbl-P-2S, all pass > Just for the sake of argument, let's presume MI (which I don't for a > minute believe actually existed). Marv's partner has competed twice in > hearts, the second time in the balancing seat. My guess is a five or six > card heart suit, with about 9 points (Am I close?). The argument is being > made that she could have competed again if told the double was not penalty. > She has heard her partner pass both of her bids and already balanced once; > just how many times do you expect her to bid the same cards? Was she talked > out of rebidding a seven card suit? The final pass was made by Marv, who, > from his original post, **knew what the double meant**, alert or no alert. > Unless Marv's partner had been underbidding a game invitational hand, the > final decision of whether or not to compete further was Marv's, not hers. > And Marv was not misinformed. > The final pass was Marv's partner, not Marv. Nevertheless, there's still nothing for her to say . She has bid twice, and heard Marv pass three times since his opening. She has already balanced once. Exactly how high is she supposed to go? IMO a takeout double would make competing even less attractive than a penalty double, oddly enough. The penalty double would at least place the heart holding in front of hers. If the double is takeout, it means Marv's LHO is likely short of hearts. She knows Marv doesn't have much in hearts, or he would have raised at some point. That puts the heart holding squarely behind her, with Marv's RHO. This could make a three level contract rather ugly. As near as she can tell, the hand is a misfit. There's no place for her to compete, without help from Marv. The contention that she could have kept bidding if the double had been explained as takeout simply doesn't hold water. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 15:56:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:56:37 +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 PAA00640 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:56:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.64] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11h51K-000BSj-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:56:15 +0100 Message-ID: <004401bf21d2$4a25c020$405108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 06:54:32 +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: 29 October 1999 02:58 Subject: Re: careless v irrational >Steve Willner wrote: >>I hope we agree that claims are judged on the basis of 'careless v >>irrational' (as it says in the subject), not on the basis of what some >>players will actually do if forced to play the hand out. Yes, players >>_will_ play irrationally if given the chance, but so what? > +=+ Re-phrasing the question. The laws distinguish between 'irrational' and 'normal'. There is no definition of 'irrational', so we use the dictionary definition. ['irrational' = utterly illogical, absurd]. So the question to be answered : "In bridge terms, is the action utterly illogical, absurd?" 'Yes' = irrational 'No' = normal. Now personally, if I had to find a Q in a two-way finesse, knew which way I would take the finesse and there were no other factors, I would be deeply insulted if I failed to play the appropriate top card first and was not held to be a raving lunatic, in bridge terms. If I claimed without stating the line plainly to include the cashing of the top card I would expect partner to look for a substitute at an early opportunity. If I claimed at all before I had actually played the cards in the suit, with an unlocated card to be found, I would account it an extremely inferior action by my personal standards. The thread has become absurdly long, nearly as long as some others. Can anyone sum up for my notebook? Yes, I know you *all* can - but objectively? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 17:05:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:05:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA00810 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:04:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.211] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11h65j-000Ck9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:04:51 +0100 Message-ID: <002001bf21db$df8a4b00$d35108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: inadvertently condoning Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:03:56 +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: 29 October 1999 01:03 Subject: Re: inadvertently condoning >> > > It is an obvious interpretation. The EBU has said so. I see no >conceivable reason why any other authority would say otherwise. > +=+ "for he himself has said it, and it's greatly to his credit" +=+ > > We are trying to rule a game here. We do not want ludicrous >interpretations because of some slight mis-wording of a Law. We know >that the Law book does not deal with opening leads out of turn unless >partner has *also* led in turn. +=+ Oh? Does not 'any lead out of turn' include an opening lead? +=+ >Does that mean we do not deal with >opening leads out of turn? No, of course not. We accept an ovious >interpretation of the relevant Law. +=+ Is that 'odious'? Perhaps it's obvious.+=+ > > BLML may go into depth sometimes, and even aggravate some of its >reader's with seemingly futile arguments. They do no harm so long as we >keep our aim in the right direction. Trying to prove that some totally >stupid interpretation is actually the correct reading of a Law is >unproductive, and should not be what BLML is for. > > Can we not just accept that if declarer makes an inadvertent call L25A >allows it to be changed? > +=+ Subject to the conditions in 25A I would think the answer has to be yes; but we have in some way tangled the Law on changing a call with the *Regulation* on alerting, and we have to look to that regulation to learn what we must do about an alert and its timing, or not learn. I think if you place an alert card and suddenly find it is green, your priority is to change the 'call' and making the alert follows after (but before LHO has done anything). Would the Director not treat your quick withdrawal of the green card as an attempt to change the call, for a different call? I think I must have misunderstood something about this thread? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 17:47:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:47:39 +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 RAA00915 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:47:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA20875; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:47:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JHPANP7926003FX9@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:44:34 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:46:27 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:45:55 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: the year zero, or 2007? To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, David Burn Cc: ton kooijman Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C280@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Grattan Endicott [mailto:gester@globalnet.co.uk] > Verzonden: donderdag 28 oktober 1999 13:13 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; David Burn > CC: ton kooijman > Onderwerp: Re: the year zero > > > > Grattan Endicott ================================ > "When the elephant becomes aggressive, > don't argue .... go!" - 'A Secretary's Handbook'. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 28 October 1999 07:50 > Subject: Re: the year zero > > > > > . For myself, I > >hope to celebrate a new millennium in 2007, when Law 25B is removed > >from the statute books. > > > >David Burn > >London, England > > > +=+ It has obviously put years on you! But > I hope very much the WBFLC will exercise > its discretion to review a number of law > problems well in advance of the ten year limit. > I shall be looking to discuss such matters with > ton in advance of Bermuda, with a desire that > we at least map out in Bermuda a planned > approach and a timetable for relieving the > worst aspects of the legacy ton has inherited. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > It is a well known development that people loose their wild hairs when getting older. Most men loose their hair anyway. Though I still have some hair, but I avoid talking with people taller than I am, I tend to become less progessive than I was for many years. I need more proof for changes to be improvements than before. And changes in our laws should be based on a philosophy how to apply the laws; what kind of purpose we want to give our laws? The editorials of 'The Bridge World' during the last months deal with these issues and are very interesting to read. May be we could ask Jeff Rubens to give them free for this discussion group, or visit the website: www.bridgeworld.com (hopefully it is there). The main issue concerning 25b is the question whether to allow a player to change a non-inadvertent call, not demanding from him to play 4 diamonds in a 3-1 fit due to a black-out. My personal opinion is that we should allow that, but with paying a price. Which makes 25b an acceptable law for me, though the wording could be easily improved. This approach seems also in line with the scope expressing that the laws do restore equity more than they penalize infractions. In my opinion everybody who agrees with that approach should join me in allowing to substitute 4hearts for a pass after partner's cuebid of 4diamonds, even when the pass in itself is not an infraction. It certainly isn't bridge either. But we have to realise that the consequences of more emphasis on equity could be big. Probably the penalties for insufficient calls are to heavy and nobody can convince me that the penalties for revokes are based on the idea to restore equity (yes 64C does, but that is the exeption!). My hope is that we are able to redefine some major leading principles for our laws, only after which we start reconstruction. So, be patient David and deliver your highly appreciated visions on the aim of our laws. Question: When Edgar introduced this famous average minus/real score approach in 25b my objection was that this could put the innocent side in a disadvantaged position, because their opponents might choose for a lucky approach against the field, knowing they can not receive more than A-, so not loose more than A- for example. My impression then was that this aspect did not get enough attention. We work with new L25B for more than 2 years now. Is there any experience supporting the different views? Is there any theoretical support for my fear? ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 18:37:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 18:37:44 +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 SAA01087 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 18:37:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.54] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11h7XM-000Fiv-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:37:28 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01bf21e8$cff480e0$365208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:35:18 +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: 29 October 1999 03:19 Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>David J. Grabiner wrote: >>>Jack Kryst writes: >>> >>>> >>>>16C1 would appear to authorize any information for the NOS if the action >>>>is withdrawn or am I reading it too broadly? > +=+ 16C1 authorizes (for the NOS) information derived from the action that has been withdrawn. It does not authorize information deriving from the action of the NOS in causing the action to be withdrawn.+=+ > >>>You may not have a *conventional* understanding over an opponent's >>>infraction. For example, you may not agree to accept a trump lead from the >>>wrong hand only with an odd number of trumps. >> >> Perhaps you could quote an authority for this assertion. >> +=+ It is clearly a special partnership understanding and must be disclosed to opponents per 40B. I do not see anywhere in the laws anything that authorizes the side with this understanding to base a call or play on it. Is there a regulation? +=+ > >Proddy and I have discussed on a number of occasions that the acceptance >of an infraction logically must show a minimum hand for such action. >Does this fall into the area of "general bridge knowledge" or is it an >illegal agreement. Once discussed I don't see how it is possible for us >not to *know* it. We alert it, by the way. chs john > +=+ WBF CoP: "Authorization does not follow automatically from a lack of prohibition." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 19:02:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:02:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01164 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:01:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from p6as02a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.98.107] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11h7um-0000Wa-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:01:41 -0700 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:08:47 +0100 Message-ID: <01bf21ed$35338d80$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: Thursday, October 28, 1999 12:26 PM Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? >Anne Jones wrote: >> >> >> I am of the opinion that this double should be alerted. When asked >> the explanation should be "It could be take out or penalties. We >> have no agreement" > >Wrong - they were on the same track all the time. I don't >believe they had no agreement. They were uncertain if they >had an agreement, but since they did in fact have the same >idea, I rule "agreement". If they told me they had no agreement, and I knew they understood the meaning of this, then I would believe them. > >> When a bid may mean one of two things, and one of those things >> is alertable, then I think you should alert. > >No you should not. By alerting, you have described it in >the "alertable" manner. If the opponents ask nothing, and >it turns out it is the natural meaning, you have >misinformed. That is not what I have been taught. > >The how will you tell them what it means ? Which you DO >have to tell them. >And don't say that you genuinely not know. That is no >excuse. Michael Farebrother has commented far more eloquently than I would presume to attempt. > >> The problem with this is that once you have alerted it, the opps have >> reason to believe that you have discussed the call and that it is >> alertable. Hence you are telling them that with no questions they >> can assume it is not for penalties. > >Which indeed it is. DWS says this presumption is incorrect. An alert says "it's worth asking" > >So you are of the opinion that this situation was allright ? >A meant it as take-out, B took it as take-out, B explained >it as penalties and you are NOT ruling against A-B ? >Sorry Anne, not where I am directing. B did not say it's for penalties. B said they had no agreement. Is B not allowed to guess right in a situation where they have no agreement? Where I direct he is This is such a basic concept that I am surprised that we disagree. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 19:09:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:09:41 +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 TAA01193 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:09:24 +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 LAA01927 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:11:20 +0200 Message-ID: <3819641E.C756FF93@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:08:46 +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: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. References: <029d01bf214b$d024ce00$b1dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert pressed the following keys: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 1:07 AM -0400 10/28/99, Marvin L. French wrote: > >I love to claim myself, especially before actually executing a squeeze, > >or when endplaying an opponent. However, I have come to realize that I > >have wasted more time by claiming in violation of my proposed > >regulation, much more time, than has been saved by such claims. > > No. That defenders can't see that your claim is valid is their fault, not > yours. > > Regards, > > Ed The fact that it rains from time to time is also not your fault but you get wet just the same. Yes, it is the defenders' fault but the time is lost anyway. If the opponents cannot see this "straightforward non-simultaneous guard squeeze without the count" then no matter what you think of them they _will_ dispute the claim, they _will_ call the TD, then again it _will_ take some time to convince them that they will score no tricks for their cA, hK and the trump remaining. By the time the whole thing ends the rest of the tables will probably by playing the trick two of the next round or have to wait just just for your table to finish. It's a lot quicker to play the hand out and then ... not to let them post-mortem ("why did you bare the D king, partner?"). :)) -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Fri Oct 29 19:59:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:59:37 +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 TAA01355 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:59:15 +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 MAA12403 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:01:50 +0200 Message-ID: <3819694C.8C2434AC@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:30:52 +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: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article <4.2.0.58.19991027143520.00a70c90@mail.earthlink.net>, Brian > Baresch writes > > snip endplay cards > > > > >I lead a small club from dummy; when RHO follows low, I play the jack and > >claim five of the last six tricks. Opps look for a second, nod and put > >their cards away. > > buy them a drink after the game and ask them if they have team-mates for > the next Nationals :)) > > > >I don't get a lot of little thrills from the game, so I want to keep that > >one. One of my dreams is to claim a slam against an expert pair on a double > >squeeze at or before trick five. Someday ... > > This happened about 15 years ago in a strong game in North London. We > were playing 8 board sets and I'd executed a double squeeze on the first > board. On the fourth board or so I was studying dummy at trick 3 > thinking about the second double squeeze of the set. LHO (who had the > hand counted by now) said "well played" and put his hand away. I looked > puzzled and he said "John, you've demonstrated that you can play > squeezes and if you're thinking (which is highly unusual for me) you're > about to play another and it will work." I didn't even claim it - it > was conceded! ah well, we were good players then. > > It may well have been Rigal (who played in the game) who did this. > > chs john > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk The other side of the coin. A couple of years ago a friend of mine was a declarer against two international level experts. At trick five his LHO put his cards back to the board which meant he saw no chance for tricks for his side. The other opponent analyzed something for a couple of seconds, nodded and did the same thing. Well, this was a small tournament and the pros didn't have to play their best bridge but my friend could hardly believe what was going on considering against whom he was playing. At this stage of the play he still had some problems to solve and finding the queen of trumps was the smallest of them! -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Fri Oct 29 20:00:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:00:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01361 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:59:44 +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 MAA12413 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:01:52 +0200 Message-ID: <38196FF1.D5D6FFF5@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:59:13 +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: the year zero, or 2007? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C280@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: Grattan Endicott [mailto:gester@globalnet.co.uk] > > Verzonden: donderdag 28 oktober 1999 13:13 > > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; David Burn > > CC: ton kooijman > > Onderwerp: Re: the year zero > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > ================================ > > "When the elephant becomes aggressive, > > don't argue .... go!" - 'A Secretary's Handbook'. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Burn > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Date: 28 October 1999 07:50 > > Subject: Re: the year zero > > > > > > > > > . For myself, I > > >hope to celebrate a new millennium in 2007, when Law 25B is removed > > >from the statute books. > > > > > >David Burn > > >London, England > > > > > +=+ It has obviously put years on you! But > > I hope very much the WBFLC will exercise > > its discretion to review a number of law > > problems well in advance of the ten year limit. > > I shall be looking to discuss such matters with > > ton in advance of Bermuda, with a desire that > > we at least map out in Bermuda a planned > > approach and a timetable for relieving the > > worst aspects of the legacy ton has inherited. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > It is a well known development that people loose their wild hairs when > getting older. Most men loose their hair anyway. Though I still have some > hair, but I avoid talking with people taller than I am, I tend to become > less progessive than I was for many years. I need more proof for changes to > be improvements than before. And changes in our laws should be based on a > philosophy how to apply the laws; what kind of purpose we want to give our > laws? The editorials of 'The Bridge World' during the last months deal with > these issues and are very interesting to read. May be we could ask Jeff > Rubens to give them free for this discussion group, or visit the website: > www.bridgeworld.com (hopefully it is there). > > The main issue concerning 25b is the question whether to allow a player to > change a non-inadvertent call, not demanding from him to play 4 diamonds in > a 3-1 fit due to a black-out. My personal opinion is that we should allow > that, but with paying a price. Which makes 25b an acceptable law for me, > though the wording could be easily improved. This approach seems also in > line with the scope expressing that the laws do restore equity more than > they penalize infractions. In my opinion everybody who agrees with that > approach should join me in allowing to substitute 4hearts for a pass after > partner's cuebid of 4diamonds, even when the pass in itself is not an > infraction. It certainly isn't bridge either. But we have to realise ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why? Chess have a very simple rule to deal with a change of play, inadvertent or not: "piece touched=piece played". I read chess periodics from time to time and I haven't seen any single objection to this rule on the grounds that if someone "inadvertently" puts his queen on a field where it's taken on the very next move then "this is no longer chess" (and a single play in chess weighs a lot more that one single bid in bridge; compare the number of moves and the number of bids/plays in a chess and bridge tournament). There are very good reasons to introduce such a simple rule in the Law: 1° it simplifies making a ruling: no headache in trying to determine whether the call was inadvertent/careless, made in with/without hesitation. This is a vital issue in bridge where the Director isn't present at the table and has to make a ruling based on what players tell him. I have seen pretty often scenes like that: - ... and it took him about 5 seconds to change his bid! - 5 seconds? The was no hesitation at all! Why not lay this burden off the TD/AC? 2° it makes the rulings consistent: no more huge swings decided mainly on _who_ is directing or _who_ is in the AC. Just have a look at the revoking regulations in the Law. They work brilliantly: rulings are simple and consistent. Just add a few lines differentiating between the "inadvertent" and "advertent" revokes and you'll see what will happen. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Fri Oct 29 20:17:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:17:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from jaguars.cableinet.net (jaguars-int.cableinet.net [193.38.113.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA01424 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:17:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14619 invoked from network); 29 Oct 1999 08:56:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.146.140) by jaguars with SMTP; 29 Oct 1999 08:56:45 -0000 Message-ID: <381973E0.D8C9D8C0@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:16:01 +0100 From: masterit Reply-To: masterit@cableinet.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: directing Subject: inad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Does that mean we do not deal with >opening leads out of turn? No, of course not. We accept an ovious >interpretation of the relevant Law. +=+ Is that 'odious'? Perhaps it's obvious.+=+ neither....ds was refereing to the little-known sheeps egg. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 20:22:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:22:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01449 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:22:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:21:59 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA27213 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:21:55 +0200 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Non-Random Deals Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:11:43 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F3DB@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" 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) In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A0244688376434C9@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >One of our top players -Michael Barel asked me the following question >(he put it on brg.rec.games list too..) > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >I am interested in your opinions about a special format of >tournaments that became popular around here (Israel) recently. Several >times a year our federation has a simultaneous pairs tournament, >that is played in the same time in all the clubs and scored as MP across >the field. > >What bothers me about it , is that the hands for these tournament are >not really random. Actually the process is like this : they deal 4 >sets of random deals boards 1-40 , and then someone , usually a well >known player, selects 1 of each 4 deals with the same number i.e. 1 of >the 4 hands numbered 1 etc... He does this by selecting the one that >looks "most interesting". Most often these are slam hands, or highly >competitive ones with wild distributions. > >What do you think about this procedure of selecting hands for a >tournament? >Can it be considered legitimate bridge? > >Surely the known odds for distributions change when the hands are >selected like this. Perhaps one should use a different bidding system >in such a tournament, better equipped for slam bidding? >Would using a system like this be profitable? or ethical? > > Michael Barel > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >My basic opinion is that the real aim of this arrangement is "business": > >Play interesting hands , publish clever and special commentaries , >etc..... > >I'll be very thankfully to get your opinions and answers to the >questions asked about the possibility to use a "specific oriented >bidding system" and the ethical position... > >Tx >Dany Interesting question. First, concerning the legality. Law 6 describes how a board should be shuffled and dealt. Law 6E suggests alternate shuffling/ dealing options, and then ends with 6E4: The Director may require a different method of (pre)dealing. In fact, the only requirement is that a board must be shuffled and dealt before use! So this "shuffling" method is at least legal. Now the question: should you adopt such a selection method? I think it is a very dangerous thing to do. Players quickly discover these things and generally don't like it. I remember reading about an invitational tournament long ago, where the hands were selected in a similar way, to look "interesting". Halfway during the tournament you could hear a player mutter: "I can't wait to see what smart move we are supposed to perform next." Another example: Here in the Netherlands, we have an annual tournament for the average club player (strong players are barred from participation). For this tournament, the hands are selected and commented centrally, and then distributed to clubs wishing to participate. Nowadays these hands are randomly dealt, but in the past these hands were selected to be "interesting" for the class of players participating. And so you could see an old lady land into some contract, win the lead and immediately play a spade to the ace, dropping the singleton king behind. "Why did you play that way?" she was asked. Now the comment stated that you should play the ace to avoid three losers in case the king is singleton off. The lady simply said: "On this tournament the king is always singleton off..." In short: people don't play their normal game, but wonder at each hand: "What diabolical distribution have they constructed this time?" In general, people quickly discover that there is something special about the deals. They anticipate that fact (see above), and then you have the curious phenomenon that players have information about hands that they never saw before and nobody told them about. Apart from that, players don't like "having to be smart". So you see, I would vote against it. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 20:22:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:22:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from jaguars.cableinet.net (jaguars-int.cableinet.net [193.38.113.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA01451 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:22:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 15468 invoked from network); 29 Oct 1999 09:02:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.146.141) by jaguars with SMTP; 29 Oct 1999 09:02:16 -0000 Message-ID: <381975DA.1A576FAC@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:24:26 +0100 From: masterit Reply-To: masterit@cableinet.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: directing Subject: inad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Does that mean we do not deal with >opening leads out of turn? No, of course not. We accept an ovious >interpretation of the relevant Law. +=+ Is that 'odious'? Perhaps it's obvious.+=+ neither....ds was refereing to the little-known sheeps egg. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 20:45:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:45:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01534 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:44:38 +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 MAA21389 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:46:46 +0200 Message-ID: <38197A7B.3D1D2943@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:44:11 +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: Non-Random Deals References: <3818DF6E.BF7E9D00@zahav.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't like the idea. In Poland we have a monthly simultaneous tournament (like EPSON). People suspect that the hands are selected in this fashion. I can see what plays they make on the mere assumption that "you know, in _this_ tournament you can expect some odd things to happen so I had to bid 3S/lead the 2C" etc. As the matter of fact the deals are computer generated and are _random_ but there is no way to convince many players to play normally. And looking for a trap in every board produces some weird results. This all happens because people only _suspect_ that the deals are selected. I can only imagine what would happen if the players were _sure_ that some wise owl eliminated some "uninteresting" deals. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Fri Oct 29 21:12:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:12:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01642 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:12:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveifs.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.252]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA09243 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:12:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:09:44 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:55 PM 10/28/99 +0100, David S wrote: >>>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>I think no such thing, and have stated no such thing. I think that I am >>allowed to ask the opponents what their bids mean, when it is my turn to >>call. Period. Marvin presumed a meaning for the opponent's bid, and guessed >>right. But the Laws do not obligate him to rely on his intuition in these >>circumstances, and he is under no legal compunction to do so. > > Marvin stated specifically that if he had asked it would have been for >partner's benefit not his own. That means he is not allowed to ask. No, it doesn't. I realize that my previous response was too glib, so I appreciate the opportunity to be more precise. As you have correctly pointed out, L73B1 makes it illegal to "communicate...through questions asked or not asked of the opponents". I take this quite literally. Where the _asking_ of the question is communicative (typically, "partner, I am intensely interested in this suit should you happen to be on lead."), it is certainly improper and illegal. But where the question is purely interrogative, it elicits information _from the opponents_ to which you and your partner are legally entitled, and conveys nothing, in and of itself, from you to your partner. My strict reading of this language is reinforced, it seems to me, by the phrase "or not asked". What the heck does that mean? I suppose it must refer to a system of communication, based on either long partnership experience or on explicit pre-arrangement, in which both asking and not asking convey coded meanings. And of course, that is completely improper and illegal. I know that this interpretation is not universally shared, and indeed may even be the minority view in this forum. In fact, any interpretation which can elicit joint support from you and Marvin should be considered carefully (and not only for the novelty of the thing). But even if nobody else on BLML accepts my view, I take no small comfort from the knowledge that this was the interpretation both advocated and practiced by Edgar Kaplan, as has been pointed out in the past. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 21:21:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:21:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com [139.134.5.180]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA01695 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:21:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ha653621 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:11:35 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-223-236.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.236]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Colossal-MailRouter V2.5 17/1534835); 29 Oct 1999 21:11:35 Message-ID: <031e01bf228d$26b82a40$ecdf868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:13:41 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >Can anyone sum up for my notebook? This may help. Apologies to anyone I've misquoted: In "On the Wisdom of..." Grattan described a claim. Opinion was divided so David Burn suggested Guidelines for contested claims be written. Support for this idea came from Martin Sinot and Peter Gill. Marv French suggested an alternative of not claiming until all winners are in one hand; this was unpopular with DWS and Brian Baresch. Roger Pewick prefers that "if there is one chance that can succeed it is not irrational"; that idea has not attracted post. Pat Carter renamed the thread and was more concerned with quantifying the two words in the title, with support from Kojak. Pat and others were also concerned about the ability and experience of the claimer/claimant. David Burn produced a list of 13 questions suitable for a poll. Replies came from Steve Willner, Anne Jones, Eric Landau who followed the ACBL gudeline, DWS who thinks the ACBL guideline is flawed, David Grabiner, Feargal O'Boyle and Martin Sinot who suggested a change to Question 5. Barry Wolk stated: "the standard ACBL approach for these rulings is that, if claimer says all his cards in one suit are winners, it is assumed that these cards will be played from the top down. This is stated explicitly in the file http://rgb.anu.edu.au/Bridge/Clubs-and-Bodies/ACBL/Tech/Rulings/R-CLAIMS Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 21:51:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:51:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com [139.134.5.180]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA01778 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:51:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ua654284 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:48:34 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-220-61.tmns.net.au ([139.134.220.61]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Shy-MailRouter V2.5 17/1541447); 29 Oct 1999 21:48:34 Message-ID: <008301bf2292$5178bce0$3ddc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: the year zero, or 2007? Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:50:40 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman wrote: >..... in 25b my objection was that this could put the innocent side in a >disadvantaged position, because their opponents might choose for a lucky >approach against the field, knowing they can not receive more than A-, so >not loose more than A- for example. My impression then was that this aspect >did not get enough attention. We work with new L25B for more than 2 years >now. Is there any experience supporting the different views? Is there any >theoretical support for my fear? > >From my experience your word "lucky" is inapproriate. I submitted a hand I experienced in the thread Change of Call in Sydney on 2/10/99. This is a minor variation which almost happened. We're scoring 44%, I'm tired hence my careless but not inadvertent change of call. Partner (East) bids 7H, RHO bids 7S sacrifice. I pass then realise 7NT is cold, pulling out one bidding card then the other. So I can choose option L25B2(b)(1) for 0% (plus 250) for us (assuming partner must pass) and 100% for N/S, or I can choose 40% for us and 0% for N/S (7NT making). So I MUST (by Law) choose whether N/S gets 0% or 100%. Unbelievable. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 22:43:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:53:35 +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 VAA01812 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:53:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-89.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.89]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01831 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:52:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3819808B.80E22C78@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:10:03 +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: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <002601bf2169$e1a17200$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > "I take it to mean," "I think it means," "Alert, I think," etc., are > unacceptable statements in a pair game, IMO. The information is > worthless and UI to the bidder besides. I want to know what your > agreements are, so just state them plainly. If you think it means > something, then that is an implicit partnership agreement, and I don't > care if you are not sure of it. If you really have no idea, then there > is no agreement, so say so: "No agreement." > Marv is a member of the dWs. Welcome, Marv. Just one thing : "if you really have no idea", when did that last happen to you ? Barring a partner from Inner Mongolia, it is a very seldom occurence. But I agree with the principle : If you really have no idea, then there is no agreement, so say so: "No agreement." I'm just saying that this principle must not be misused. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 22:54:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:54:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02081 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:54:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA26393 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:55:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991029085537.00691620@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:55:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:20 AM 10/27/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >An inexperienced partner and I are playing against an experienced >client and pro who are a first-time partnership. In a low partscore >battle, everyone having bid something, client reopens the bidding >(after two passes) with a double of my partner's 2H. The double is >not Alerted by the pro (also a TD), which means it has to be a >penalty double according to the ACBL Alert Procedure (partner has >previously acted, and it is not an ordinary negative double). Pro >takes the double out to her spade suit, and everyone passes. We get >a bad result because partner, intimidated by the double of her suit, >does not compete further with fair values to do so.Can't remember >the exact auction, something like: > >1C-1D-1H-1S; P-P-2H-P; P-Dbl-P-2S, all pass. > >When I see the dummy, it is obvious that the double was meant as "do >something," not penalty. I call the TD, and pro explains that she >did not Alert the double because they had no agreement about it. She >guessed that it was not a penalty double, but it was just a guess, >not a partnership agreement, (In the circles these two play in, >such an agreement is common but not universal) You should alert when you are aware that a call could have more than one meaning at least one of which is alertable. That seems to be the case here, so the failure to alert is MI. But see below. >Now, I knew what the double meant, because client was the sort who >would make such a double and there was some body language besides. >However, I could not question pro about it because that would be >illegal, solely for partner's benefit, I having no intention of >competing further in any case. Moreover, it is my belief that a call >should not be questioned when the >absence of an Alert (by an experienced player) itself explains the >call. Otherwise why have Alerts, whose general purpose is to >distinguish between a default meaning and another meaning? Oops, >I'm digressing. Not at all. If the "misinformed" opponent is sufficiently experienced that he should be expected to know what was going on, as might be the case here, he is expected to protect himself by inquiring. It is a BL trick to claim "but they didn't alert so I assumed X" when the BL knows full well that it might well have been Y. Of course, the "body language besides" raises a UI issue, but I am sticking here to the MI question. The primary purpose of alerts is *not* to distinguish between "a default meaning and another meaning". It is to distinguish between meanings that are common, usual and expected and those that are not. It is a misapprehension, albeit a common one, that a failure to alert must indicate some specific meaning, unless that is explicitly stated in the alert rules. >The TD ruled no redress, there was no understanding, etc. > >There is something wrong about that ruling, but I am not sure what >the pro should have done. Many will say that her proper course was >to Alert and explain "Although we have no partnership agreement >about the double, a non-penalty meaning is so usual that I am taking >it for that." Okay, so then we bid on and find it *was* a penalty >double with a trump stack. Again the TD may rule no redress, since >the pro honestly explained the situation. IMO, that is exactly what the pro should have done (and what the TD should do), assuming, of course, that the rest of the pro's bidding was consistent with his stated intention. >Or, the client now knows >that the double was interpreted correctly, not pulled because of >poor defensive values, and makes some use >of that UI later. If that happens, we adjudicate the UI. UI need not be the result of MI, and is not here. >My preference is that the pro should not Alert, and should take it >as a penalty double even if pretty sure it isn't one. The absence of >an understanding is itself an understanding that calls will have the >default meaning (when there is one, as in this case), which the >partnership must employ. Absolutely not. For the pro not to alert would be MI, hence illegal. And since he has committed no infraction and is not in possession of any UI, he cannot be required to do anything other than bid whatever he wants to. The absense of an understanding may well be taken as an understanding that a call will have its "default meaning, but its "default meaning" is defined by "general bridge knowlege and experience", not by the alert rules. The ACBL has repeatedly reinforced that lesson that it is extraordinarily foolish to assume that the latter somehow reflects the former. To pretend to do so, is, as I said above, a common BL trick. >An acceptable alternative is for the pro to Alert the double, >explain with no waffling that it is non-penalty, and accept the >consequences. One consequence might be redress for us if she is >wrong and we are damaged, or a PP if she is right, for failure to >properly disclose a partnership agreement on the cc. (No warning, >for a pro/TD) So if the pro gets a good score, Marvin would take it away, regardless of whether her guess was right or wrong. That's no different from simply making it illegal not to have an agreement about the sequence (if you're a pro). So far, we have had Herman et al saying that the pro should explain the double as non-penalty, and Michael et al saying that the pro should reveal the uncertainty. Now we seem to have Marvin saying that we should enforce whichever of the two positions lets us rule against the pro. If by "acceptable alternative" Marvin means for the pro (i.e. that it would not be illegal or unethical for him to do this), I think there is a case that can be made. If he means for the law (i.e. the law does or should require him to do this), I think there is no case at all. We can argue all we want about whether or not the law requires a player who is uncertain about partner's call to reveal that uncertainty, but we cannot take the position that the law does not allow him to be uncertain. The anecdote itself reeks of bridge lawyer. To have any sympathy with Marvin at all, we must believe that his partner (a) was so inexperienced as not even to suspect that the doubler might have what Marvin "knew" he had from his experience and table feel, and yet (b) was sufficiently knowledgable about the details of the ACBL alert procedure to know what the doubler "had to have" according to the letter of the alert rules. Perhaps Marvin would be better off playing with partners who spend more time trying to improve their game and less time studying the rules. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 23:03:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:03:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02123 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:02:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-7-63.access.net.il [213.8.7.63] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01239; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:02:24 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38199AEE.21AD49B4@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:02:38 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <199910272329.TAA16786@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sir DWS........oh The interesting story bellow ....As much as I remember , the laws of copy write are enforced in Great Britain..The question is how can sir George Bernard Shaw use it from his grave..?? Was your change "careless , irrational or intended " ? Cheers Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > >> David Burn wrote: > >> It has often occurred to me that somebody (or preferably some body) > >> should produce a set of detailed guidelines as to what is and is not > >> considered "irrational" play for the purposes of contested claims. > > ...snip ......not genial enough..!!!! > Let me tell you a story. Bill Gates approached a woman at a party: > > "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" he asked. > "Certainly" she smiled at him. > "Would you sleep with me for $5?" he asked. > "What do you think I am?" she snarled. > "We've already established that," said Bill, "now we are haggling over > the price." > > People are not the same, with different ideas, abilities and so on. > You may not like it, but while ruling the game of bridge involves > exercising judgement, TDs and ACs will have to allow for the differences > between players. How much is she worth? > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > "It is essential in this situation to get a good look at opponents hands > before you decide what to lead." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 29 23:11:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:11:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02155 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:11:32 +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 JAA27972 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:12:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991029091232.00693c58@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:12:32 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: the year zero In-Reply-To: <0.986141b7.2548d7df@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:34 PM 10/27/99 EDT, Karen wrote: >David, > ><< I should have guessed. It is a modern idea that zero is a number. > when I was young no-one would ever start a count of anything at zero, > but computers have changed that somewhat. > >> >And that may be why there's the misconstruction that after December 31st we >are entering a new millennium :-) A millennium is any period of time which lasts 1,000 years. We enter a new millennium every instant of our lives. 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 Oct 29 23:43:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:53:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01806 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:53:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-89.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.89]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01808 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:52:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38197A91.3B00B83D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:44:33 +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: careless v irrational References: <199910281503.LAA17330@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > these are what David is suggesting. Do people agree with the > progression suggested above: cards + claim statement, then previous > play, and only then claimer's skill? I could agree to that, yes. > More important, do people agree > that the dichotomy between "flawed claim" and "flawed claim statement" > is the key issue? > That is far more important, and I agree with it completely. A claim statement is needed, true, but when it is incomplete this does not in itself present proof against claimer. Not _for_ him either, of course. > In the long run (i.e. after 2007), I would prefer to find some way to > make claimer's skill not a factor at all. That's what my second > sentence above was intended to convey. I agree it isn't possible under > the current Laws, and perhaps it will never be possible. I don't believe it is possible. You must allow a declarer to claim in a manner which he knows his opponents and directors will accept. Yet the same claim from a beginner must be disallowed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 00:12:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:53:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01815 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:53:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-89.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.89]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01842 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:53:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <381981D7.7D08044B@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:15:35 +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: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > Well, it was meant as take-out, it was interpreted as > > take-out, and it was explained as penalty ? > > And you wouldn't want to rule against such a thing ? > > The double was not explained in any way whatsoever. It was simply not > alerted. The failure to alert meant that the partnership had no agreed > alertable meaning for the call. That does not stop them from playing > bridge, or even from playing partner for a call that would have been > alertable had there been a partnership agreement, if they are led to that > conclusion by general bridge knowledge and logic. > I may be wrong on this, but from what I had read, the non-alertable meaning was "penalty". You cannot have alert regulations and then not consider a non-alert in some manner. Non-alerting is equivalent to expaining the call as having the non-alertable meaning, whatever that is. So the call was explained as "penalty", and it wasn't, and both players knew this. The fact that they had not agreed upon this is the main point for our discussion, let's not get carried away with it. Suppose South had asked and the pro had answered "penalty". Or even "I don't know, but presumably penalty". Clear MI to me. And to anyone in any school. As I said before - bad example, too easy. I fail to see why some of you don't rule against this obvious BL. I give him an additional penalty, if I find that the facts are as bad as they are presented here. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 01:32:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:32:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe8.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.112]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA02631 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:32:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 5523 invoked by uid 65534); 29 Oct 1999 15:31:22 -0000 Message-ID: <19991029153122.5522.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.162.6] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C280@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: the year zero, or 2007? Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:30:46 -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 My conclusions on L25B are that it gives the right for a person to change their call if he wants to, but subject to a time limit. Lillie #6 further restricted the right to exclude changes in judgement. #6 claims that this is an interpretation of law. I am inclined to claim it is a change of law labeled as an interpretation. On its face Lillie #6 looks to be self contradictory. It says that its intention is to give the right to correct a stupid mistake. To my thinking, a stupid mistake is itself among the class of actions that results from the application of judgement. Entitlement to change a stupid mistake is to entitle action based on a change of judgement. Largely for this reason it is my opinion that the concept presented in L25B and L25B2b2 is flawed. If the concept of restricted scores is to be incorporated, it seems that if the errant player believes that his side is heading for a bad result and that conversely his opponent is heading for a good result. To that end it would seem appropriate therefore instead of the table result, to protect the other side to AVERAGE. As to the bigger picture I am of the opinion that a player is entitled to take one action during his turn, but not more than one. That if he takes more than one he has deprived the opponents of the right to the orderly progress to the game, in addition to a lopsided exchange of information. The law should not encourage players to take extra actions, but provide a remedy for when they do. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; ; David Burn Cc: ton kooijman Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 2:45 AM Subject: RE: the year zero, or 2007? > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: Grattan Endicott [mailto:gester@globalnet.co.uk] > > Verzonden: donderdag 28 oktober 1999 13: > > Grattan Endicott > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Burn > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Date: 28 October 1999 07:50 > > Subject: Re: the year zero > > > > . For myself, I > > >hope to celebrate a new millennium in 2007, when Law 25B is removed > > >from the statute books. > > > > > >David Burn > > >London, England > > > > > +=+ It has obviously put years on you! But > > I hope very much the WBFLC will exercise > > its discretion to review a number of law > > problems well in advance of the ten year limit. > > I shall be looking to discuss such matters with > > ton in advance of Bermuda, with a desire that > > we at least map out in Bermuda a planned > > approach and a timetable for relieving the > > worst aspects of the legacy ton has inherited. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > It is a well known development that people loose their wild hairs when > getting older. Most men loose their hair anyway. Though I still have some > hair, but I avoid talking with people taller than I am, I tend to become > less progessive than I was for many years. I need more proof for changes to > be improvements than before. And changes in our laws should be based on a > philosophy how to apply the laws; what kind of purpose we want to give our > laws? The editorials of 'The Bridge World' during the last months deal with > these issues and are very interesting to read. May be we could ask Jeff > Rubens to give them free for this discussion group, or visit the website: > www.bridgeworld.com (hopefully it is there). > > The main issue concerning 25b is the question whether to allow a player to > change a non-inadvertent call, not demanding from him to play 4 diamonds in > a 3-1 fit due to a black-out. My personal opinion is that we should allow > that, but with paying a price. Which makes 25b an acceptable law for me, > though the wording could be easily improved. This approach seems also in > line with the scope expressing that the laws do restore equity more than > they penalize infractions. In my opinion everybody who agrees with that > approach should join me in allowing to substitute 4hearts for a pass after > partner's cuebid of 4diamonds, even when the pass in itself is not an > infraction. It certainly isn't bridge either. But we have to realise that > the consequences of more emphasis on equity could be big. Probably the > penalties for insufficient calls are to heavy and nobody can convince me > that the penalties for revokes are based on the idea to restore equity (yes > 64C does, but that is the exeption!). > > My hope is that we are able to redefine some major leading principles for > our laws, only after which we start reconstruction. So, be patient David and > deliver your highly appreciated visions on the aim of our laws. > > Question: When Edgar introduced this famous average minus/real score > approach in 25b my objection was that this could put the innocent side in a > disadvantaged position, because their opponents might choose for a lucky > approach against the field, knowing they can not receive more than A-, so > not loose more than A- for example. My impression then was that this aspect > did not get enough attention. We work with new L25B for more than 2 years > now. Is there any experience supporting the different views? Is there any > theoretical support for my fear? > > ton > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 01:35:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:53:35 +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 VAA01810 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:53:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-89.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.89]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01824 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:52:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <38197F86.533A3373@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:05:42 +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: <19991028155146.98052.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > [snip a lot of things that are more about alerting than anything interesting] > > Case in point: Assume GB regs, the auction goes (1D)-4D. I'm playing with > Anne, and I got off the plane with 90 minutes to get to Bristol. Needless > to say, I arrive a bit late. > > 1) Do I alert it? Of course. No matter what it is, it is almost certainly > not natural, therefore alertable. > As I said before - alerting is just one aspect of explaining. The fact that whatever the meaning it is alertable is just good fortune on your part, it does not alter your obligation to give correct information. > 2) How do I explain it? "Your guess is better than mine; after all, you've > played with/against her before. But I'm pretty certain it doesn't mean a > long diamond preempt." > The "your guess is better than mine" may well be a correct and full explanation, so I would allow it. It is one of those borderline cases where I agree with the majority view. That does not mean I cave in on the more central cases though. > >Which indeed it is. > > > Which indeed it turned out to be. > > > > Should "we have no agreement but I am trying to be helpful without > > > giving UI" always mean that they are on a good board? > > > Anne > > > >So you are of the opinion that this situation was allright ? > >A meant it as take-out, B took it as take-out, B explained > >it as penalties and you are NOT ruling against A-B ? > >Sorry Anne, not where I am directing. > > > But she didn't say that. The pro was not trying to be helpful - he was in > violation of the Alert regs, whether we follow your school, my school or > Anne's school. > Indeed, and that is why it is a bad example. Any school should rule against this, and even then some don't. Unbelievable. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 01:43:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:02:43 +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 BAA02542 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:02:04 +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 11hDXA-000GoJ-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:01:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:46:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? In-Reply-To: <000e01bf21e8$cff480e0$365208c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000e01bf21e8$cff480e0$365208c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott writes snip >> >>Proddy and I have discussed on a number of occasions that the acceptance >>of an infraction logically must show a minimum hand for such action. >>Does this fall into the area of "general bridge knowledge" or is it an >>illegal agreement. Once discussed I don't see how it is possible for us >>not to *know* it. We alert it, by the way. chs john >> >+=+ WBF CoP: "Authorization does not follow > automatically from a lack of prohibition." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ and equally, the lack of prohibition does not prohibit us. The question itself still stands: "Is it an illegal agreement"? 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 Oct 30 01:46:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:53:39 +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 VAA01831 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:53:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-89.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.89]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01875 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:53:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3819888A.13791BCB@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:44:10 +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: the year zero, or 2007? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C280@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <38196FF1.D5D6FFF5@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > > that > > approach should join me in allowing to substitute 4hearts for a pass after > > partner's cuebid of 4diamonds, even when the pass in itself is not an > > infraction. It certainly isn't bridge either. But we have to realise ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Why? Chess have a very simple rule to deal with > a change of play, inadvertent or not: "piece touched=piece > played". I read chess periodics from time to time and > I haven't seen any single objection to this rule on the > grounds that if someone "inadvertently" puts his queen > on a field where it's taken on the very next move then > "this is no longer chess" (and a single play in chess > weighs a lot more that one single bid in bridge; compare > the number of moves and the number of bids/plays in > a chess and bridge tournament). > There are very good reasons to introduce such > a simple rule in the Law: > 1° it simplifies making a ruling: no headache in trying > to determine whether the call was inadvertent/careless, > made in with/without hesitation. This is a vital issue > in bridge where the Director isn't present at the table > and has to make a ruling based on what players tell him. > I have seen pretty often scenes like that: > > - ... and it took him about 5 seconds to change his bid! > - 5 seconds? The was no hesitation at all! > > Why not lay this burden off the TD/AC? > > 2° it makes the rulings consistent: no more huge swings > decided mainly on _who_ is directing or _who_ is in > the AC. > > Just have a look at the revoking regulations in > the Law. They work brilliantly: rulings are simple > and consistent. Just add a few lines differentiating > between the "inadvertent" and "advertent" revokes > and you'll see what will happen. > > > -- > There is a good analogy for the "piece touche" rule : a card is played when ... When playing bridge, we have to have a number of skills. One of those, not often talked about, is the ability to hold cards in your hand. We do not allow inadvertent card play as a result. Another skill might be the handling of bidding cards. Now we have not yet come far enough (playing cards have been around a couple of centuries longer than bidding boxes) to have the handling of bidding cards become a necessary skill. Which is why we have L25A. Similarly, a card is played by declarer when he shows it, and he cannot retract it, even if his intention is obvious. But naming dummy's card in a correct manner is a skill he is not required to have. Which is why we have the "unless the intention is obvious" bit in L46B. L25B is another thing altogether. Saying "it's just not bridge" is not the criterion IMO. When my partner yesterday led the 8 from Q984, intending to show an even number, "it was just not bridge". I believe choosing the correct bid (including not passing a cue-bid) is a skill which a player ought to have. I vote to ditch L25B. But that's just for the new millenium. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 02:09:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:09:47 +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 CAA02894 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:09:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:09:26 -0700 Message-ID: <00dc01bf2227$d1ab5a00$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> <000c01bf21d1$56773e40$2ffc7ad1@hdavis> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:06:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > The final pass was Marv's partner, not Marv. Nevertheless, there's still > nothing for her to say . She has bid twice, and heard Marv pass three times > since his opening. She has already balanced once. Exactly how high is she > supposed to go? IMO a takeout double would make competing even less > attractive than a penalty double, oddly enough. The penalty double would at > least place the heart holding in front of hers. If the double is takeout, > it means Marv's LHO is likely short of hearts. She knows Marv doesn't have > much in hearts, or he would have raised at some point. That puts the heart > holding squarely behind her, with Marv's RHO. This could make a three level > contract rather ugly. As near as she can tell, the hand is a misfit. > There's no place for her to compete, without help from Marv. The contention > that she could have kept bidding if the double had been explained as takeout > simply doesn't hold water. > Neither side was vulnerable. Partner had a near 3H jump rebid, but decided "no game" because of my failure to make a free rebid. She had enough playing tricks to assume that at least 8 tricks would be available in a 3H contract, only -100 if doubled against a probable 2S make. However, the apparent business double of 2H intimidated her, and she sold out. The MI was pretty obviously damaging to our side. The double was not takeout, it was "non-penalty," asking partner to do something intelligent. Such doubles are usually based on a balanced hand, not one that is short in the doubled suit. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 02:22:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:22:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com [139.134.5.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA02944 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:22:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za206829 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:18:49 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-96-192.tmns.net.au ([139.134.96.192]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Meek-MailRouter V2.5 1/1948782); 30 Oct 1999 02:18:49 Message-ID: <015e01bf22b8$2f890920$60de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: L21B Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:21:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_015B_01BF227D.82AB8B40" 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_015B_01BF227D.82AB8B40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This posting is about the meaning of the word "subsequent" in Law 21B. =20 Marv French wrote: >.... the TD asks South if s/he wants to change the >last call on account of the MI, emphasizing that the call may not be >changed for any other reason (L21B1/B2). L21B1 reads: ".......a player may....change a call when it is probable that he has made the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent....., provided that his partner has not subsequently = called." Does the word *subsequent* mean: (a) subsequent to the misinformation, i.e. subsequent to the preceding action in the sentence, or (b) subsequent to the player's call, i.e. subsequent to the action in = the main clause of the sentence, as *everyone* seems to assume. If (a), then South doesn't get a second chance at their last bid in = this thread's hand. Instead it's a possible Adjusted Score under L21B3. If (b), then South gets his second bite. Perhaps someone could tell me whether (a) or (b) is the logical way to interpret this sentence. I would have thought (a) is more logical. Perhaps there has been some interpretation of which I am unaware? =20 Peter Gill Sydney Australia. ------=_NextPart_000_015B_01BF227D.82AB8B40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This posting is about the = meaning=20 of the word "subsequent" in Law 21B.
 
Marv French = wrote:
>.... the TD asks South if s/he wants to change the
>last = call on=20 account of the MI, emphasizing that the call may not be
>changed = for any=20 other reason (L21B1/B2).
 
L21B1 reads:  ".......a player may....change a call when = it is=20 probable
that he has made the call as a result of misinformation given to = him
by an opponent....., provided that his partner has not subsequently = called."
 
Does the word *subsequent* mean:
(a) subsequent to the misinformation, i.e. subsequent to the=20 preceding
action in the sentence, or
(b) subsequent to the player's call, i.e. subsequent to the action = in=20 the
main clause of the sentence, as *everyone* seems to assume.
 
If (a),  then South doesn't get a second chance at their last = bid in=20 this
thread's hand. Instead it's a possible Adjusted Score under = L21B3.
If (b), then South gets his second bite.
 
Perhaps someone could tell me whether (a) or (b) is the logical = way
to interpret this sentence. I would have thought (a) is more = logical.
Perhaps there has been some interpretation of which I am=20 unaware?  
 
Peter Gill
Sydney Australia.
 
------=_NextPart_000_015B_01BF227D.82AB8B40-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 02:43:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:11:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com [139.134.5.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA02913 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:11:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ia206448 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:07:35 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-96-192.tmns.net.au ([139.134.96.192]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Colossal-MailRouter V2.5 1/1948019); 30 Oct 1999 02:07:35 Message-ID: <014201bf22b6$9da39940$60de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: L21B Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:10:30 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > "If you have probably made the wrong call because of the >misinformation [failure to alert, etc] then you may change it: do you >wish to do so?" If I were the player at the table and DWS the TD, I don't think DWS's words mean I have to follow Marv French's position: "he can't change the pass to a double when given the opportunity to do so, because it would not be "as a result of the misinformation.", and I can follow the opposite position originally expressed by Robin Barker: "As far as I can see, Law21B does not require the non-offender to make the call he would have made without the misinformation, only that he would have made a different call without the misinformation!", and confirmed by Steve Willner: "Subtle and perhaps a bit surprising, but I can't see anything in the laws that contradicts Robin's conclusion.", I think the wording of the Law clearly supports Robin and Steve's view, i.e. in the original problem, South can now double 6D even though he originally would have taken the 6H save had he not thought the double of 5H was for penalties e.g. he holds Q10xxxx, AJxxxx, - x and will now double because his side's apparent brace of aces will cash. L21B says "a player may...change a call"; it does not specify to what the call may be changed. I cannot think of any obvious way to rectify the wording of L21B so that Marv's meaning eventuates. I think one would have to refer to the *intended call* which doesn't exist and thus cannot be mentioned in the Laws. The problem is that we can't say what was in someone's mind. If Robin and Steve are correct, the rest of this thread loses some potency. Sorry that I couldn't find a better way to thread this posting, but I'm a computer neophyte. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 02:45:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:53:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01824 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:53:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-89.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.89]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01859 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:53:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3819841F.16B11FB4@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:25:19 +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: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <01bf21ed$35338d80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > > >Wrong - they were on the same track all the time. I don't > >believe they had no agreement. They were uncertain if they > >had an agreement, but since they did in fact have the same > >idea, I rule "agreement". > > If they told me they had no agreement, and I knew they understood > the meaning of this, then I would believe them. I also believe them when they say they did not explicitely "agree" on this. But seeing they are on the same track all along, I am ruling misinformation if they have failed to disclosed the "presumed" meaning. Not any question of disbelief, just the footnote. > > > >> When a bid may mean one of two things, and one of those things > >> is alertable, then I think you should alert. > > > >No you should not. By alerting, you have described it in > >the "alertable" manner. If the opponents ask nothing, and > >it turns out it is the natural meaning, you have > >misinformed. > That is not what I have been taught. Surely an alert means : "this is not the standard meaning" and a non-alert means : "this is the standard meaning", and the specific alert regulations in force determine what the standard meaning is ? Forgive me for writing _the_ alertable manner, because in the specific case presented there were only two possible meanings. Of course in general that should have been _an_ alertable manner and opponents ought to enquire which one it is. > > > >The how will you tell them what it means ? Which you DO > >have to tell them. > >And don't say that you genuinely not know. That is no > >excuse. > Michael Farebrother has commented far more eloquently than > I would presume to attempt. > > > > >> The problem with this is that once you have alerted it, the opps have > >> reason to believe that you have discussed the call and that it is > >> alertable. Hence you are telling them that with no questions they > >> can assume it is not for penalties. > > > >Which indeed it is. > DWS says this presumption is incorrect. An alert says "it's worth asking" Well, DWS is only partly right. Al alert says "it is not the standard meaning, but do ask us to find out what it is". > > > >So you are of the opinion that this situation was allright ? > >A meant it as take-out, B took it as take-out, B explained > >it as penalties and you are NOT ruling against A-B ? > >Sorry Anne, not where I am directing. > > B did not say it's for penalties. B said they had no agreement. By not alerting, and by the ACBL regulations, B said it was penalties. Any other interpretation and we might just throw away the alert card and any regulations thereabout. > Is B not allowed to guess right in a situation where they have no > agreement? > Where I direct he is > he is allowed to guess right. He is also obliged to inform the opponents of any meaning his partner might have tried to convey. If the only way he can do this is by guessing right, then so be it. > This is such a basic concept that I am surprised that we disagree. > Anne I am as surprised as you are. Remember that I am not talking legal obligation, but best action to prevent rulings. If my partner guesses to a meaning, and I guess as well, and we have both guessed the same thing, then the TD will rule that this was our agreement. So I'd better tell the opponents that this is our agreement. You don't have to follow my advice, but don't be surprised if a TD rules against you when you don't ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 02:59:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:59:15 +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 CAA03100 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:59:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:58:57 -0700 Message-ID: <011c01bf222e$bba8b8e0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com><04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com><3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:57:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: > David S wrote: > > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>Points to consider: > > > >>4. It is another (very old) thread, but I can't help but take a shot > >>at your puritanical refusal to ask about the meaning of the double. > >>Whether the explanation would have helped or not I can't say, but it > >>couldn't have hurt, and there is _nothing illegal_ about it. > > > > Of course it is illegal. You are asking a question for the sole > >purpose of telling partner something. > > > > > > L73B1 says: > > > > Partners shall not communicate through > > the manner in which calls or plays are > > made, through extraneous remarks or > > gestures, or through questions asked or > > not asked of the opponents, through > > alerts and explanations given or not > > given to them. > > > > > > I am surprised that you think you are allowed to communicate with > > your partner "through questions asked of your opponent". > > I think no such thing, and have stated no such thing. I think that I > am allowed to ask the opponents what their bids mean, when it is my turn > to call. Period. Marvin presumed a meaning for the opponent's bid, and > guessed right. But the Laws do not obligate him to rely on his intuition in > these circumstances, and he is under no legal compunction to do so. Even if I have no idea what a call means, I do not ask about the auction until such time as I have a need to know (Alerted calls excepted, which should be routinely questioned). My partners must shift for themselves, as the Laws and the spirit of the game require. A related matter is that we always consult the opposing cc when it may disclose something interesting about an unAlerted call. That too should be routine, bust hand or good hand. If a cc isn't in view, a common violation of ACBL rules, we ask to see it. When asked "What do you want to know?", the answer is "I want to know what is on your card." Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 03:42:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA02923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:11:36 +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 CAA02911 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:11:22 +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 MAA04628 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA18396 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:11:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:11:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910291611.MAA18396@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: careless V irrational X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn asked: > (9) If a declarer claims when his last two cards are 42 of a suit, > then it would be careless / irrational to lead the deuce, and a > defender with the singleton 3 should / should not be awarded at least > one trick. > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > ***careless, should [but he agreed irrational to play 2 from AK2] > From: David Stevenson > It is not irrational to play the 9 from J95. > > It is irrational to play the 2 from AK2. [and others, but not everyone, similarly] I cannot understand the principle from which these answers are derived. The ACBL's "If unstated, suits are played from top down," is simple and logical. So is my version, "Did declarer have a false mental picture of the deal?" What equally simple rule gives the answers above? Also, consider the declarer who holds 42 and knows the 3 is missing or J95 and knows the ten is the only card out. Is he really obliged to say "Top down..." or "Cashing the four (jack)?" It never happens in any game I've played in! Either declarer claims saying nothing, or he doesn't claim. Am I, as a defender, supposed to dispute it if declarer does claim? It would never occur to me to do so. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > So the question to be answered : "In bridge terms, > is the action utterly illogical, absurd?" Indeed. > 'Yes' = irrational > 'No' = normal. The confusion may arise from the fact that 'irrational' and 'normal' are not exact opposites. It is "normal," in the sense of "sometimes seen" or "not rare," for players to make irrational plays. What if a given play is both irrational and normal, as for example playing the 2 when holding 42? (I am not convinced it is normal, but David S. says it is, and I am willing to accede for purposes of this debate.) On the other hand, playing the 2 from 42 is without doubt "utterly illogical, absurd," even if there are players who will do it from time to time. As long as we stick to "irrational=utterly illogical, absurd," I don't think we will have any problems. On the other hand, if someone offers a simple rule to tell us which "not top down" plays are merely careless, I'm willing to listen. > From: "Peter Gill" Mostly good summary snipped. One small correction: > Replies came from Steve Willner, Anne Jones, Eric Landau who > followed the ACBL gudeline, My reply did not follow the ACBL guideline, or if it did, it was by coincidence. (I'm pretty sure at least some of my answers differed from Anne's; I'm not sure about Eric's.) My main point was to distinguish between "flawed claims" and "flawed claim statements." A subsidiary point was to wonder whether a procedure for questioning vague claims might have merit. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 03:44:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA03221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:44:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mxb.usuhs.mil ([131.158.7.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA03216 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:44:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis ([131.158.186.130]) by mxb.usuhs.mil; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:36:01 -0400 Message-ID: <000901bf2235$1d955440$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> <381981D7.7D08044B@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:43:30 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 7:15 AM Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, it was meant as take-out, it was interpreted as > > > take-out, and it was explained as penalty ? > > > And you wouldn't want to rule against such a thing ? > > > > The double was not explained in any way whatsoever. It was simply not > > alerted. The failure to alert meant that the partnership had no agreed > > alertable meaning for the call. That does not stop them from playing > > bridge, or even from playing partner for a call that would have been > > alertable had there been a partnership agreement, if they are led to that > > conclusion by general bridge knowledge and logic. > > > > I may be wrong on this, but from what I had read, the > non-alertable meaning was "penalty". That is true. > You cannot have alert regulations and then not consider a > non-alert in some manner. > Non-alerting is equivalent to expaining the call as having > the non-alertable meaning, whatever that is. Not so. Non-alerting means that the pair has no alertable agreement. In a situation where an established pair would normally have had discussion, experience, and agreement, it is a likely inference that the call has a "non-alertable meaning". In a first time partnership, those inferences don't hold up. The pair may simply have not agreed on a meaning for a call yet. > So the call was explained as "penalty", and it wasn't, and > both players knew this. > Again, you're confusing the alert/non-alert with explanation. There was no explanation given at all, as the pair had no agreement. > The fact that they had not agreed upon this is the main > point for our discussion, let's not get carried away with > it. > > Suppose South had asked and the pro had answered "penalty". > Or even "I don't know, but presumably penalty". > > Clear MI to me. > > And to anyone in any school. > Obviously, which is why the non-alert, and a "no-agreement" explanation are the only route available to the pro. > As I said before - bad example, too easy. > > I fail to see why some of you don't rule against this > obvious BL. What BL? Trying to impose penaties for failure to disclose an agreement on a first time partnership that obviously had no agreement is bridge lawyering. > I give him an additional penalty, if I find that the facts > are as bad as they are presented here. > You would give a PP to a first time partnership that had not discussed the meaning of a balancing double? Remind me not to play in your game with a new partner. I would have a great deal more sympathy with some of what you and Marv had been saying if this pair had played together previously. However, the fact of the matter is that first time partnerships run into many situations where they really do have no agreement. When this happens, they do not alert or explain, but try and use bridge logic to figure out what is happening. In this particular case, the logic of the situation was clear enough so that the pro was able to determine the meaning of the double through logic and general knowledge, as did Marv. However, that does *not* mean that there was an alertable agreement. A first time partnership does not have the same level of agreements and experience with each other as an established pair. This must be taken into account in rulings about their agreements, or lack thereof. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 03:48:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA03163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:19:48 +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 DAA03158 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:19:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:19:29 -0700 Message-ID: <012c01bf2231$998c16a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com><04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com><3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:17:19 -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 Mike Dennis wrote: David S wrote: > >>>Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>I think no such thing, and have stated no such thing. I think that I am > >>allowed to ask the opponents what their bids mean, when it is my turn to > >>call. Period. Marvin presumed a meaning for the opponent's bid, and guessed > >>right. But the Laws do not obligate him to rely on his intuition in these > >>circumstances, and he is under no legal compunction to do so. > > > > Marvin stated specifically that if he had asked it would have been for > >partner's benefit not his own. That means he is not allowed to ask. > > No, it doesn't. I realize that my previous response was too glib, so I > appreciate the opportunity to be more precise. > > As you have correctly pointed out, L73B1 makes it illegal to > "communicate...through questions asked or not asked of the opponents". I > take this quite literally. Where the _asking_ of the question is > communicative (typically, "partner, I am intensely interested in this suit > should you happen to be on lead."), it is certainly improper and illegal. > But where the question is purely interrogative, it elicits information > _from the opponents_ to which you and your partner are legally entitled, > and conveys nothing, in and of itself, from you to your partner. > > My strict reading of this language is reinforced, it seems to me, by the > phrase "or not asked". What the heck does that mean? I suppose it must > refer to a system of communication, based on either long partnership > experience or on explicit pre-arrangement, in which both asking and not > asking convey coded meanings. And of course, that is completely improper > and illegal. But L73B1 applies to a practice that is all too common. Players will inquire about a bid, or consult the opposing cc, when they have an interest in the auction, but not when they have a bad hand. They don't mean to violate L73B1, but they are doing so. > > I know that this interpretation is not universally shared, and indeed may > even be the minority view in this forum. In fact, any interpretation which > can elicit joint support from you and Marvin should be considered carefully > (and not only for the novelty of the thing). But even if nobody else on > BLML accepts my view, I take no small comfort from the knowledge that this > was the interpretation both advocated and practiced by Edgar Kaplan, as has > been pointed out in the past. > As I remember, the Kaplan incident concerned an incomplete explanation of a call, which he made complete. I don't remember whether he initiated the questioning for Kay's benefit, which seems to violate L73B1. On the other hand, if the opponents were at fault for failing to disclose their agreements properly, perhaps the violation was ethically okay. The opponents didn't object, which is significant. Danny Kleinman has just discussed this problem of incomplete explanations in correspondence with me, but I can't quote him until I get permission. For example, 1C may be explained as "Could be short" when the right explanation is "Could be a doubleton club if the hand has two four-card majors." Wait a few weeks and I will start a thread on the subject. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 04:05:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 04:05:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA03277 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 04:04:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.16] (math-16.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.16]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA10202 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:04:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:02:57 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: >David J. Grabiner wrote: >>You may not have a *conventional* understanding over an opponent's >>infraction. For example, you may not agree to accept a trump lead from the >>wrong hand only with an odd number of trumps. > Perhaps you could quote an authority for this assertion. The ACBL has such a regulation; I don't know its exact wording, and it may only be written to apply to insufficient bids. It's not clear how to apply such a regulation in practice. If a double of an overcall is normally negative, can a double of an undercall such as 1S-(1H)-X be negative? (I would say yes, because this agreement has nothing to do with the illegal call.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 04:09:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 04:09:07 +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 EAA03343 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 04:08:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:08:50 -0700 Message-ID: <013f01bf2238$7e0912a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991029091232.00693c58@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: the year zero Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:07:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:34 PM 10/27/99 EDT, Karen wrote: > > >David, > > > ><< I should have guessed. It is a modern idea that zero is a number. > > when I was young no-one would ever start a count of anything at zero, > > but computers have changed that somewhat. > > >> > >And that may be why there's the misconstruction that after December 31st we > >are entering a new millennium :-) > > A millennium is any period of time which lasts 1,000 years. > > We enter a new millennium every instant of our lives. > We are talking about calendar time, not personal time. The numbering system used in the calendar begins each decade, century, and millenium with a year number that ends in "1." To speak of the "decade of the sixties," meaning 1960 through 1969, is fine, but that is a popular (i.e., of the people) decade, which indeed can start at any instant the people wish. One could properly refer to the decade of the Great Depression (1929 through 1938?), nothing wrong with that. Similarly, to consider that January 1, 2000 (or any other instant of time) begins a new millenium is okay, but the calendar's second millenium starts a year later. Most people don't realize that. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 04:31:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 04:31:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA03436 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 04:31:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.16] (math-16.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.16]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15823 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:30:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:11:35 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>David J. Grabiner wrote: >>>You may not have a *conventional* understanding over an opponent's >>>infraction. For example, you may not agree to accept a trump lead from the >>>wrong hand only with an odd number of trumps. >> >> Perhaps you could quote an authority for this assertion. >> > >Proddy and I have discussed on a number of occasions that the acceptance >of an infraction logically must show a minimum hand for such action. >Does this fall into the area of "general bridge knowledge" or is it an >illegal agreement. Once discussed I don't see how it is possible for us >not to *know* it. We alert it, by the way. chs john That's why I said "conventional" above. It is not conventional to agree that 1S=(P)-P-(1H)-1S shows a hand which has a good spade suit but not enough values to compete unilaterally to 2S. This agreement cannot be forbidden, even though you might qualify it by saying that the bid requires six spades, or that it requires a certain minimum spade strength. Only conventional agreements can be forbidden. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 04:40:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 04:40:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA03495 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 04:40:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01978 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:40:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199910291840.OAA01978@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:40:21 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <012c01bf2231$998c16a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Oct 29, 99 10:17:19 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > > Mike Dennis wrote: > > > > I know that this interpretation is not universally shared, and indeed may > > even be the minority view in this forum. In fact, any interpretation which > > can elicit joint support from you and Marvin should be considered carefully > > (and not only for the novelty of the thing). But even if nobody else on > > BLML accepts my view, I take no small comfort from the knowledge that this > > was the interpretation both advocated and practiced by Edgar Kaplan, as has > > been pointed out in the past. > > > As I remember, the Kaplan incident concerned an incomplete explanation of a > call, which he made complete. He made it clear that this was a single example. > I don't remember whether he initiated the questioning for Kay's > benefit, which seems to violate L73B1. He did. And made it clear that this was *exactly* why he asked. He knew the answer and so did the Italians. Basicly the explanation was a correct explanation of the agreements but there was a system hole - a hand type for which there was no system bid. Tempo told Kaplan that this was the hand type held. It's the kind of thing not covered in system notes and even the better books. > On the other hand, if the opponents were at fault for failing to > disclose their agreements properly, perhaps the violation was > ethically okay. Kaplan's point here was that he was supposed to let it pass and appeal if damaged. Struck him as a crazy way to proceed. His specific objection was that it would poison the atmosphere at the table. The exact meaning of the calls is authorized information. On the other hand, as Grattan noted he did not object to tighter wording of the "partner's benifit" clause. Perhaps because he came to see it as a lesser of two evils. So many people abusing the asking that it created a greater problem than any correction of MI. It's also worth noting that Kaplan did point out that this could result in an adjusted score. The questions must not carry any kind of message beyond "You need to know this." And that's a tough thing for a committee to judge if a marginal action reaches them. Never mind that too many people seemed to be saying "You need to know this *and* take action." I don't know here. I think Kaplan was right in the sense that if all it transmits is authorized information, the game is better for permitting the asking of these question. However, I think in practice the current rules are more pragmatic and a lot easier to enforce. > The opponents didn't object, which is significant. Not only did they not object, but there according to Kaplan they were smiling. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 05:55:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA03904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 05:55:22 +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 FAA03898 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 05:55:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:40:19 -0700 Message-ID: <016b01bf223c$e3481f40$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19991029085537.00691620@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:38:46 -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 I am not replying in detail to the latest from Landau, which included: > The anecdote itself reeks of bridge lawyer. To have any sympathy with > Marvin at all, we must believe that his partner (a) was so inexperienced as > not even to suspect that the doubler might have what Marvin "knew" he had > from his experience and table feel, and yet (b) was sufficiently > knowledgable about the details of the ACBL alert procedure to know what the > doubler "had to have" according to the letter of the alert rules. Perhaps > Marvin would be better off playing with partners who spend more time trying > to improve their game and less time studying the rules. > Inexperienced players "know" from week one that doubles by a player whose partner has previously acted are for penalty. The only non-penalty double they know about is the standard takeout double of an opening suit bid. Later they learn an exception, standard negative doubles. They do not "study the rules," and many have great difficulty improving their game. They are intimidated by unAlerted non-penalty doubles, which is why the ACBL requires an Alert even when the meaning is fairly common. I found this paragraph so offensive that I am not going to respond to the rest of what Eric wrote. Besides, Herman has already represented my position fairly well. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 06:06:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:06:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA03938 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:06:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.121.18]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19991029201149.PWW4128685.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:11:49 +1300 Message-ID: <3819FDEA.DBA805D1@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:04:58 +1300 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: the year zero References: <3.0.1.32.19991029091232.00693c58@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 06:34 PM 10/27/99 EDT, Karen wrote: > > > A millennium is any period of time which lasts 1,000 years. > > We enter a new millennium every instant of our lives. > That's a lot of parties. :-)) -- Wayne Burrows mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz o o o o o _ o {"} o \_Y__/ (:) /^\ I I @ @ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 08:04:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA04173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:04:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04168 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:04:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh1s.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.60]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA02073 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 18:04:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991029180150.01317634@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 18:01:50 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: <199910291840.OAA01978@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: <012c01bf2231$998c16a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:40 PM 10/29/99 -0400, Ron wrote: >On the other hand, as Grattan noted he did not object to tighter >wording of the "partner's benifit" clause. Which clause is that? I could not find that wording in the Laws. >Perhaps because he came to see it as a lesser of two evils. So many >people abusing the asking that it created a greater problem than >any correction of MI. Abusing what? The right to ask questions in order that partner will be fully informed about the opponents' methods? What form would such "abuse" take, exactly? >It's also worth noting that Kaplan did point out that this could >result in an adjusted score. The questions must not carry any kind >of message beyond "You need to know this." And that's a tough thing >for a committee to judge if a marginal action reaches them. > >Never mind that too many people seemed to be saying "You need to >know this *and* take action." > >I don't know here. I think Kaplan was right in the sense that >if all it transmits is authorized information, the game is >better for permitting the asking of these question. Yes, that is certainly one important point. >However, I think in practice the current rules are more pragmatic >and a lot easier to enforce. In practice, the _interpretation_ of the Laws which makes it illegal to ask questions so that partner will be fully informed is itself wholly unenforceable, which is perhaps its greatest single drawback. Unless a player is so indiscreet as to announce his reason for asking, there is no way of ascertaining that reason. Indeed, there is no basis for a director call in such a situation, and no legal basis for a score adjustment of any sort, since, as you have pointed out, the information thus obtained is always AI. I suppose we could assess a PP against a player so foolish (or mis-informed) that he admits to this "transgression", although meting out PP's against the ignorant and simple-minded doesn't strike me as particularly helpful. David insists with some regularity that the fact that players can get away with breaking a particular law doesn't necessarily make the law wrong. Certainly that is true. But regulations which rely for their enforcement _wholly_ upon the integrity of the players have the effect of penalizing the ethical players while imposing no risk whatsoever upon those with lesser standards (or greater ignorance). This interpretation goes beyond the actual wording of L73B1, and serves no discernible purpose. The stricter reading of the language of L73B1 makes for fewer enforceablity problems and serves the tangible purpose, articulated within the Laws, of making sure that all players at the table are equally informed about relevant biddding agreements. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 09:24:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:24:56 +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 JAA04375 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:24:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.107] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11hLNw-000OWs-00; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:24:40 +0100 Message-ID: <005601bf2264$c03a8d80$175108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:23:24 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 29 October 1999 17:20 Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? >In article <000e01bf21e8$cff480e0$365208c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott > writes > >snip >>> >>>Proddy and I have discussed on a number of occasions that the acceptance >>>of an infraction logically must show a minimum hand for such action. >>>Does this fall into the area of "general bridge knowledge" or is it an >>>illegal agreement. Once discussed I don't see how it is possible for us >>>not to *know* it. We alert it, by the way. chs john >>> +=+ I think there are two aspects to consider: (a) whether you may have an understanding by which you gain special information from the fact that partner decides to accept the infraction, and (b) whether you may ascribe a special meaning to a call made following exercise of an option to accept an irregularity. I am sure it is a special understanding, not 'general bridge knowledge'; it is your view, not a universal truth. So far as (b) is concerned I would think 'yes' and that the understanding is subject to the regulations on disclosure (and controlling conventions if the meaning makes it conventional); it would be appropriate to look at the regs to establish the disclosure requirements in respect of the CC. An alert may not be enough. As to (a), and in respect of any special information other than that conveyed by the call - see (b), the question is whether there is any provision of law or regulation that would make the information 'authorized', since if the information is not authorized it would be illegal to use it as the basis for a call or play. None such comes to mind. These, at least, are my thoughts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 09:37:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:37:15 +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 JAA04407 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:37:06 +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 11hLZm-000Jo1-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:36:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:35:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <199910282238.SAA17790@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: David Stevenson >>> But do you really play "from the top down" when cashing three winners >>> [as you believe them to be] when holding J95? Now, some people would >>> definitely not lead the J. >> >>I hope we agree that claims are judged on the basis of 'careless v >>irrational' (as it says in the subject), not on the basis of what some >>players will actually do if forced to play the hand out. Yes, players >>_will_ play irrationally if given the chance, but so what? > > It is not irrational to play the 9 from J95. > > It is irrational to play the 2 from AK2. > I think a major problem here is the confusion (which springs from the Lawbook itself) between normal and rational The Lawbook defines "normal" as "rational" yet we all know from bitter personal experience that our own play often falls below the "rational" definition (I think of a recent case where I defended a hand on the assumption that there were 14 Hearts in the pack and what's more defended my line vehemently in the bar afterwards) To paraphrase David's comment It is not normal to play the 2 from AK2 Whereas it may be normal to play the 9 from J95 Clearly it is not true for many of us that normal = rational If I am certain that the AK2 are the only remaining cards in a suit it IS NOT IRRATIONAL to play the 2 - what David is telling us is that players just don't If I am certain that the J95 are the only remaining cards in a suit it in rational terms makes no difference what card I play If rationality were the real test then surely the claim that began this thread A92 KJ103 9 6 6 Hearts trumps "I'll play you (South) for the Q" is completely clear-cut - if REASON - calculation what ever - reason / rationality is to be the test - then our ruling has to be all tricks made because it is irrational to play as has been suggested by ruffing diamond and leading a spade from dummy and finessing on the first round If I, on lead, hold AK2 of trumps and say " the rest are mine " I shall not expect to deal with an objection from a player with the singleton 3 Why then should I expect a problem with J95 from the same man with the singleton 10 It could be argued that carelessness is irrational and the footnote to Laws 69,70, and 71 is contradictory especially for a good player - Mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 09:43:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:04:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA04300 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:03:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11hL3G-000HBi-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:03:30 +0000 Message-ID: <6FwVl$C+UZG4Ew+x@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:38:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Random Deals References: <3818DF6E.BF7E9D00@zahav.net.il> <38197A7B.3D1D2943@omicron.comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <38197A7B.3D1D2943@omicron.comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > I don't like the idea. In Poland we have a monthly >simultaneous tournament (like EPSON). People suspect that >the hands are selected in this fashion. I can see what plays >they make on the mere assumption that "you know, in _this_ >tournament you can expect some odd things to happen so >I had to bid 3S/lead the 2C" etc. > As the matter of fact the deals are computer generated >and are _random_ but there is no way to convince many >players to play normally. And looking for a trap in every >board produces some weird results. > This all happens because people only _suspect_ that >the deals are selected. I can only imagine what would happen >if the players were _sure_ that some wise owl eliminated >some "uninteresting" deals. The BBL run nine simultaneous Pairs a year, and they do it on the basis outlined. Of course, there are some moans, but whether people really dislike them, I have no idea. I run three Simultaneous Pairs a year, and I use straight computer deals. Last time I got two compliments on "my choice of hands"!!!!! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk//qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 09:55:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:55:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA04465 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:55:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA19600 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:55:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA18927 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:55:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910292355.TAA18927@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Random Deals X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Dany Haimovici > What do you think about this procedure of selecting hands for a > tournament? > Can it be considered legitimate bridge? It sounds like "special conditions" under L80E, and I consider it legitimate if the players are told. The main question would be whether the players like it or not. (I don't think I would, but I've never played in an event like that.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 10:31:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:03:43 +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 JAA04286 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:03:28 +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 11hL3F-000HBj-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:03:18 +0000 Message-ID: <+1+UJ4CFRZG4Ewdk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:34:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>David J. Grabiner wrote: >>>Jack Kryst writes: >>> >>>>When declarer leads from the wrong hand may either opponent accept the >>>>lead (assuming no prior discussion or agreement) for the purpose of: >>>>1. misleading declarer as to his holding in the lead suit or; >>>>2. suggesting to partner what his holding may be. >>>> >>>>May a partnership have a prior understanding regarding the conditions >>>>under which a declarer's LOOT will be accepted or rejected? >>>> >>>>16C1 would appear to authorize any information for the NOS if the action >>>>is withdrawn or am I reading it too broadly? >>> >>>You may not have a *conventional* understanding over an opponent's >>>infraction. For example, you may not agree to accept a trump lead from the >>>wrong hand only with an odd number of trumps. >> >> Perhaps you could quote an authority for this assertion. >> > >Proddy and I have discussed on a number of occasions that the acceptance >of an infraction logically must show a minimum hand for such action. >Does this fall into the area of "general bridge knowledge" or is it an >illegal agreement. Once discussed I don't see how it is possible for us >not to *know* it. We alert it, by the way. chs john My question is why it is *illegal*, or as David G says "You may not have ...". Ok, to be fair, I believe I know the answer, but I am trying to make the point for those who do not - and anyway, I might be wrong. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk//qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 11:14:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:14:20 +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 LAA04691 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:14:12 +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 SAA02881 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 18:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA12089; 29 Oct 99 18:08:46 -0700 Date: 29 Oct 99 18:05:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199910291808.AA12089@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The ACBL has a regulation to the effect that one may not have any conventional understandings about the bidding subsequent to an accepted insufficient bid. I do not know where the regulation is to be found, but have heard it cited as an ACBL regulation on numerous occasions. Obviously, the regulation *as I have stated it* is too ludicrous to consider -- I imagine that they have, in some way, said that you may not have attach a different conventional meaning to the calls after an accepted insufficient bid than if you had not accepted it (but I wouldn't put it past the ACBL to have regulated as I have paraphrased). 'Pure bridge logic' meanings -- such as John Probst's "It must logically show a minimum for my sequence" are acceptable. One of the senior NAmerican contributors (I think Steve Willner or Eric Landau) started a thread a while back about how it was impossible (under ACBL regulations) to ever play in a partnership that had even discussed the *possibility* of an opponent's insufficient bid; perhaps this thread will bring that discussion out again. WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 11:33:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:04:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA04301 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:03:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11hL3G-000HBh-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:03:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:22:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. References: <3819694C.8C2434AC@omicron.comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <3819694C.8C2434AC@omicron.comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > The other side of the coin. A couple of years ago >a friend of mine was a declarer against two international level >experts. At trick five his LHO put his cards back to the board >which meant he saw no chance for tricks for his side. The other >opponent analyzed something for a couple of seconds, nodded and >did the same thing. Well, this was a small tournament and the pros >didn't have to play their best bridge but my friend could hardly believe >what was going on considering against whom he was playing. At this >stage of the play he still had some problems to solve and finding >the queen of trumps was the smallest of them! 25 years or so ago I played in the Isle of Man teams against two Manx players. 1D - 2C - 2D - 2H - 4H - NB. Unfortunately my 2H was on a three card suit so I was in a 3-4 fit. I reached an interesting end position with something like: x A -- AK x A xx -- I have lost three tricks and there are two trumps out, so I could draw them - if I was in the dummy! I do not know how the trumps are breaking, but North has a spade and no diamond, South has a diamond and no spade. So if South has both trumps I must lead a diamond, if North has both trumps I must lead a spade, and if the trumps are 1-1 I must lead a club. What to do? I was cogitating, when suddenly South looks at the dummy, and says "All the rest are yours, surely? is that not right partner?" North looks at the dummy and says "Sure". Then they both put their hands away in the board. I have no idea how the trumps broke! :))) -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk//qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 11:43:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:41:44 +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 KAA04573 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:41:32 +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 11hMa8-000MEa-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:41:21 +0000 Message-ID: <4OTlXDFxpjG4Ew$g@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:23:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: >>In article , David Stevenson >> writes >>>David J. Grabiner wrote: > >>>>You may not have a *conventional* understanding over an opponent's >>>>infraction. For example, you may not agree to accept a trump lead from the >>>>wrong hand only with an odd number of trumps. >>> >>> Perhaps you could quote an authority for this assertion. >>> >> >>Proddy and I have discussed on a number of occasions that the acceptance >>of an infraction logically must show a minimum hand for such action. >>Does this fall into the area of "general bridge knowledge" or is it an >>illegal agreement. Once discussed I don't see how it is possible for us >>not to *know* it. We alert it, by the way. chs john > >That's why I said "conventional" above. It is not conventional to agree >that 1S=(P)-P-(1H)-1S shows a hand which has a good spade suit but not >enough values to compete unilaterally to 2S. This agreement cannot be >forbidden, even though you might qualify it by saying that the bid requires >six spades, or that it requires a certain minimum spade strength. Only >conventional agreements can be forbidden. Sure - but you said they are forbidden. The simple answer is that there is no Law forbidding them. SOs may forbid them in their events, but it is up to the SOs. In fact the ACBL do forbid such agreements. The EBU do not forbid such agreements. The EBU has no permitted conventions that rely on opponent's infractions, but there seems no reason not to allow a convention that was permitted anyway. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 12:01:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:01:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from server03.gw.total-web.net (qmailr@server03.gw.total-web.net [209.186.12.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA04792 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:01:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 25308 invoked from network); 30 Oct 1999 02:00:54 -0000 Received: from ip-014-202.gw.total-web.net (HELO Bill) (209.186.14.202) by server03.gw.total-web.net with SMTP; 30 Oct 1999 02:00:54 -0000 Message-ID: <002701bf227a$056c4780$ca0ebad1@gw.totalweb.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws Forum" Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:56:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is the reply I received last December re the ACBL position on agreements after opponents infractions. I only got htis much after 2 or 3 messages from me. There has been no mention of thgis topic in the ACBL Bulletin so far this year. I believe it was Eric Landau who was the one who most recently wrote to BLML on this topic. Cheers................./Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Blaiss To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, December 13, 1998 5:26 PM Subject: Insufficient Bid -Reply > The present policy with regard to agreements concerning an opponent's > infraction is: > A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon an > opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they are > otherwise permitted. > > This is a slight change or clarification of our past policy which seemed to > prohibit any agreement (although it just disallowed conventional > agreements - there being none permitted by the convention charts). As > you can tell, legal natural methods may be altered. > > Your suggestion to make this a topic of a future article is well taken and > appropriate. I will probably do so sometime in 1999 -- such will at least > clarify the policy. > > Wiping it from your memory is difficult. The same holds true for > discussions that some pairs have had about psychic bidding or > deviations from an announced agreement. One example is a player > opening or overcalling a strong NT with long clubs and a weak hand > intending to pass an expected 2 club response. The next time partner > opens the partner might bid 2 clubs rather than bidding 3 NT. The comic > NT is disallowed as a convention so pairs having had a discussion about > that convention need to be especially careful. > > My apology for the delay in answering, your e-mails (as with others) > arrived at a time where many issues needed to be addressed. > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 12:31:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:03:43 +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 JAA04285 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:03:28 +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 11hL3E-000HBg-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:03:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:32:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: inadvertently condoning References: <002001bf21db$df8a4b00$d35108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <002001bf21db$df8a4b00$d35108c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >> It is an obvious interpretation. The EBU has said so. I see no >>conceivable reason why any other authority would say otherwise. >> >+=+ "for he himself has said it, > and it's greatly to his credit" +=+ >> >> We are trying to rule a game here. We do not want ludicrous >>interpretations because of some slight mis-wording of a Law. We know >>that the Law book does not deal with opening leads out of turn unless >>partner has *also* led in turn. > >+=+ Oh? Does not 'any lead out of turn' include > an opening lead? +=+ Do you not believe then that we should offer five options? Most of us believe that L55 applies to Faced Opening LOOTs. >>Does that mean we do not deal with >>opening leads out of turn? No, of course not. We accept an ovious >>interpretation of the relevant Law. > >+=+ Is that 'odious'? Perhaps it's obvious.+=+ >> >> BLML may go into depth sometimes, and even aggravate some of its >>reader's with seemingly futile arguments. They do no harm so long as we >>keep our aim in the right direction. Trying to prove that some totally >>stupid interpretation is actually the correct reading of a Law is >>unproductive, and should not be what BLML is for. >> >> Can we not just accept that if declarer makes an inadvertent call L25A >>allows it to be changed? >> >+=+ Subject to the conditions in 25A I would >think the answer has to be yes; but we have >in some way tangled the Law on changing >a call with the *Regulation* on alerting, and >we have to look to that regulation to learn >what we must do about an alert and its >timing, or not learn. I think if you place an >alert card and suddenly find it is green, >your priority is to change the 'call' and >making the alert follows after (but before >LHO has done anything). Would the Director >not treat your quick withdrawal of the >green card as an attempt to change the >call, for a different call? I think I must have >misunderstood something about this >thread? Clearly you have. If you withdraw your call and substitute an alert card most Directors will probably realise that you are not substituting a call. I see no point for trivialising the ruling of the game because of very slight imperfections in the Law book. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk//qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 12:35:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:41:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04570 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:41:29 +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 11hMa4-000MEa-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:41:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:02:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 11:55 PM 10/28/99 +0100, David S wrote: >>>>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>>I think no such thing, and have stated no such thing. I think that I am >>>allowed to ask the opponents what their bids mean, when it is my turn to >>>call. Period. Marvin presumed a meaning for the opponent's bid, and guessed >>>right. But the Laws do not obligate him to rely on his intuition in these >>>circumstances, and he is under no legal compunction to do so. >> >> Marvin stated specifically that if he had asked it would have been for >>partner's benefit not his own. That means he is not allowed to ask. > >No, it doesn't. I realize that my previous response was too glib, so I >appreciate the opportunity to be more precise. > >As you have correctly pointed out, L73B1 makes it illegal to >"communicate...through questions asked or not asked of the opponents". I >take this quite literally. Where the _asking_ of the question is >communicative (typically, "partner, I am intensely interested in this suit >should you happen to be on lead."), it is certainly improper and illegal. >But where the question is purely interrogative, it elicits information >_from the opponents_ to which you and your partner are legally entitled, >and conveys nothing, in and of itself, from you to your partner. Rubbish. You are getting information that to partner: that is communication, and is illegal, not to mention unethical and immoral. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 12:49:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:41:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04589 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:41:46 +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 11hMa4-000MEZ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:41:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:00:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L21B References: <014201bf22b6$9da39940$60de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <014201bf22b6$9da39940$60de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> "If you have probably made the wrong call because of the >>misinformation [failure to alert, etc] then you may change it: do you >>wish to do so?" > >If I were the player at the table and DWS the TD, I don't think >DWS's words mean I have to follow Marv French's position: >"he can't change the pass to a double when given the opportunity to > do so, because it would not be "as a result of the misinformation.", > >and I can follow the opposite position originally expressed >by Robin Barker: "As far as I can see, Law21B does not require >the non-offender to make the call he would have made without the >misinformation, only that he would have made a different call >without the misinformation!", > >and confirmed by Steve Willner: >"Subtle and perhaps a bit surprising, but I can't see anything in the >laws that contradicts Robin's conclusion.", > >I think the wording of the Law clearly supports Robin and Steve's >view, i.e. in the original problem, South can now double 6D even >though he originally would have taken the 6H save had he not >thought the double of 5H was for penalties e.g. he holds >Q10xxxx, AJxxxx, - x and will now double because his side's >apparent brace of aces will cash. I think my words, taken literally, support the same view, with which I agree. >L21B says "a player may...change a call"; it does not specify to >what the call may be changed. > >I cannot think of any obvious way to rectify the wording of L21B so >that Marv's meaning eventuates. I think one would have to refer to >the *intended call* which doesn't exist and thus cannot be mentioned >in the Laws. The problem is that we can't say what was in someone's >mind. If Robin and Steve are correct, the rest of this thread loses >some potency. The wording can easily be changed, and despite certain objections from members of this list, TDs often make judgement decisions about what players would have done in different situations. We have here another fairly trivial problem. The frequency of misinformation allowing a change to be made and then a player wishing to make a different change is in the level of frequency of the Red sox winning the World Series. If you want to change the Law so as not to permit that [and I wouldn't bother: why do we care?] then change it. If you get one case of this sort in a lifetime's directing I shall be surprised: if you do and have to make a judgement, so do so, and don't worry about it. >Sorry that I couldn't find a better way to thread this posting, >but I'm a computer neophyte. This post was fine! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 13:23:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:04:04 +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 JAA04302 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:03:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11hL3H-000DkN-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:03:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:47:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: the year zero, or 2007? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C280@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C280@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >The main issue concerning 25b is the question whether to allow a player to >change a non-inadvertent call, not demanding from him to play 4 diamonds in >a 3-1 fit due to a black-out. My personal opinion is that we should allow >that, but with paying a price. Which makes 25b an acceptable law for me, >though the wording could be easily improved. This approach seems also in >line with the scope expressing that the laws do restore equity more than >they penalize infractions. In my opinion everybody who agrees with that >approach should join me in allowing to substitute 4hearts for a pass after >partner's cuebid of 4diamonds, even when the pass in itself is not an >infraction. It certainly isn't bridge either. But we have to realise that >the consequences of more emphasis on equity could be big. Probably the >penalties for insufficient calls are to heavy and nobody can convince me >that the penalties for revokes are based on the idea to restore equity (yes >64C does, but that is the exeption!). The main argument against L25B is that it isn't bridge. Bridge is a game of mistakes, and if a player forgets the meaning of his partner's call, revokes, passes when he did not mean to and miscounts a hand in a session, it seems strange that you can correct one of these and not the others. If the bidding goes 1S - 4S - 4NT - 5D - -[oops] people have argued that 5D-5 is not a "bridge result". Well, it is, because bridge is a game of mistakes. Being allowed to change the pass means that you are now getting an artificial result not a bridge result. The other main argument against L25B is that it is a Law designed to help a small number of people: the BLs, the knowledgeable people. In the auction above, only one player in a hundred would think of calling the TD - after all you don't call the TD when you take a finesse the wrong way. Thus the 99 players out of 100 are disadvantaged by the Law. >My hope is that we are able to redefine some major leading principles for >our laws, only after which we start reconstruction. So, be patient David and >deliver your highly appreciated visions on the aim of our laws. > >Question: When Edgar introduced this famous average minus/real score >approach in 25b my objection was that this could put the innocent side in a >disadvantaged position, because their opponents might choose for a lucky >approach against the field, knowing they can not receive more than A-, so >not loose more than A- for example. My impression then was that this aspect >did not get enough attention. We work with new L25B for more than 2 years >now. Is there any experience supporting the different views? Is there any >theoretical support for my fear? No. The main effect of L25B is to confuse a very small number of people who see this Law in action while the majority stick with their mistakes. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk//qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 13:33:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:41:43 +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 KAA04572 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:41:32 +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 11hMa8-000MEZ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:41:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:19:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careless V irrational References: <199910291611.MAA18396@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910291611.MAA18396@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >David Burn asked: >> (9) If a declarer claims when his last two cards are 42 of a suit, >> then it would be careless / irrational to lead the deuce, and a >> defender with the singleton 3 should / should not be awarded at least >> one trick. > >> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" >> ***careless, should [but he agreed irrational to play 2 from AK2] > >> From: David Stevenson >> It is not irrational to play the 9 from J95. >> >> It is irrational to play the 2 from AK2. > >[and others, but not everyone, similarly] > >I cannot understand the principle from which these answers are >derived. The ACBL's "If unstated, suits are played from top down," is >simple and logical. So is my version, "Did declarer have a false >mental picture of the deal?" What equally simple rule gives the >answers above? Experience. I have been playing for a few years now. >Also, consider the declarer who holds 42 and knows the 3 is missing or >J95 and knows the ten is the only card out. Is he really obliged to >say "Top down..." or "Cashing the four (jack)?" It never happens in >any game I've played in! Either declarer claims saying nothing, or he >doesn't claim. Am I, as a defender, supposed to dispute it if declarer >does claim? It would never occur to me to do so. Supposed to? No, who said you should? You are not a BL, are you? you do what you wish in such situations. When I play out a few tricks, then from AK2, all winners, I lead the ace. From J95, all winners I lead the jack *usually* - and therein lies the difference. Players do not always cash from the top down, and the less solid a suit appears, the less do they always cash the top one. No doubt they should, but not to is merely careless. >The confusion may arise from the fact that 'irrational' and 'normal' >are not exact opposites. It is "normal," in the sense of "sometimes >seen" or "not rare," for players to make irrational plays. What if a >given play is both irrational and normal, as for example playing the 2 >when holding 42? (I am not convinced it is normal, but David S. says >it is, and I am willing to accede for purposes of this debate.) It is careless. Do you always lead the 4? I don't, and many people don't. >On the other hand, playing the 2 from 42 is without doubt "utterly >illogical, absurd," even if there are players who will do it from time >to time. It is not absurd. When you know it makes no difference people often do not do the "logical" thing so we should not rule on the assumption that they do. >As long as we stick to "irrational=utterly illogical, absurd," I don't >think we will have any problems. On the other hand, if someone offers >a simple rule to tell us which "not top down" plays are merely >careless, I'm willing to listen. In a situation where everyone including me plays top down then other plays are irrational. In a situation where some players including me do not play top down then other plays are careless. The former only really applies to top touching honours. >My main point was to distinguish between "flawed claims" and "flawed >claim statements." A subsidiary point was to wonder whether a >procedure for questioning vague claims might have merit. I like and approve the distinction between "flawed claims" and "flawed claim statements". -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 15:02:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:02:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA05601 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:02:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh7g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.240]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA11951 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:02:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991030005942.013054dc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:59:42 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:02 AM 10/30/99 +0100, David wrote: > Rubbish. You are getting information that to partner: that is >communication, and is illegal, not to mention unethical and immoral. It would be nice if you were even half so respectful of other opinions as you expect others to be of your own. You are not "getting information to partner". The opponents are doing so, in accordance with their legal obligations. If you wish to extend the language of the Laws for your own purposes, then you might at least make clear that you are doing so. The law you have cited makes it illegal to "communicate...through questions asked..." If you think this should cover as well "communication through answers given by the opponents", then you are entitled to your opinion. But it would be helpful for you to acknowledge that the text of the law contains no such language. Yours is merely one interpretation of the text. As to the "unethical and immoral" character of such behavior: the charge is faintly ridiculous. It is of course unethical to intentionally violate the Laws, and I suppose we would have to concede, a bit redundantly, that unethical behavior is also immoral. But your assertion in this case is that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation and acts in a principled way on their own view of the Laws is acting unethically. Even Kaplan, I suppose, who freely acknowdged having acted this way on dozens of occasions, and who, as the original author of the relevant language, might be regarded as a reliable authority on its intended meaning. So which College of Cardinals elected you Pope? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 15:38:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:38:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA05694 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:38:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.32] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11hRDl-0004eQ-00; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:38:34 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bf2298$fc062de0$205108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:32:38 +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: 29 October 1999 23:26 Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? >At 02:40 PM 10/29/99 -0400, Ron wrote: >>On the other hand, as Grattan noted he did not object to tighter >>wording of the "partner's benifit" clause. > >Which clause is that? I could not find that wording in the Laws. > +=+ I do not recall what I opinion I gave that is referred to here. I do not really see how the wording of the law could be any more explicit. Well, maybe we could say "thou shalt not ask a question for the purpose of making partner aware of something" - which is merely a restatement of what the law says already. +=+ > >In practice, the _interpretation_ of the Laws which makes it illegal to ask >questions so that partner will be fully informed is itself wholly >unenforceable, which is perhaps its greatest single drawback. > > +=+ I am puzzled by the use of "_interpretation_". It is a plain statement in the law (73B1) that requires very little 'interpretation', just an understanding of simple English. And the law does not temporise; it does not say you may ask a question to make some things known to partner but not others. To ask a question of opponent in order to put partner in possession of any piece of knowledge is a direct violation of the law. It is a sad reflection on the standards players perceive in themselves, as a body, when enforcement becomes an issue. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 15:38:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:38:54 +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 PAA05695 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:38:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.32] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11hRDn-0004eQ-00; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:38:36 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01bf2298$fd2384c0$205108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Subject: Walkabout Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:37:14 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:26:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.66] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11hRy4-0005LW-00; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 07:26:25 +0100 Message-ID: <003301bf229f$ab2f2000$205108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:52:26 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 30 October 1999 02:29 Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? > > 'Pure bridge logic' meanings -- such as John Probst's "It must >logically show a minimum for my sequence" are acceptable. > +=+ I do not think John's 'logic' is a universally accepted argument. It is a view taken in a particular partnership, and open to alternative understandings in other partnerships. So it is not "normal and general" but "special". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 16:26:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:26:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05784 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:26:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.66] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11hRy6-0005LW-00; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 07:26:26 +0100 Message-ID: <003401bf229f$abde99e0$205108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 07:25:41 +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: 30 October 1999 06:26 Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? > >You are not "getting information to partner". The opponents are doing so, >in accordance with their legal obligations. > >If you wish to extend the language of the Laws for your own purposes, then >you might at least make clear that you are doing so. The law you have cited >makes it illegal to "communicate...through questions asked..." If you think >this should cover as well "communication through answers given by the >opponents", then you are entitled to your opinion. But it would be helpful >for you to acknowledge that the text of the law contains no such language. >Yours is merely one interpretation of the text. > +=+ and, of course, the WBF's official interpretation. Note the use of "through" in the law. I would add, in the nicest possible way, that if your argument is that it is not a method of communicating with partner, and doing it 'through' the asking of a question, when you wish him to be aware of something and you ask a question in order that the information will be relayed in opponent's response, then I hold your argument to be sophistry of the most specious kind, unworthy, and utterly to be disregarded. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 30 18:00:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA06009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 18:00:38 +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 SAA06004 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 18:00:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.187] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11hTR0-0006vZ-00; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:00:23 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bf22ac$cbb02060$bb5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:59:21 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 30 October 1999 06:26 Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? >Even Kaplan, I >suppose, who freely acknowdged having acted this way on dozens of >occasions, and who, as the original author of the relevant language, might >be regarded as a reliable authority on its intended meaning. > +=+ Re Law 73B1: I recall with clarity the discussion and careful confirmation of the word 'through' with the express intention that it would cover the technique of bouncing the information off the wall to partner by way of question to opponent and opponent's answer heard by partner. Kaplan suggested the word was the right one for the purpose. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 00:26:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 00:26:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA06621 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 00:26:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveibe.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.110]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA30788 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:25:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991030102326.0131d52c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:23:26 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <000b01bf22ac$cbb02060$bb5108c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:59 AM 10/30/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >+=+ Re Law 73B1: >I recall with clarity the discussion and >careful confirmation of the word 'through' >with the express intention that it would cover >the technique of bouncing the information >off the wall to partner by way of question >to opponent and opponent's answer heard >by partner. Kaplan suggested the word >was the right one for the purpose. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It seems we have two opposing views of the genesis and original intent of the language in Law 73B1. Grattan was there, and it seems foolish to challenge his version of the story. And yet it is so directly at odds with the understanding provided publicly by Kaplan that it is hard to believe these two participated in the writing of the same lawbook. I have referred in the past to the Bridge World editorial of August 1981 stating Kaplan's position in this regard. Perhaps it would be useful to quote from that article. "We do not agree that Proprieties II B1 applies, since that section outlaws "communication between partners ... effected through... questions asked"; in asking for a review, there is usually no such communcation. Oh, requesting a review and asking for information about an enemy call are much the same. But a distinction must be drawn between improper partnership communication through the _asking_ itself, and the entirely proper information contained in the enemy _reply_...." "Since partner may properly base action on the information from an opponent's reply, how can it be improper for you to ask, either for a review or about an enemy bid, so long as the asking itself carries no special message? We hope this doesn't shock anyone, but dozens of times our publisher has asked about opponents' calls for his partner's benefit, rather than for his own, and he is unrepentant." (The editorial goes on to describe an incident in the '67 Bermuda Bowl in which Kaplan asked Belladonna for clarification about an inference that Kaplan knew from his extensive research on the Italians' methods, but which would not have been apparent to Kay.) "If he had it all to do over, he'd do the same again. In fact, he has done the same again, often. And he will continue to do so in future. No one can convince him that Proprieties II, B1 was intended to outlaw such conduct (particularly since he wrote that section himself). He and we consider it entirely proper to ask properly for a review, or to ask a proper question, in order to ensure that partner is properly informed." Much has been made of the fact that the Laws have been changed (twice) since that editorial was written. Indeed, the proprieties were renumbered, and the relevant language was altered. But it is remarkable that no substantive changes were made to the sense of that passage. Even the word "through", which Grattan makes much of, is included in the earlier text. What does all this prove? Not that my position is necessarily the correct one. Grattan, David, and Marvin have each earned respect for their understanding of bridge law, and notwithstanding the unpleasant turn this thread has taken, will continue to enjoy my respect as well. But the critique that this position is "rubbish... unethical and immoral" (David) or "sophistry of the most specious kind, unworthy, and utterly to be disregarded" (Grattan) is completely over the top. Whether you agree with it or not, it is a position with an eminently respectable pedigree. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 01:46:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 01:46:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA06805 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 01:46:23 +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 11hahn-000CKE-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:46:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:44:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Rubbish. You are getting information that to partner: that is >communication, and is illegal, not to mention unethical and immoral. Sorry about the grammar. I meant: Rubbish. You are getting information to partner: that is communication, and is illegal, not to mention unethical and immoral. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 01:46:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 01:46:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA06806 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 01:46:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11hahn-000CKF-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:46:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:48:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991030005942.013054dc@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991030005942.013054dc@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 01:02 AM 10/30/99 +0100, David wrote: >> Rubbish. You are getting information that to partner: that is >>communication, and is illegal, not to mention unethical and immoral. > >It would be nice if you were even half so respectful of other opinions as >you expect others to be of your own. I do not expect people to be respectful of my opinions. After all, I would be highly disappointed, would I not? As for posting style, that was thrashed out some years ago. >You are not "getting information to partner". The opponents are doing so, >in accordance with their legal obligations. > >If you wish to extend the language of the Laws for your own purposes, then >you might at least make clear that you are doing so. The law you have cited >makes it illegal to "communicate...through questions asked..." If you think >this should cover as well "communication through answers given by the >opponents", then you are entitled to your opinion. But it would be helpful >for you to acknowledge that the text of the law contains no such language. >Yours is merely one interpretation of the text. Forget the text. You are in possession of some information. Partner is not. You get that information to partner, but not by a play or a call. You claim that is legal? >As to the "unethical and immoral" character of such behavior: the charge is >faintly ridiculous. It is of course unethical to intentionally violate the >Laws, and I suppose we would have to concede, a bit redundantly, that >unethical behavior is also immoral. But your assertion in this case is that >anyone who disagrees with your interpretation and acts in a principled way >on their own view of the Laws is acting unethically. Even Kaplan, I >suppose, who freely acknowdged having acted this way on dozens of >occasions, and who, as the original author of the relevant language, might >be regarded as a reliable authority on its intended meaning. So which >College of Cardinals elected you Pope? Dozens of occasions? Kaplan did it on one famous occasion, under a different Law book, and later showed doubt as to whether he should have. Yes? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 03:53:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 03:53:32 +1100 (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 DAA07150 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 03:53:22 +1100 (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 MAA27059 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:53:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA19438 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:53:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:53:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910301653.MAA19438@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: careless V irrational Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Experience. I have been playing for a few years now. ... > Players do not always cash from the top down, and the > less solid a suit appears, the less do they always cash the top one. No > doubt they should, but not to is merely careless. Well, at least we know where we differ. David rules claims on the basis of what players would do if they were to play on. I wish to rule them based on a definition of "irrational," notwithstanding the fact that players do, in reality, make irrational plays from time to time. Somebody please tell one of us he is wrong. Preferably David. :-) > I like and approve the distinction between "flawed claims" and "flawed > claim statements". At least we agree on something. So failing to specify the 4 from 42 is a flawed claim? I would have said there is nothing wrong with the logic of the claim; the problem was only that the statement omitted the "top-down." From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 04:22:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 04:22:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from jaguars.cableinet.net (jaguars-int.cableinet.net [193.38.113.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA07271 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 04:22:35 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 27182 invoked from network); 30 Oct 1999 16:02:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.146.67) by jaguars with SMTP; 30 Oct 1999 16:02:18 -0000 Message-ID: <381B29C5.94F30BA8@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 18:24:21 +0100 From: masterit Reply-To: masterit@cableinet.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: directing Subject: asking Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk but the critique that this position is "rubbish... unethical and immoral" (David) or "sophistry of the most specious kind, unworthy, and utterly to be disregarded" (Grattan) is completely over the top. Whether you agree with it or not, it is a position with an eminently respectable pedigree. Mike Dennis whilst i am incapable of Grattons terminology, and would never publically resort to Davids bluntness, i must climb (nay, leap) off my comfy fence onto their side. i am also intrigued that not everyone else joins us. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 04:31:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 04:31:08 +1100 (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 EAA07310 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 04:31:00 +1100 (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 NAA27383 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:30:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA19576 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:31:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:31:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910301731.NAA19576@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > It seems we have two opposing views of the genesis and original intent of > the language in Law 73B1. Grattan was there, and it seems foolish to > challenge his version of the story. And yet it is so directly at odds with > the understanding provided publicly by Kaplan that it is hard to believe > these two participated in the writing of the same lawbook. > > I have referred in the past to the Bridge World editorial of August 1981 It might be helpful to remind new readers to distinguish three separate cases: the "telling question," the "pro question," and the "Kaplan question." The "telling question" ("That doesn't show _clubs_, does it?" -- one guess which suit questioner holds!) is blatantly illegal. I trust there will be no dispute about that! The term "Kaplan question" refers to the situation where opponents have already given MI. Rather than let the TD sort it out later, Kaplan made sure the MI was immediately corrected. The "pro question" is asking a question (or for a review) to make sure partner knows what is going on. Partner doesn't receive any information to which he is not legally entitled (else we have the telling question), but he receives it even without knowing to ask for himself. Grattan and one of the Lille interpretations have made it very clear that the pro question is illegal. Nevertheless, and in spite of Grattan's view, I don't think the illegality is apparent in the text of the laws. In particular, the unlimited permission to ask questions (and for a review) at one's own turn seem relevant. Furthermore, the Kaplan editorial, though it has no force of law, seems to endorse this view of the language. And furthermore, the official position seems unenforceable. Yet it is the official position, and we must accept it. Perhaps the WBF LC will consider a change in either the language or the substance in the future, but at the moment there is little to argue about. I would say the position as regards the Kaplan question is unclear. Perhaps, given the apparent broad interpretation of L73B1, it is technically illegal, but I cannot imagine a prohibition being enforced. Are the opponents going to say "We have given MI, but then East asked a question to clarify matters for West?" Come on! From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 04:42:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 04:42:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA07337 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 04:42:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei1s.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.60]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA21513 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:41:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991030133929.0131ca54@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:39:29 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991030005942.013054dc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991030005942.013054dc@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:48 PM 10/30/99 +0100, David wrote: > > Dozens of occasions? Kaplan did it on one famous occasion, under a >different Law book, and later showed doubt as to whether he should have. >Yes? Sorry, I never actually saw him do it. However, in the editorial I have quoted in the companion thread "Asking for Partner's Benefit", he _claimed_ to have done so on dozens of occasions, and emphatically declined to express any doubt whatsoever about the propriety of such. To the contrary, he proclaimed himself to be "unrepentant", and announced forthrightly his intention to continue exactly that behavior in the future. As to the "different Law book" issue, it is true that the Laws have undergone two formal revisions since Kaplan expressed his opinions on this issue so forcefully. However, nobody has yet demonstrated any substantive change in the relevant language from the time of that editorial to the present. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 04:50:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 04:50:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from iron.singnet.com.sg (smtp1.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA07384 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 04:50:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (58zulu372.singnet.com.sg [165.21.145.126]) by iron.singnet.com.sg (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA26097 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 01:50:32 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991031014702.007ec910@pop.singnet.com.sg> X-Sender: yanhoon@pop.singnet.com.sg (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 01:47:02 +0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: derrick Subject: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi to all Would appreciate your opinions on the following: Team of 4 Brd 14: Dealer E none vul S K754 N E S W H QJ83 P P 1NT(1) D A8 P P 2D(2) P C Q72 2H P 3D P S AQ S T82 P *P H T54 H K976 D 64 D Q75 C AK8543 C JT6 (1) EW play the mini NT (10-12 HCP) S J963 (2) Alerted H A2 D KJT932 C 9 Contract: 3D by S making 4 +130 Defenders take the DQ, SA and CA * E enquires about the alert of 2D and N explains that he thought it meant both majors initially but now thinks it is natural. Director is called and establishes that NS's agreement is both majors. Players are representing their respective clubs in an international C'ship in the South-east Asian region in Malaysia. NS strong players, EW less so. 1) How would you rule ? 2) Assuming that Pass is a demonstrably suggested LA to 3D, what adjusted score would you assign ? 3) TD stated that the assigned adjusted score should be based on "normal play" in 2H rather than on "the most favourable result that is likely" because the play in 2H is "subsequent and not consequent to the infraction". Is this interpretation correct ? Thanks Derrick Heng From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 05:45:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 04:52:50 +1100 (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 EAA07401 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 04:52:42 +1100 (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 NAA27623 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA19647 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:52:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:52:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910301752.NAA19647@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: FARLEY_WALLY@tandem.com > Obviously, the regulation *as I have stated it* is too > ludicrous to consider Oh, the real text was much worse than you have stated. It was to the effect that you may not have _any_ agreements after an opponent's irregularity. (The text is probably to be found at the Australian archive site somewhere.) > From: "Bill Bickford" > This is the reply I received last December re the ACBL position on > agreements after opponents infractions. > From: Gary Blaiss > > The present policy with regard to agreements concerning an opponent's > > infraction is: > > A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon an > > opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they are > > otherwise permitted. Thanks for posting. I had some correspondence with Gary Blaiss perhaps two or three years ago. He agreed that the old regulation made no sense and said it would be changed, and it looks as though there has been some progress. I _think_ the intent is, for example, if you play the double in 1S-(2C)-x as negative, you must continue to play it as negative if the 2C bid was corrected from an insufficient 1C bid. At least you cannot give double a different conventional meaning, e.g., showing spade support. It is not clear whether you could reassign it the natural meaning of penalty. On the other hand, the auction 1S-(1C)accepted-x is a different auction, and it is not clear to me whether conventions are intended to be authorized. I hope Gary's planned article will make everything clear. > > This is a slight change or clarification of our past policy which seemed > to > > prohibit any agreement (although it just disallowed conventional > > agreements - there being none permitted by the convention charts). As Neither the existing nor past convention charts gave any hint that otherwise permitted conventions were disallowed after an opponent's (or one's own) irregularity. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 06:38:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 06:38:46 +1100 (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 GAA07591 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 06:38:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp236-243.worldonline.nl [195.241.236.243]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA20607; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:38:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002301bf230f$07cfbe40$f3ecf1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , "derrick" Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:43:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the week before this Asean Ch. I gave a TD-course in Kuala Lumpur which was attended by many TD's and players who are now playing (directing?) in this CH. I introduced the terms subsequent and consequent there, so may be I am the guilty one, depending on who the TD was. Extending this course they might accept my view for this case. 3 diamonds is a quite unethical bid, certainly when the NS pair is strong, as given. Don't accept the argument that 2 hearts can't show good hearts anymore: 'since otherwise north would have called before, of course'. There isn't a wide gap between 'nomal' and 'most favourable likely', but analyzing is not easy. One off seems reasonable. The interpretation given by the TD was not demonstrably suggested by my lectures in KL. ton -----Original Message----- From: derrick To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, October 30, 1999 8:30 PM Subject: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships >Hi to all > >Would appreciate your opinions on the following: > >Team of 4 >Brd 14: Dealer E >none vul > S K754 N E S W > H QJ83 P P 1NT(1) > D A8 P P 2D(2) P > C Q72 2H P 3D P > S AQ S T82 P *P > H T54 H K976 > D 64 D Q75 > C AK8543 C JT6 (1) EW play the mini NT (10-12 HCP) > S J963 (2) Alerted > H A2 > D KJT932 > C 9 > >Contract: 3D by S making 4 +130 > Defenders take the DQ, SA and CA > >* E enquires about the alert of 2D and N explains that he thought it meant >both majors initially but now thinks it is natural. > >Director is called and establishes that NS's agreement is both majors. > >Players are representing their respective clubs in an international C'ship >in the South-east Asian region in Malaysia. NS strong players, EW less so. > >1) How would you rule ? > >2) Assuming that Pass is a demonstrably suggested LA to 3D, what adjusted >score would you assign ? > >3) TD stated that the assigned adjusted score should be based on "normal >play" in 2H rather than on "the most favourable result that is likely" >because the play in 2H is "subsequent and not consequent to the >infraction". Is this interpretation correct ? > > >Thanks > >Derrick Heng > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 08:07:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:07:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07928 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:07:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:07:35 -0700 Message-ID: <00b801bf231a$c12df680$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199910291808.AA12089@gateway.tandem.com> Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:07:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wally Farley wrote: > The ACBL has a regulation to the effect that one may not have any > conventional understandings about the bidding subsequent to an > accepted insufficient bid. I do not know where the regulation is to > be found, but have heard it cited as an ACBL regulation on numerous > occasions. Obviously, the regulation *as I have stated it* is too > ludicrous to consider -- I imagine that they have, in some way, said > that you may not have attach a different conventional meaning to the > calls after an accepted insufficient bid than if you had not accepted > it (but I wouldn't put it past the ACBL to have regulated as I have > paraphrased). > > 'Pure bridge logic' meanings -- such as John Probst's "It must > logically show a minimum for my sequence" are acceptable. One of > the senior NAmerican contributors (I think Steve Willner or Eric > Landau) started a thread a while back about how it was impossible > (under ACBL regulations) to ever play in a partnership that had > even discussed the *possibility* of an opponent's insufficient bid; > perhaps this thread will bring that discussion out again. > Haven't been following this thread, so the ACBL regulation may have been quoted by someone else. Anyway, here it is, from the Tech Files of ACBLScor software: ###### DEFENSE AGAINST OPPONENT'S INFRACTION A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon an opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they are otherwise permitted. ###### I leave the detailed interpretation to others, although it appears that it is okay to discuss an infraction's potential effect on natural methods. The origin (e.g., BoD, LC, Office Policy) of the regulation was not cited, nor is it dated. That information should not be omitted. Now, I find the regulation in a different form (why?), under ACBL Conventions Regulations on the ACBL web site: ###### Defenses after Opponent's Infraction Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of rotation has been approved. ###### No origin/date for this either, which looks like something that could be debated. Is a range agreement always a convention? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 08:19:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:19:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07962 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:19:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-16-11.inter.net.il [213.8.16.11]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA23616; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:18:49 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <381B60C6.1CD6C22D@zahav.net.il> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:19:02 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? References: <199910301752.NAA19647@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Playing with my former regular partner ,we discussed what is the meaning of a bid/call if we accept the opponents' insufficient bid or don't accept it . Our decision was to go on the auction as if the the infraction wouldn't occur - when we accepted the insufficient bid or didn't. We had no doubt it is an ethical (and of course legal) behavior. To accept the insufficient bid or not -> is another issue , but this is allowed by the laws and ethical..... Again , I am not sure that this "notes" are allowed by ACBL . If not tell me what is unethical or illegal ?? Cheers Dany Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: FARLEY_WALLY@tandem.com > > Obviously, the regulation *as I have stated it* is too > > ludicrous to consider > > Oh, the real text was much worse than you have stated. It was to the > effect that you may not have _any_ agreements after an opponent's > irregularity. (The text is probably to be found at the Australian > archive site somewhere.) > > > From: "Bill Bickford" > > This is the reply I received last December re the ACBL position on > > agreements after opponents infractions. > > > From: Gary Blaiss > > > The present policy with regard to agreements concerning an opponent's > > > infraction is: > > > A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon an > > > opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they are > > > otherwise permitted. > > Thanks for posting. I had some correspondence with Gary Blaiss perhaps > two or three years ago. He agreed that the old regulation made no sense > and said it would be changed, and it looks as though there has been some > progress. > > I _think_ the intent is, for example, if you play the double in > 1S-(2C)-x as negative, you must continue to play it as negative if the > 2C bid was corrected from an insufficient 1C bid. At least you cannot > give double a different conventional meaning, e.g., showing spade > support. It is not clear whether you could reassign it the natural > meaning of penalty. On the other hand, the auction 1S-(1C)accepted-x > is a different auction, and it is not clear to me whether conventions > are intended to be authorized. I hope Gary's planned article will make > everything clear. > > > > This is a slight change or clarification of our past policy which seemed > > to > > > prohibit any agreement (although it just disallowed conventional > > > agreements - there being none permitted by the convention charts). As > > Neither the existing nor past convention charts gave any hint that > otherwise permitted conventions were disallowed after an opponent's (or > one's own) irregularity. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 09:18:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:18:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08144 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:18:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:18:38 -0700 Message-ID: <00ce01bf2324$ae941b80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991030102326.0131d52c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:12:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: Sent: Saturday, October 30, 1999 7:23 AM Subject: Asking For Partner's Benefit > At 08:59 AM 10/30/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > > >+=+ Re Law 73B1: > >I recall with clarity the discussion and > >careful confirmation of the word 'through' > >with the express intention that it would cover > >the technique of bouncing the information > >off the wall to partner by way of question > >to opponent and opponent's answer heard > >by partner. Kaplan suggested the word > >was the right one for the purpose. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > It seems we have two opposing views of the genesis and original intent of > the language in Law 73B1. Grattan was there, and it seems foolish to > challenge his version of the story. And yet it is so directly at odds with > the understanding provided publicly by Kaplan that it is hard to believe > these two participated in the writing of the same lawbook. > > I have referred in the past to the Bridge World editorial of August 1981 > stating Kaplan's position in this regard. Perhaps it would be useful to > quote from that article. > > "We do not agree that Proprieties II B1 applies, since that section outlaws > "communication between partners ... effected through... questions asked"; > in asking for a review, there is usually no such communcation. Oh, > requesting a review and asking for information about an enemy call are much > the same. But a distinction must be drawn between improper partnership > communication through the _asking_ itself, and the entirely proper > information contained in the enemy _reply_...." > > "Since partner may properly base action on the information from an > opponent's reply, how can it be improper for you to ask, either for a > review or about an enemy bid, so long as the asking itself carries no > special message? We hope this doesn't shock anyone, but dozens of times our > publisher has asked about opponents' calls for his partner's benefit, > rather than for his own, and he is unrepentant." > > (The editorial goes on to describe an incident in the '67 Bermuda Bowl in > which Kaplan asked Belladonna for clarification about an inference that > Kaplan knew from his extensive research on the Italians' methods, but which > would not have been apparent to Kay.) > > "If he had it all to do over, he'd do the same again. In fact, he has done > the same again, often. And he will continue to do so in future. No one can > convince him that Proprieties II, B1 was intended to outlaw such conduct > (particularly since he wrote that section himself). He and we consider it > entirely proper to ask properly for a review, or to ask a proper question, > in order to ensure that partner is properly informed." > > Much has been made of the fact that the Laws have been changed (twice) > since that editorial was written. Indeed, the proprieties were renumbered, > and the relevant language was altered. But it is remarkable that no > substantive changes were made to the sense of that passage. Even the word > "through", which Grattan makes much of, is included in the earlier text. > > What does all this prove? Not that my position is necessarily the correct > one. Grattan, David, and Marvin have each earned respect for their > understanding of bridge law, and notwithstanding the unpleasant turn this > thread has taken, will continue to enjoy my respect as well. > > But the critique that this position is "rubbish... unethical and immoral" > (David) or "sophistry of the most specious kind, unworthy, and utterly to > be disregarded" (Grattan) is completely over the top. Whether you agree > with it or not, it is a position with an eminently respectable pedigree. > I hope my comments have not been offensive, as anyone holding a Kaplan opinion (I was unaware of the extent of his position, or forgot it) can't be all wet. My feeling is that the spirit of the game rules against the Kaplan/Dennis approach, and that the Laws should either make that plain or explicitly allow it. Grattan, David, and I say it's already plain, but if Kaplan didn't see it as such, then it may not be. It is human nature for us to see what we want to see. Meanwhile, if a player feels that the opposing methods have not been fully disclosed in accordance with Laws and regulations, why not call the TD? That may be helping partner in a way, but it is also flagging an infraction, appropriate at any time and for any reason. For instance, one could call the TD when an opening 4D bid is explained as "Namyats" after an Alert. Since the ACBL says conventions are to be described, not named, this is an infraction, and the TD could be called by fourth seat to require a full explanation of the convention. Surely Edgar and Mike would not ask for information when it is partner's turn to call, but that is when disclosure may be most needed. Calling the TD can be done at any time, one reason I prefer that approach to theirs. Note that this can even be extended to situations in which the opposing cc is not on the table, as required, or is incorrectly (e.g., illegible, incomplete) filled out in regard to the call in question. Hmm. I just remembered I can't look at the opposing cc until it is my turn to bid, so I guess that infraction must wait for my turn. Too bad. I believe TDs are generally against the practice of calling them for a private conference. Since the conversation would be UI for partner, why not make it private? One could say, to satisfy the table's curiosity, "I believe there has been inadequate disclosure of a partnership agreement and I want to discuss this with the TD." That too would be UI, but probably harmless. Not that I am happy with this idea. It still smacks of helping partner, and I feel that partners must fetch for themselves. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 09:24:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:24:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08161 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:24:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:24:00 -0700 Message-ID: <00d601bf2325$6e8d9d80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991030102326.0131d52c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:23:31 -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 Mike Dennis wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > > >+=+ Re Law 73B1: > >I recall with clarity the discussion and > >careful confirmation of the word 'through' > >with the express intention that it would cover > >the technique of bouncing the information > >off the wall to partner by way of question > >to opponent and opponent's answer heard > >by partner. Kaplan suggested the word > >was the right one for the purpose. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > It seems we have two opposing views of the genesis and original intent of > the language in Law 73B1. Grattan was there, and it seems foolish to > challenge his version of the story. And yet it is so directly at odds with > the understanding provided publicly by Kaplan that it is hard to believe > these two participated in the writing of the same lawbook. > > I have referred in the past to the Bridge World editorial of August 1981 > stating Kaplan's position in this regard. Perhaps it would be useful to > quote from that article. > > "We do not agree that Proprieties II B1 applies, since that section outlaws > "communication between partners ... effected through... questions asked"; > in asking for a review, there is usually no such communcation. Oh, > requesting a review and asking for information about an enemy call are much > the same. But a distinction must be drawn between improper partnership > communication through the _asking_ itself, and the entirely proper > information contained in the enemy _reply_...." > > "Since partner may properly base action on the information from an > opponent's reply, how can it be improper for you to ask, either for a > review or about an enemy bid, so long as the asking itself carries no > special message? We hope this doesn't shock anyone, but dozens of times our > publisher has asked about opponents' calls for his partner's benefit, > rather than for his own, and he is unrepentant." > > (The editorial goes on to describe an incident in the '67 Bermuda Bowl in > which Kaplan asked Belladonna for clarification about an inference that > Kaplan knew from his extensive research on the Italians' methods, but which > would not have been apparent to Kay.) > > "If he had it all to do over, he'd do the same again. In fact, he has done > the same again, often. And he will continue to do so in future. No one can > convince him that Proprieties II, B1 was intended to outlaw such conduct > (particularly since he wrote that section himself). He and we consider it > entirely proper to ask properly for a review, or to ask a proper question, > in order to ensure that partner is properly informed." > > Much has been made of the fact that the Laws have been changed (twice) > since that editorial was written. Indeed, the proprieties were renumbered, > and the relevant language was altered. But it is remarkable that no > substantive changes were made to the sense of that passage. Even the word > "through", which Grattan makes much of, is included in the earlier text. > > What does all this prove? Not that my position is necessarily the correct > one. Grattan, David, and Marvin have each earned respect for their > understanding of bridge law, and notwithstanding the unpleasant turn this > thread has taken, will continue to enjoy my respect as well. > > But the critique that this position is "rubbish... unethical and immoral" > (David) or "sophistry of the most specious kind, unworthy, and utterly to > be disregarded" (Grattan) is completely over the top. Whether you agree > with it or not, it is a position with an eminently respectable pedigree. > I hope my comments have not been offensive, as anyone holding a Kaplan opinion (I was unaware of the extent of his position, or forgot it) can't be all wet. My feeling is that the spirit of the game rules against the Kaplan/Dennis approach, and that the Laws should either make that plain or explicitly allow it. Grattan, David, and I say it's already plain, but if Kaplan didn't see it as such, then it may not be. It is human nature for us to see what we want to see. Meanwhile, if a player feels that the opposing methods have not been fully disclosed in accordance with Laws and regulations, why not call the TD? That may be helping partner in a way, but it is also flagging an infraction, usually appropriate at any time. For instance, one could call the TD when an opening 4D bid is explained as "Namyats" after an Alert. Since the ACBL says conventions are to be described, not named, this is an infraction, and the TD could be called by fourth seat to require a full explanation of the convention. Surely Edgar and Mike would not ask for information when it is partner's turn to call, but that is when disclosure may be most needed. Calling the TD can be done at any time, one reason I prefer that approach to theirs. Note that this can even be extended to situations in which the opposing cc is not on the table, as required, or is incorrectly (e.g., illegible, incomplete) filled out in regard to the call in question. Hmm. I just remembered I can't look at the opposing cc until it is my turn to bid, so I guess that infraction must wait for my turn. Too bad. I believe TDs are generally against the practice of calling them for a private conference. Since the conversation would be UI for partner, why not make it private? One could say, to satisfy the table's curiosity, "I believe there has been inadequate disclosure of a partnership agreement and I want to discuss this with the TD." That too would be UI, but probably harmless. Not that I am happy with this idea. It still smacks of helping partner, and I feel that partners must fetch for themselves. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 11:18:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:18:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08512 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:18:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from grabiner (dialup-20-23-bg.wcnet.org [205.133.172.23]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA01125 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 20:18:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991030201652.00825e00@mail.wcnet.org> X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 20:16:52 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991031014702.007ec910@pop.singnet.com.sg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:47 AM 10/31/99 +0800, derrick wrote: >3) TD stated that the assigned adjusted score should be based on "normal >play" in 2H rather than on "the most favourable result that is likely" >because the play in 2H is "subsequent and not consequent to the >infraction". Is this interpretation correct ? No. Normal play would usually be assumed, but if there are several reasonable lines of play which give different numbers of tricks, the line chosen must be the one most favorable to the non-offenders. (For example, if a club lead gives up a trick which would not be given up on a spade lead, assume a spade lead if either is likely.) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 11:18:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:18:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08511 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:18:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from grabiner (dialup-20-23-bg.wcnet.org [205.133.172.23]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA01120 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 20:18:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991030201054.0081b800@mail.wcnet.org> X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 20:10:54 -0400 To: From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? In-Reply-To: <00b801bf231a$c12df680$fb095e18@san.rr.com> References: <199910291808.AA12089@gateway.tandem.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:07 PM 10/30/99 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >###### >Defenses after Opponent's Infraction > >Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's >infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the >fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out >of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. >Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of >rotation has been approved. >###### >No origin/date for this either, which looks like something that could >be debated. Is a range agreement always a convention? A range agreement for a pass is a convention; a pass is conventional unless it indicates willingness to play in the last-named call. A range agreement for 1NT is not conventional; thus it would be legal to play that a 1NT overcall of an opening bid out of rotation shows a hand outside the range that would normally open 1NT. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 11:45:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:45:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08645 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:45:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 17:45:30 -0700 Message-ID: <010f01bf2339$33585c00$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991030102326.0131d52c@pop.mindspring.com> <00ce01bf2324$ae941b80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 17:42:27 -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 Accidental double post, sorry. I must find an alternative to Microsoft's Outlook Express, which likes to send things prematurely without telling me. Marv (Marvin L. French). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 12:17:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:17:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA08749 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:17:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-36.pinehurst.net [12.20.137.242]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Sandhills) with ESMTP id VAA07500 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <381BC37A.32960B99@pinehurst.net> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:20:10 -0700 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3.0.1.32.19991030102326.0131d52c@pop.mindspring.com> <00d601bf2325$6e8d9d80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been following this thread with great interest. I often play with beginning players and in many circumtances bid have been made that I know my partner has no clue that they mean something other than partner thinks. ex. unusual NT, some doubles, and some cuebids. Some newer players do not know 1NT forcing, etc. I have always wanted to ask for an explanation to benefit the beginner but felt it would not be correct to do so. I like Kaplan's approach, which would solve my dilemma very nicely. The next best thing I can think of is to just ask for my own information even tho I probably already know the answer and hope my partner is listening. Can some of this discussion be conducted with the beginner in mind??? How quickly should the director be called when after 3 passes, the partner of the player in the pass out seat says "speak to me, baby" and the 4th seat bids?????? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 13:42:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:42:50 +1100 (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 NAA08935 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:42:40 +1100 (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 11hkwu-000Il6-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 02:42:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 00:18:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careless V irrational References: <199910301653.MAA19438@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199910301653.MAA19438@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> I like and approve the distinction between "flawed claims" and "flawed >> claim statements". > >At least we agree on something. So failing to specify the 4 from 42 is >a flawed claim? I would have said there is nothing wrong with the >logic of the claim; the problem was only that the statement omitted the >"top-down." If the hand had been played out, it would be a common mistake to play the 2 first. It is a careless play. So, by not saying top-down, you have made a flawed claim because you have said what you would quite likely have done. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 13:42:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:42:49 +1100 (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 NAA08934 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:42:40 +1100 (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 11hkwu-000Il7-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 02:42:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 00:20:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991030005942.013054dc@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Dozens of occasions? Kaplan did it on one famous occasion, under a >different Law book, and later showed doubt as to whether he should have. >Yes? It seems from later posts that he did repeat this. My memory at fault. Sorry. However, I still am under the impression that he later showed doubt about this. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 13:46:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:46:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from slot1-192.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot1-192.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08971 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:46:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-192.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA09761 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 22:45:08 -0400 Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 22:45:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Nearest left thumb Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In general, I agree. More MidChart events will help allow some conventions (such as Multi 2D) to become better known. Multi is legal at MidChart and illegal at GCC. The ACBL must believe that unusual carding systems must be harder to play against than unusual bidding conventions. The carding regulations are the same at GCC, MidChart, and SuperChart. In this specific case more MidChart events won't provide an opportunity to practice more esoteric carding methods. This prohibition against esoteric carding methods at MidChart and above cannot be right. Additional UI problems from lack of discussion should become a very minor issue among those interested in playing in MidChart and SuperChart events. Bruce bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au wrote: : Adam Beneschan wrote: :>Steve Willner wrote: :>> Two factors no one has mentioned: :>> A. Both dual-message carding and irregular card ordering are unfamiliar :>> in the ACBL, and it is therefore harder for players to play against :>> these methods. Of course this factor is more relevant to the GCC than :>> to the SuperChart. :>I don't know whether this is a valid argument. The kind of players :>that would find it hard to play against odd-even signaling are :>probably the same players who never pay attention to the defender's :>spots when they're declaring anyway. 1/2 :) :> :>(Of course, I mean this to apply only to odd-even signaling---not to :>some esoteric ordering scheme like 53629748 or something.) : This is the argument that is continually hammered on RGB. we cannot : play the Multi because it is unknown, so it will not be allowed until it : is better known - but it cannot become better known because it is not : allowed! : I think the ACBL solution is to have more MidChart events. There are : plenty of Level 4 events here to allow people to practise more esoteric : methods. Admittedly we have geographical problems - one or two large : Counties have no Level 4 events! : -- : David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ : Liverpool, England, UK 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 Oct 31 14:26:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA09079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:26:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09074 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:26:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.9.251]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 20:26:33 -0700 Message-ID: <013e01bf234f$b2ce0d20$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , , , References: <3.0.6.32.19991031014702.007ec910@pop.singnet.com.sg> Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 20:26:13 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wish they were all as easy as this one! Derrick Heng wrote: > Would appreciate your opinions on the following: > > Team of 4 > Brd 14: Dealer E > none vul > S K754 N E S W > H QJ83 P P 1NT(1) > D A8 P P 2D(2) P > C Q72 2H P 3D P > S AQ S T82 P *P > H T54 H K976 > D 64 D Q75 > C AK8543 C JT6 (1) EW play the mini NT (10-12 HCP) > S J963 (2) Alerted > H A2 > D KJT932 > C 9 > > Contract: 3D by S making 4 +130 > Defenders take the DQ, SA and CA > > * E enquires about the alert of 2D and N explains that he thought > it meant both majors initially but now thinks it is natural. > > Director is called and establishes that NS's agreement is both majors. > > Players are representing their respective clubs in an international > C'ship in the South-east Asian region in Malaysia. NS strong players, > EW less so. > > 1) How would you rule ? Per L16A2, misuse of unauthorized information (UI). Change the contract to 2H when adjusting the score. North's 2H bid shows a long suit from South's point of view, and we can't let the Alert jog South's memory. As Ton points out, an argument by South that North can't have long hearts after passing 1NT should not be accepted. > > 2) Assuming that Pass is a demonstrably suggested LA to 3D, what > adjusted score would you assign ? What you mean is: Assuming that passing 2H is an LA to the demonstrably suggested 3D, what score would you assign? The assumption is correct, and the assignment of scores is per L12C2: For E/W, the most favorable result that was likely in the defense of 2H, my guess is +50 For N/S, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable in a contract of 2H, my guess is -100. I could easily be wrong. Such score assignments are better made by a group of TDs, or an AC, than by the TD (or me) alone. I just want to show that the two scores need not balance. Since this is a team of 4, the two scores must be averaged per L86B, so +75/-75 for the NOS/OS. Although L86B says this is the procedure "in knockout play," surely it applies in round robins and swiss teams. Where is that wordsmith? Or am I wrong? What about Board-A-Match? Derrick doesn't say what sort of team game this was. > > 3) TD stated that the assigned adjusted score should be based on > "normal play" in 2H rather than on "the most favourable result that > is likely" because the play in 2H is "subsequent and not consequent > to the infraction". Is this interpretation correct ? > No. The contract and the play are bundled together in one package when ruling per L12C2. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 16:50:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:50:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09336 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:50:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from grabiner (dialup-20-170-bg.wcnet.org [205.133.172.170]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA01499; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 01:49:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991031013928.007a5100@mail.wcnet.org> X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 01:39:28 -0400 To: From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships Cc: , , , In-Reply-To: <013e01bf234f$b2ce0d20$fb095e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.6.32.19991031014702.007ec910@pop.singnet.com.sg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:26 PM 10/30/99 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >For E/W, the most favorable result that was likely in the defense of 2H, >my guess is +50 >For N/S, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable in a >contract of 2H, my guess is -100. >I could easily be wrong. Such score assignments are better made by a >group of TDs, or an AC, than by the TD (or me) alone. I just want to >show that the two scores need not balance. >Since this is a team of 4, the two scores must be averaged per L86B, so >+75/-75 for the NOS/OS. Although L86B says this is the procedure "in >knockout play," surely it applies in round robins and swiss teams. No. The reason that this rule applies in KO's is that every KO match must have exactly one winner; if Team A is -2 IMPs and Team B is -6 IMPs, you need to award the match to Team A. In a Swiss or round-robin, as in a pairs game, you can award non-balancing scores and have the match lost by both sides (or, at VP's, have less than the normal number of VP's in a match). In any case, +75/-75 isn't the right way to average, as it creates problems with IMPing. Instead, "each contestant's [team's] score is calculated separately and the results are averaged." Thus, if the other table is -50 for the NOS, than the NOS get 0, the OS gets -2, and the average is -1 IMP. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 21:11:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA09787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:11:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09782 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:11:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from p1as03a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.99.27] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11hrxN-0000Ks-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:11:25 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:10:54 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf2388$37be3540$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 Ton wrote >In the week before this Asean Ch. I gave a TD-course in Kuala Lumpur which >was attended by many TD's and players who are now playing (directing?) in >this CH. I introduced the terms subsequent and consequent there, so may be I >am the guilty one, depending on who the TD was. >Extending this course they might accept my view for this case. 3 diamonds is >a quite unethical bid, certainly when the NS pair is strong, as given. >Don't accept the argument that 2 hearts can't show good hearts anymore: >'since otherwise north would have called before, of course'. >There isn't a wide gap between 'nomal' and 'most favourable likely', but >analyzing is not easy. One off seems reasonable. The interpretation given by >the TD was not demonstrably suggested by my lectures in KL. > >ton Ton wrote >In the week before this Asean Ch. I gave a TD-course in Kuala Lumpur which >was attended by many TD's and players who are now playing (directing?) in >this CH. I introduced the terms subsequent and consequent there, so may be I >am the guilty one, depending on who the TD was. >Extending this course they might accept my view for this case. 3 diamonds is >a quite unethical bid, certainly when the NS pair is strong, as given. >Don't accept the argument that 2 hearts can't show good hearts anymore: >'since otherwise north would have called before, of course'. >There isn't a wide gap between 'nomal' and 'most favourable likely', but >analyzing is not easy. One off seems reasonable. The interpretation given by >the TD was not demonstrably suggested by my lectures in KL. Why do you say that the bid of 3D is an unethical bid, and ignore the fact that the pass of 3D by North is as much an abuse of UI. (Failure to alert 2H)? At the point that S bid 3D he had seen an alert (UI of course) but he had not heard the explanation until after his pass. At the time of their calls both N and S had equal UI and both abused it equally. If N/S agreement is that 2D shows majors, then why is 3D not a game try in Hearts, and why are we not looking at the result of 4H making 6 or 7 tricks? At level 4 in EBUland this is the ruling I would expect. As I understand it, the EBU line is that this is an illegal system at all except level 4, OB 12.12.1b, so the adjustment would be A-/A+ if the NOS were damaged, with a fine for N/S either if experienced, or if this had happened before. Anne >>Team of 4 >>Brd 14: Dealer E >>none vul >> S K754 N E S W >> H QJ83 P P 1NT(1) >> D A8 P P 2D(2) P >> C Q72 2H P 3D P >> S AQ S T82 P *P >> H T54 H K976 >> D 64 D Q75 >> C AK8543 C JT6 (1) EW play the mini NT (10-12 HCP) >> S J963 (2) Alerted >> H A2 >> D KJT932 >> C 9 >> >>Contract: 3D by S making 4 +130 >> Defenders take the DQ, SA and CA >> >>* E enquires about the alert of 2D and N explains that he thought it meant >>both majors initially but now thinks it is natural. >> >>Director is called and establishes that NS's agreement is both majors. >> >>Players are representing their respective clubs in an international C'ship >>in the South-east Asian region in Malaysia. NS strong players, EW less so. >> >>1) How would you rule ? >> >>2) Assuming that Pass is a demonstrably suggested LA to 3D, what adjusted >>score would you assign ? >> >>3) TD stated that the assigned adjusted score should be based on "normal >>play" in 2H rather than on "the most favourable result that is likely" >>because the play in 2H is "subsequent and not consequent to the >>infraction". Is this interpretation correct ? >> >> >>Thanks >> >>Derrick Heng >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 22:57:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:57:26 +1100 (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 WAA09993 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:57:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp213-99.worldonline.nl [195.241.213.99]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA10436; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:56:59 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001c01bf2334$10207f60$63d5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Anne Jones" , Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 02:08:23 +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 >Ton wrote > > >>In the week before this Asean Ch. I gave a TD-course in Kuala Lumpur which >>was attended by many TD's and players who are now playing (directing?) in >>this CH. I introduced the terms subsequent and consequent there, so may be >>am the guilty one, depending on who the TD was. >>Extending this course they might accept my view for this case. 3 diamonds >>is a quite unethical bid, certainly when the NS pair is strong, as given. >>Don't accept the argument that 2 hearts can't show good hearts anymore: >>'since otherwise north would have called before, of course'. >>There isn't a wide gap between 'nomal' and 'most favourable likely', but >>analyzing is not easy. One off seems reasonable. The interpretation given >>by the TD was not demonstrably suggested by my lectures in KL. > > >Why do you say that the bid of 3D is an unethical bid, and ignore the fact >that the pass of 3D by North is as much an abuse of UI. (Failure to alert 2H)? My answer was directed to the questions as asked, I didn't make a full analysis of the deal and of what happened. I don't consider that useful, certainly not without being able to get all the facts. But now you ask, I am not supporting those who don't stop below -1400 in case of a misbid/misexplanation. Adjusted scores should not be used for educational purposes but to reach equitable results. Penalties (modern people prefer awards) serve the educational aims. With passes all around I allow this North to discover the misunderstanding by listening to and trying to understand the auction. I am not so sure that Max Bavin does not support that approach. May be we should advise players to have the agreement written down that repeating a suit that long ago was ment as natural never can be a cue. ton At the >point that S bid 3D he had seen an alert (UI of course) but he had not heard >the explanation until after his pass. At the time of their calls both N and >S had equal UI and both abused it equally. >If N/S agreement is that 2D shows majors, then why is 3D not a game try in >Hearts, and why are we not looking at the result of 4H making 6 or 7 tricks? >At level 4 in EBUland this is the ruling I would expect. >As I understand it, the EBU line is that this is an illegal system at all >except level 4, >OB 12.12.1b, so the adjustment would be A-/A+ if the NOS were damaged, with >a fine for N/S either if experienced, or if this had happened before. > >Anne > >>>Team of 4 >>>Brd 14: Dealer E >>>none vul >>> S K754 N E S W >>> H QJ83 P P 1NT(1) >>> D A8 P P 2D(2) P >>> C Q72 2H P 3D P >>> S AQ S T82 P *P >>> H T54 H K976 >>> D 64 D Q75 >>> C AK8543 C JT6 (1) EW play the mini NT (10-12 HCP) >>> S J963 (2) Alerted >>> H A2 >>> D KJT932 >>> C 9 >>> >>>Contract: 3D by S making 4 +130 >>> Defenders take the DQ, SA and CA >>> >>>* E enquires about the alert of 2D and N explains that he thought it meant >>>both majors initially but now thinks it is natural. >>> >>>Director is called and establishes that NS's agreement is both majors. >>> >>>Players are representing their respective clubs in an international C'ship >>>in the South-east Asian region in Malaysia. NS strong players, EW less so. >>> >>>1) How would you rule ? >>> >>>2) Assuming that Pass is a demonstrably suggested LA to 3D, what >adjusted >>>score would you assign ? >>> >>>3) TD stated that the assigned adjusted score should be based on "normal >>>play" in 2H rather than on "the most favourable result that is likely" >>>because the play in 2H is "subsequent and not consequent to the >>>infraction". Is this interpretation correct ? >>> >>> >>>Thanks >>> >>>Derrick Heng >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 23:43:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:09:05 +1100 (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 XAA10052 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:08:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-182.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.182]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA04882 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:08:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <381C28D1.25DEA391@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:32:33 +0100 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: careless V irrational References: <199910301653.MAA19438@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > If the hand had been played out, it would be a common mistake to play > the 2 first. It is a careless play. So, by not saying top-down, you > have made a flawed claim because you have said what you would quite > likely have done. > I believe the circumstances are the important bit. When a player claims holding 42 with the 3 out, there can be a few things happening : - he knows the 3 is out and can convince the TD of the fact. - he does not know there is an outstanding card. - he knows there is an outstanding card and believes it is a higher one. Of course the claim is valid in case 1. I would rule he is quite likely to play the 2 from 42 in case 3. I don't know what he would do in case 2, so I'd probably also rule he plays the 2. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 31 23:46:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:46:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from gadolinium (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA10154 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:46:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.6.20.130] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11huMn-00071F-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:45:50 +0000 Message-ID: <000801bf239d$c76e5e80$8214063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <01bf2388$37be3540$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:45:13 -0000 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 wrote: > Why do you say that the bid of 3D is an unethical bid, and ignore the fact > that the > pass of 3D by North is as much an abuse of UI. (Failure to alert 2H)? At the > point that S bid 3D he had seen an alert (UI of course) but he had not heard > the explanation until after his pass. At the time of their calls both N and > S had equal UI and both abused it equally. > If N/S agreement is that 2D shows majors, then why is 3D not a game try in > Hearts, and why are we not looking at the result of 4H making 6 or 7 tricks? > At level 4 in EBUland this is the ruling I would expect. I'm not sure about this. We have established that whereas the completion of a transfer is in some jurisdictions alertable (even absent certain inferences to be drawn from the fact that the transfer was not broken). But I would not have thought that 2H in this sequence: 1NT 2D (1) Pass 2H (2) (1) majors (2) preference required an alert. Does anyone think it does? The report on the deal said that: > E enquires about the alert of 2D and N explains that he thought it meant > both majors initially but now thinks it is natural. Well, North is allowed to think what he likes, absent UI. And since he would not expect an alert to 2H, he does not have any UI. David Burn London, England